Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead
Global warming?Today's Senate race in Massachusetts is the big story on Wall Street. According to the pollsters this political race, again, epitomizes change. This time, however, it's not a change against Bush and Republicans. This time, the message is for Democrats that have either gone too far, or not in the right direction, at least according to the populist majority.
Even if Republican Scott Brown loses, the Wake Up call has been delivered. Issues such as any big 'cap & trade' program, according to the pundits, are now dead.
So, why not give foreign oil dependence a try? Finish reading: Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead
Labels: cap and trade, Foreign Oil Dependency, global warming
posted by Dahcredyns at
12:20 PM
18 Comments:
Full Story
Today's Senate race in Massachusetts is the big story on Wall Street. According to the pollsters this political race, again, epitomizes change. This time, however, it's not a change against Bush and Republicans. This time, the message is for Democrats that have either gone too far, or not in the right direction, at least according to the populist majority.
Even if Republican Scott Brown loses, the Wake Up call has been delivered. Issues such as any big 'cap & trade' program, according to the pundits, are now dead.
So, why not give foreign oil dependence a try?
Apart from strengthening America's national security and economy, ending foreign oil dependence reduces CO2 emissions, significantly. Yes, a commitment to a swift and an efficient end to foreign oil dependence will require short term drilling, particularly natural gas drilling, which also reduces CO2 emissions. More important, however, a swift and efficient end to foreign oil dependence - and stronger national security and a more robust economy - mandates the aggressive use of advanced clean technologies, such as hybrids, plug-ins and solar power.
When it comes to foreign oil dependence, can't we all get along?
The Republican answer to foreign oil dependency is drill baby and beef up our military unless you know otherwise.
They're pretty hard core on this.
Perhaps you're thinking of the now-extinct Rockefeller Republican.
Tom G. writes this very long post about energy:
Everyone here know I believe in renewable energy for our future. Solar is getting stronger by the day. Companies like the Southern California Edison Co., LA DWP, PG&E and others are building hundred of megawatts of solar power plants and many are distributed generation which means they support local grids.
Nuclear is an option but why are we not building any? Ignoring the waste stream for a minute, they are environmentally clean and we have 104 of them that have now operated safely for over 20 years. So why no new nukes? Probably for one or more of the following reasons.
1. No one wants one in their backyard
2. Utilities do not have $7-12 billion laying around to build one and;
3. No banks what to take the financial risk to fund one.
Wind is also growing by the day. We are building HUNDREDS of wind turbines here in the U.S. which is a lot right?
so let's take a typical power plant. It takes from 2-6 years to build just one 1,000 megawatt power plant. Now divide that 1,000 megawatts by 3 megawatts which is the average power of a large wind turbine. That mean we need 333.3 wind turbines to equal just one unit of a two unit power plant. Actually it is about 3 times that many since the wind doesn't always blow where and when you need it. So in reality we need about 1,000 wind turbines spread out over a large area. That my friends is a lot of wind turbines for just 1,000 megawatts.
Now lets get realistic. Multiple that by 23,000 megawatts which is an average capacity day in L.A and you need to build how many wind turbines? Something on the order of 20,000+. Of course that is only one power plant and there are about 6 different utilities and maybe 20 different energy sources which feed the State of California alone. Beginning to see the amount of power needed?
How about solar. The average PV system on a home produces about 25-30kWh/day or maybe 10,000 kWh/year.
If we take the total capacity of First Solar which is one of the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar panels [1,000 megawatts per year] how many homes will that power? How many millions of solar panels should we be building to become energy independent.
Do you think we are really serous about energy independence? We have been offering $2-4.00 per watt incentives to home owners and providing a few million dollars to a few manufacturers to increase domestic energy production; but is that enough?
Last year we spent $475 billion on imported oil according to T. Boon Picken's. We spent probably spent another $400 billion on wars of which some of it I am sure went to protect our oil interests. We probably spent another $100 billion on environmental clean up of which some of that went to clean up coal plants, mercury contamination and other toxic byproducts like fly ash and for the medical bills for some workers. That comes to about $975 billion I guess but I probably missed lots of stuff.
Last year the Department of Energy budget for renewable energy was a whole whopping $1.72 billion. That's for every thing; solar, wind, bio-fuels, hydro, all alternative fuels. Let's see $1.72 billion for energy independence VS $475 billion for foreign oil.
So what do you think? Are we just fiddling around or do you believe we have a strategic and meaningful energy plan for our country?
Tom G.
larry-
so perhaps we should do nothing?
the fact is cap and trade is dead. foreign oil dependency, on the other hand, resonates with the people. survey after survey verifies that reality.
if you're going to try to sell sweeping change to the people, that change has to be built around consensus and foreign oil dependence offers that potential.
taking a drill-only approach, even if just natural gas, would be a stupid thing to do, and it would bite the US auto industry and the us manufacturing sector in the ass.
the US economy must be driven by innovation and efficiency.
ultimately, there must be compromise on this issue between drilling and a more aggressive embrace of fuel efficient technologies. otherwise we're in a stalemate until forced to act, which will almost guarantee more hard times for the economy.
Tom to Tom,
As you pointed out, the problem with nuclear is cost. The two power plants in Fla will cost $17B. The same two plants built as coal burning would cost maybe $3 B. Also, nuclear power plants have added operational expenses which make them as expensive to operate as coal plants. Those expenses are in the form of continual training, security and mega high insurance rates.
As for wind, what most don't understand is that all designs of power systems must design for the worst days. In a city like Dallas, or LA that day would be a sweltering hot, dead calm summer day. So, on that day, the energy that could be counted on from wind would be ZERO. This fact means that the cost of wind (or solar) must be compared only to the cost of an alternative fuel. For example, if a utility can buy coal at the front gate for $2/mw, that translated into annual KWH sold, is the most that the utility can afford to pay for a wind turbine since the energy from the wind is but an occasional substitute for the energy from coal or NG. FYI, the portion of a typical energy bill that is fuel related is 15% to 30% only. The rest is people, infrastructure, insurance,tax cost and profits. In Colorado (a coal burning state) where electricity cost 9 cents kwh, the portion of that costs related to the cost of the coal is about 1.6cents KWH. However, in the Northeast which uses primarily NG as the fossil fuel source, the cost of electricity is about 15 cents KWH. Of that about 5-7 cents KWH is the result of the cost of the NG. The states with the highest cost of electricity are those states that rely primarily on NG and Nuclear.
http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/115.htm
As for an energy future, most who study the AGW argument realize that at only .0387% of the atmosphere, CO2 is really not an issue at all. If you take CO2 completely out of the equation, the clear answer for America is to use the coal and Natural gas resources that we have in such abundance and DRILL BABY DRILL for oil which surely exists in abundance off the Fla. and east coasts! FYI, China and India combined, now burn 3.5 times as much coas as the US burns every year. Not using our coal resources would be just a silly choice which would only serve to lower the cost of coal (an internationally traded commodity) for China and India who of course would than just use even more coal and build less nuclear.
This is reality!
tom-
we are just fiddling around, without question.
we need some big plan, a big vision.
cap and trade was obama's big plan, but it appears this path has a hit a major road block.
thus, i'm simply suggesting that america declare war on foreign oil dependence as the first step towards a comprehensive plan towards a new energy paradigm.
thomas-
i think it terribly unwise to follow a drill, drill-only approach.
we'd need to find a massive amount of new resources and it would take a decade+ to get on line. in that time, there is the potential for many innovations that could redefine energy - innovations that are destined to occur.
moreover, let's say human-caused global warming isn't real. there is still massive pollution caused by petroleum, which leads to massive health care problems.
hybrid technologies, for instance, can minimize this problem, but that's a minor case for clean technology.
the real case for advancing hybrids, EVS, etc. is simply the potential for amazing breakthroughs.
a fuel cell hybrid, for instance, has the potential to completely revolutionize every type of auto, and change the energy paradigm significantly.
lets think back to the early US space program and beating the Russians to the moon, which led to innovations that fundamentally changed our world.
that kind of technological trend is only going to pick up pace.
choosing new oil and natural gas over technological innovation seems a losing proposition in the long term, at least in my opinion.
sure, new drilling makes sense, especially in terms of natural gas, particularly in the interim, but technology will eventually be a game changer.
advanced, efficient technologies must be part of any solution.
I have to agree that using "global warming" as the driving force for change will only appeal to a small percentage of Americans.
At least when using "oil independence" as a driving force you can use an issue on which most of us agree....
You won't have an argument that "oil dependence is a myth", nor will you have a bunch of independent studies proving that oil dependence doesn't exist.
I personally have success using this strategy......
I have been able to convince a few co-workers to buy hybrids with their next purchase. I did not do this by selling them on the idea of the cost savings or by preaching about global warming. I was able to convince them to buy the hybrid by selling them on the idea that they would be doing something to "reduce their own dependence on foreign oil"....
Evidence that such a strategy might have more success.
PLUS.....With a foreign oil dependence platform you can provide even more support for CNG, as it is a 100% American solution....
HOW TO DO IT??????
Instead of cap and trade for carbon credits, how about:
cap and trade for "American" credits.
Provide penalties for:
1. Foreign imported fuels
2. High fuel consumption vehicles
Provide discounts and incentives for:
1. American fuels
2. Low fuel consumption vehicles
3. Vehicles that run only on American fuels
It has to get better support than cap and trade....
smurf-
obviously, i'm already biased, but i believe that's exactly the right direction towards selling a comprehensive change in energy policy to the people.
Dahc,
T. Boone Pickens is using the foreign oil dependence angle to push towards more CNG usage.
He's not having much success though, which gives me cause for concern.......
That's true, but many are guessing this is going to change quickly and significantly, especially in light of this latest Senate race.
Originally, Dems had aligned with the coal industry. Clean coal tax incentives for cap and trade votes. Now that cap and trade appears dead, the natural gas issue will re-emerge.
Natural gas now has the momentum and production is primed for major increases. As I heard one pundit say recently, 'How can the US justify exporting natural gas (something that will soon happen) when we are importing foreign oil'?
Dahc,
I hope your right.
It is frustrating that we use foreign oil instead of American CNG.
It would be nice if we had a choice....
smurf-
While I can empathize with those against natural gas drilling, I think America can better mitigate the environmental damages of our own drilling better than we can those of foreign countries.
Nonetheless, it is essential that natural gas only be a piece of the bigger solution; an important piece no doubt, particularly in the short term. Inevitably, however, efficient technologies are the key to the future, and they must be a critical piece of even any interim solution.
I just finished reading an article in the Feb. issue of Popular Mechanics entitiled:
"The Myth of Clean Coal" by James B. Meigs which can be read here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4339171.html
For those who do not have the time to read the entire article here is just a small snippet.
"Running today's power plants on so-called clean-coal tech would mean filling 30 million barrels with liquid CO2 every day."
Anyone see any problems with trying to store this much CO2 somewhere on a long term basis?
Tom G.
tom-
i think the theory on that was that this co2 could eventually be converted into fuel, but any such technologies to do that, from what i've read, would be terribly cost-ineffective without significant breakthroughs.
obviously, you shouldn't bet the farm on such an approach, but some of the science behind that idea should still be pursued.
Tom,
How one feels about clean coal depends (or coal in general) goes back to "global warming vs. foreign oil independence" issue.
Clean coal technology has nothing to do with foreign oil independence. So if we try to make policy designed to reduce foreign oil independence, coal should not be a significant part of that policy...If we remove coal from the discussion, we might have more success passing such legislation.
If we try to have "end all to be all" legislation that reduces foreign oil dependence, global warming, and pllution, we have no chance....
From Tom,
"Anyone see any problems with trying to store this much CO2 somewhere on a long term basis?"
My common sense says that if you dig a large pit of coal, you'd have to fill it back up with some other form of carbon. Perhaps even more, since you adding Oxygen to the carbon. It's nothing more than politicians procrastinating.
john-
it might not be just "procrastination" but a lot of political gamesmanship as well.
from what i've heard, obama had to make a clean coal deal in order to get coal states on board with his election and the potential of his cap and trade program.
of course, all this politics as usual seems to end in procrastination.
but what can we do? if politicians are totally honest we won't vote for them because we don't really like hearing the truth.
in the end, it makes me believe that president really needs to embrace bipartisanship.
give republicans some extra natural gas drilling in return for more help on cleaner energies as a combined plan to fight foreign oil dependency. everybody wins.
Post a Comment
<< Home