What compromises will result in the best energy bill?
As Congress considers the Obama Administration’s proposed cap-and-trade program, Republicans recently drafted their own energy proposal that focuses heavily on nuclear power.
Republicans’ Energy Proposal (Source: New York Times)
- sets a goal of building 100 Nuclear reactors over the next 20 years
- provides incentives for increased oil and gas production on public and private lands and offshore
- authorize oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska
- does not include any mandatory cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases, relying instead on nuclear energy, natural gas and renewable fuels like wind, solar and biomass power to reduce production of the gases
Here’s a video of Senator Lamar Alexander talking about the proposal.
Cap-and-Trade Program (Source: BusinessWeek)
- reduces U.S. emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below by 2050
- will raise $646 billion from 2012 to 2019 by auctioning the rights to emit greenhouse gases—in effect, putting a price on carbon emissions.
- proposes that companies buy an allowance, or permit, for each ton of carbon emitted, at an estimated cost, to start, of $13 to $20 per ton.
- returns much of the money raised by permit sales to consumers nationwide in the form of lower taxes
Here’s a link to Obama’s web site talking about his views on energy in America.
When compared, both proposals are vastly different. They even have different goals. The Republican plan seems to focus more on the interests of business and the economy, whereas the cap-and-trade program focuses more on the interests of the environment.
In an perfect world it would be nice to protect both interests. But is it really possible to achieve both those goals at once? What type of compromise needs to take place to protect the environment and make sure the economy is not worsened along the way?
Both plans have their problems. For example, with the cap-and-trade program, BusinessWeek reported that it is estimated the price of gasoline would go up by 12 cents a gallon and the average electricity bill by about 7 percent nationally—and far higher in states more dependent on coal.
The call for Nuclear power has also been criticized. Fox News reported that Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander’s proposal reckless:
Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution. New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for.
If it’s true the economy and the environment need to be priortized to achieve one over the other, which plan do you think caters to the more important outcome?
What items of each plan can be removed or added to reach a more favorable outcome that saves money, creates jobs and betters the environment? What are some factors that you think is missing from both plans?
Carbon-free nuclear power is the ONLY way the world can retire emission-belching coal generating plants and possibly check global warming. It’s that simple. If we have scientists address the nuclear waste problem, not politicians, nuclear waste can actually become a resource. See http://www.energyplanusa.com for links to hundreds of in-depth articles on nuclear power, global warming and energy policy.
The premise of cap and trade–that CO2 drives global warming–is based on United Nations’ climate reports that are tainted by politics and an agenda. The reports don’t pass the smell test — see http://www.energyplanusa.com. Plus, there’s been many new climate discoveries since the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol that are largely omitted from the reports because, I think, they undercut Kyoto.
America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. But now after reading the UN reports I suspect the fix was in. The UN reports contain much good science, but in the end, it’s a political organization where politics trumps science. The United States needs our own objective, transparent climate commission to think through global warming. …before we burden our economy with CO2 taxes.
Further, the European Union has had a similar cap and trade system since 2005. It has not delivered reductions in greenhouse gases yet has proven complex and expensive to implement.
This issue is very complex, so any post will have to focus on a few points, and only cover it briefly. I think this should be obvious, but it’s surprising how many people attack other posters for “glossing over” something.
Anyway…. I support nuclear power. It emits No carbon. The fuel comes from the US. The radiation was already present in the environment, creating nuclear fuel just concentrates it. I think any serious road map to energy independence will have to incorporate nuclear power.
I know cap and trade is Deeply unpopular, but putting market pressure on people to move to cleaner fuel (nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, etc) is a good thing. We as a country need to break our oil addiction. As long as the money collected is spent to make it easier to switch to other fuel sources, the long term benefit (breaking our oil addiction) would be positive. I don’t think anyone would argue that sending train loads of American dollars to countries that hate us is good for our future.
However, I fear that the revenue raised would be spent on things other than getting us off oil – and that would be bad. Much like when we support a tax increase to fund the schools, police and fire department – then the politicians hold that funding steady, and use the extra revenue on pet projects. The money is spent, but the problem still remains. We would need excellent oversight to make sure the money goes to help build nuclear plants, solar installations, increased battery manufacturing, credits for buying hybrids, funding for Yucca mountain, credits to poor families affected by high fuel costs, etc.
I also support increasing domestic production of fuel – coal, oil and gas. This doesn’t mean I support giving an oil man a tax break to tap a well, but I don’t think we should stand in the way. If public lands are opened to drilling, I believe the public should be fairly compensated for the oil extracted. No more deals where the people get $5 a barrel for oil pulled out of the ground, when its selling for $70-$100 a barrel on the open market. After all, this is taxpayer oil, the taxpayers should get a fair price. Revenue raised from this source should also be spent on decreasing our oil use. If we can cut our use by roughly 50%, we as a country could be self sufficient – meaning we could make what we use.
The problem is the Republicans make matters worse while the democrats do little. At the risk of alarming people air pollution coupled with global warming is a matter of life and death in this country. Skin cancer is getting worse while air pollution related deaths are climbing. Droughts are now considered normal and wild fires are not even newsworthy. If the United States were to experience a crop failure there are few countries on earth that could or would feed us. Our strength as a nation is in our ability to produce food and high technology weapons. We also have the capacity to save many lives with science. The sad part is we are killing more than we need to with science while saving less than we can. It is time to face facts we need few of the new products on the market and are mainly in need of immediate needs such as food, water, clothes, shelter, and medicine. These are all endangered by global warming which is made worse by government inaction. We need to subsidize the millions of unemployed persons while changing our use of resources to fit the global environment. Hydrogen powered automobiles can replace fossil fueled ones or natural gas or electric can be used. Coal fired power plants can be replaced with solar, wind or geothermal ones. Limited expansion of nuclear power can help augment a new system not be the main component. With increased investment in plant, property, and equipment people are becoming obsolete to the workplace because they are not needed for production. Educating those that want education should be a national priority especially in the medical arts as well as science. The government is going to need to encourage education with its checkbook as well as its talk. Since jobs are scarce the younger workers should take priority as to openning in the workplace. Senior American have had their day in the sun and should not stand in the way of the youth. We can change for the better or we can make matters worse lets get off on a good foot with this new administration. Hope springs eternal.
whatever Al Gore signs off on; if he’s not at the table, it’s a crock; nucleur isnt safe yet for long-term, and I mean disposal not accident;
if dont put energy over economy, soon there wont be an economy, or world;
I’m willing to phase in for the sake of the economy, but not take too long; if Republicans are for it, by and large we should be against it, tho there may be some exceptions, especially if I become a Republican; and if not major components for wind, geothermal, solar and biofuels, in the long term what good is it?
For those out there looking for an inside view of the real workings of a nuclear power plant, both on a daily basis and during an accident, see http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . Available to readers online at no cost with no adverts, “Rad Decision” is a technothriller novel by a longtime nuclear industry engineer that covers all the ground.
We’ll make better decisions about our energy future if we understand our energy present first.
Anonoman: I agree, this is a very complex (and costly) question, and the answers will not be published in sound bites.
There was a recent article published on CNN.Com on this subject, that I think held a lot of value. The writer started by doing a basic calculation that based the entire US energy budget in terms of kilowatts per day per person. Gasoline, electricity, natural gas, everything was converted to KW.
Then he pointed out the following:
To convert the US to a completely no-fossil fuel energy system, the following would have to happen…
1. Development of a serious electric/hydrogen fuel cell surface transport system (not just cars, trucks, trains, etc as well)
2. Assuming you’d want to go to 1/3 solar, 1/3 wind, and 1/3 nuclear (not a bad mix), here’s the outcome:
A land area equivalent to the state of Nevada would have to be covered with solar panels.
A land area equivalent to the state of California would have to be covered with wind generators.
125-150 Callaway size reactors would have to be built.
And that is just to break even with today’s energy use.
Where is the political will, and the money, to DO it?
The fact that something needs to be done is very true. The nation’s electric system is on the edge of collapse. And no one, outside of the Utility industry, even seems to care. In 2003 when the lights went out from Detroit to the Atlantic, it was a crisis that was over in 24 hours. The structural weaknesses in the system were never addressed, the political football that ties up all attempts at modernization kept right on passing around, and nothing substantial got fixed.
Over here in Illinois, our politicians seem bound and determined to shut down the fossil power industry with all their ‘first in the nation’ pollution mandates coupled with “market pricing”. One of these days, folks, the lights are going to go out. And the only people to blame will be…..us.
I love the claim that the hundreds of billions confiscated by the government will be returned to consumers in the form of lower taxes. All the industries affected negatively by cap and trade will raise prices to cover their costs, and we already know that Obama’s pledges to lower taxes come with an expiration date.
The Administration is also beholden to the looney-left environmentalists, and Obama’s Department of Energy will find ways to filibuster construction permits for new nuclear plants. What private concern is going to risk hundreds of millions of dollars on a plant that may never be built? We’ve just recently seen Ameren’s plans for a second reactor at Calloway attacked with lies and distortions in an effort to panic the public and prevent construction.
Everyone seems to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room. The matrix of special interest influence from all sides and political corruption in Washington DC results in paralysis on the energy issue.
A few simple observations:
1. The USA knew we had a very serious energy problem in the seventies.
2. We have known for generations that we are severely damaging our environment with excess pollution and emissions.
3. France has safely and efficiently generated over two thirds of their electricity with nuclear power for decades.
4. The U.S. Navy has operated nuclear powered ships at sea in all kinds of adverse conditions for decades.
5. The U.S. has vast reserves of untapped petroleum, geothermal, and coal resources that could alleviate much of our foreign dependence as improvements are made in solar, wind, and other technologies.
6. Compromise will not be possible on energy because of true-believer extremists on both sides of every issue.
A couple more observations to ponder:
7. Brazil has just reached energy independence with a big boost from ethanol derived from switch grass instead of much more expensive row crops. (Of course, their agribusiness lobby may have less influence.)
8. Initial compressed natural distribution for long haul trucks just at interstate truckstops would be much quicker and easier than for passenger car conversion nationwide. Crude oil, refinery capacity, and emmisions reductions would be tremendous considering numbers, replacement frequency, and fuel consumption of heavy interstate trucks.
9. Electrical distribution grids in the U.S. are not being replaced or upgraded fast enough to meet the needs of the immediate future. Brown outs and black outs will soon inflict involuntary conservation on millions of consumers and industries at huge costs.
10. Politically the special interests of agribusiness, petroleum, nimby environmentalists, speculators, globalists, and social engineering proponents override the best interests of the nation as a whole.
There has been no sign of a break in this cycle under either political party in our lifetimes. How much longer before it is too late?
Do the math, study the history, ponder the future……