How the USA will make Electricity

Originally posted by Ullr
Is there a name for your religion?

You've got the dogma now you just need to come up with a name.

It's the religion of hate my friend.
People who hate people.

The meetings aren't generally very busy though.

Originally posted by normbenign
Nuclear plants will not be built, not because of cost, but for the same reason new fossil fuel plants can't be built. The US is held hostage to the demands of the Sierra Club.

b]

Not true at all. Not even close. If you want to blame an NGO blame coal. But the real culprit is the perception of the elected official that the american taxpayer will punish any politician that suggests building nukes . They think the general public doesn't trust nuclear after three mile island chernobyl etc.

Your elected leadership is what is holding up the nukes. Not a bunch of lawyers in birkenstocks.

Originally posted by normbenign

If the days of fossil fuels, and internal combustion engines are over, isn't it silly and unnecessary for government to manipulate all this stuff? And why is the government subsidizing ethanol, other than pandering to corn farmers?

There is no other reasoning. it is total pandering to the massive corn farmers. It is corporte welfare disguised as environmental policy. Plain and simple. Do an input/output carbon analysis and you'll see why.

I'm all for progress, but it seldom comes from government manipulated forced programs. And on that, cap and trade is a bad joke, as bad as Euro carbon taxes. They do nothing about the global carbon footprint, whether or not that is important.

Not true. Cap/Trade and carbon taxes attack the problem from different angles. The key to their effectiveness is in the implementation. Make it too weak and sure it won't work. The only way to affect climate change is to make it costly to emit. Plain and Simple. You either fine people for polluting or you give them a reward for not polluting. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Scriabin
of course not. but that's a good place to start, as your ignorance snowballs from there. it isn't just the title thing -- you've no idea how funding works. you can't distinguish between that which is local and that which is national -- you conflate and confuse the issues, you muddle the matter, and it makes me too tired to even begin to try to sort you out ...[text shortened]... I think that if you get any more stupid someone will have to water you every few days?

Sigh. One time grants for putting up some spinning blades at a military base is not a national program.

I'm talking a real effective national energy policy. Where are the guaranteed above market rate federal contracts for wind farm developers nation wide. What happened to the tax breaks given to alt energy firms to construct and develop manufacturing bases. The patchwork "policy" of the last 20 years has left the alt energy industy in the US in tatters. A Quick google search will show you a littany of industry CHAIRS and SPOKESPERSONS asking for a coherent national policy on alt energy.

The auto industry has called on the feds to come up with a national energy policy. Why? What's wrong with the current one we ask? They say it doesn't address the needs of the auto industry because they can't forecast energy prices. Energy prices determine what kind of vehicles americans will buy and since it takes about 4 years to do proper product development by the time the new vehicles are hitting the market, the energy prices have changed and these new vehicles are not what americans want to buy. Case in point. 4/gallon and everyone stopped buying suv's and trucks. the big 3 stop making them and move to sell small cars, then the prices goes to 2/gallon and everyone starts buying trucks again. the big 3 get screwed again.

You call that a coherent energy policy? It's not. It's called leaving everything up to market forces. Now, market forces almost always lead consumers to go for the cheapest product. The only ones that don't are companies with big PR campaigns that want to look good in the eyes of the public, and individual consumers WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY ABOVE MARKET RATES, (like lawyers), for their energy.

So how does this relate to mr chairmans comments and the coal/nuke industry getting worried? Simple. Coal/nuke were afraid the feds might actually be considering getting a coherent policy together on local distributive energy, complete with tax breaks and incentives for the alt energy industry. The nuke/coal industry has been pushing hard for those incentives and fed dollars to go to the coal/nuke industry. they also contribute big campaign dollars to the feds. Is it any wonder the chairman backed down and clairified his comments after no doubt a bunch of political pressure was applied to him?

I think not.


edit: the rest of us still await YOUR analysis of his comment reversal. Tell me why I am wrong. it's your article, you must have some ability beyond cut/paste mastery of articles off the environmental news wire from your intranet at work..........

Originally posted by uzless
Sigh. One time grants for putting up some spinning blades at a military base is not a national program.

I'm talking a real effective national energy policy. Where are the guaranteed above market rate federal contracts for wind farm developers nation wide. What happened to the tax breaks given to alt energy firms to construct and develop manufacturing ...[text shortened]... tery of articles off the environmental news wire from your intranet at work..........

the clouds part, the light breaks -- of course, how silly of me -- how perceptive of you to grasp all of this so easily. there, now, feeling better are we?

Reportedly, major environmental groups are embracing climate change legislation approved by the House Energy & Commerce Committee despite significant concessions made to industry in the package to ensure passage out of the committee, including new provisions to promote nuclear power, significant subsides for coal and an easing of a renewable electricity standard for the power sector.

Epectations of making major revisions to strengthen the bill are said to be tempered by political realities, including pressure on House Democrats not to upset agreements that have allowed the legislation to get this far and continuing calls for further concessions from some lawmakers.

Pluralism at work.

They have no choice but to live with the nuclear energy amendment to pending climate legislation that Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) attached May 19. The amendment, which passed in an overwheliming bipartisan vote of 51-6, caps the share of clean energy loan guarantees that can be obtained by any one clean energy producer -- be it nuclear, coal with carbon sequestration, or renewables -- at 30 percent, keeping any one from taking over the fund.

The amendment also requires industries to return to Congress for funding every year, which environmentalists say will improve oversight and ensure that the nuclear industry isn't getting a blank check. The amendment also includes “prevailing wage” language that ensures those hired to undertake projects funded by the clean energy subsidies will be paid fair wages for the work in a win for organized labor, a major constituent of Dingell's.

Even with those provisions, some activists said they aren't thrilled with the amendment, but realize that it is a necessary compromise in order to broaden the appeal of the larger bill and advance money available for clean energy.

Originally posted by Scriabin
the clouds part, the light breaks -- of course, how silly of me -- how perceptive of you to grasp all of this so easily. there, now, feeling better are we?

I always feel fine. it's the rest of you I wonder about.

ps. Still waiting