National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?

<p>When I see this; I see as a techincal challenge for us all, specially those who dedicate their&nbsp; life to this matter. We as R&amp;D must come up with a solution that has the merit on its own. The one that are attractive to investors/buyers, that they will deploy those technologies (to make&nbsp; money) reguardless it has&nbsp; goverment hand-out or not. They will do it to . . . make money. </p><p>I also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who has spent years and years to find a affordable mean to harness renewable energy. Those, that their efford does not come with a reward . . . and their family too.</p><p>I beleive the above challenge met.&nbsp; If you wonder what I am talking about then this is the link that you can explore it in more technical detail. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Neo-AeroDynamic</p><p>&nbsp;Hope it hepls</p><p>Thanks</p><p>Phi&nbsp;</p>

It's a bit joke&nbsp;when you listen to politicians talking about coal and nuclear as being &quot;clean&quot;. Anyway, I've heard enough today from the Senate to be cautiously optimistic that&nbsp;the federal RPS amendment will be passed. If we can get stronger legislation as proposed by Sen. kerry, that'll be even better. I thought the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was outstanding this evening talking about the need for renewables and the urgent need to address climate change.

<p><em>&nbsp;The notion of &quot;freedom&quot; means a lot to me.</em></p><p>&nbsp;So the National Electrical Code, the&nbsp; National Building Code, manditory seatbelts....etc,&nbsp; are encroachments on your freedom.<font size="-1"></font></p>

<p>No matter how clean you make coal, it is still coal. I do not see any sane way to justify it as being either clean or renewable since it still produces carbon dioxide and is not a renewable source. </p><p>Whoever heard of nuclear waste being &quot;clean&quot;. This stuff is about as dirty as can be. </p><p>adrianakau2aol.com</p>

<div>It would seem to me that what we need is immediate legislation that would have our national labs, possibly in cooperation with some respected universities, do a comprehensive study of what can be accomplished with renewables and at what cost.&nbsp; There are already a lot of individual reports&nbsp; discussing the potential for wind, solar,&nbsp; ocean, improved hydro and geothermal.&nbsp; We need to take those studies and combine that with a serious analysis of what could be accomplished with efficiency retrofits, demand side management, energy storage and enhanced long haul HVDC grid capabilities.&nbsp; This would be a systems engineering approach, looking at what would be technically feasible combining all these elements.&nbsp; The summary of the results might be a graph&nbsp; depicting&nbsp; a curve for the year 2020 showing for a given percentage of renewables on the x axis what the associated total subsidies required to achieve it on the y axis.&nbsp; Then a much more sane debate could occur, with society deciding what we are willing to spend to accomplish a given goal.&nbsp; Currently it's just a fight between different industry lobby groups.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>I believe such a study could be done in 6-12 months.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Personally I think there is a chance that by taking advantage of a long haul grid to distribute green energy and aggressively pursuing efficiency retrofits, the U.S. might be able to set a policy of all new power being green... with a level of government subsidy which could be sold to the public.&nbsp; Unfortunately, I know of no analysis which synthesizes all of the studies already done to show this cost/benefit trade-off clearly. </div>

The politicians&nbsp;are losing control over this issue now and the surge of public interest is only beginning to build.&nbsp; Regardless of the outcome of this weeks discussions in Congress, which will&nbsp;likely see no changes because this Congress has yet to accomplish much of anything, there is a discernable shift in public opinion on renewable energy and climate change.&nbsp; It is a long road with many obstacles but as the tide shifts, it will come from the grassroots level, not the players in D.C.

Yes, the notion of being free to breath air free air free of industrial pollutants is very important.&nbsp; The notion of freedom is very important, but when politicians and industry lie to us they deprive us of the freedom to know what's in our own air and water.&nbsp; People engaged in decieving the American public in such ways deserve to be strung up.

<p>Perhaps laws mandating the use of renewables are not the answer.&nbsp; When you tell someone they <em>must</em> conform, it often generates a automatic challenge of authority.&nbsp; It certainly does with me, even when I agree with the cause.&nbsp; I hate being told what to do.&nbsp; It brings to mind an old quote from Woody Guthrie: &quot;The more laws you make, the more criminals you're going to have.&quot;&nbsp; </p><p>Incentives are the better approach.&nbsp; When it makes financial sense to change fuel types, we'll see far less push-back from from budget-driven companies and individuals.&nbsp; We can do this by adding financial incentives for renewable energy sources (arguably yet another law), or by paring back the incentives currently in place for fossil fuels.&nbsp;&nbsp;People (and companies) will still resist any change, but the ultimate choice of what fuel to use would still&nbsp;be up to them.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>The notion of &quot;freedom&quot; means a lot to me.</p>

<font size="2"><p>Can pork barrel politicians make any meaningful legislation about a national energy policy? I think not. </p></font>

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Verdana">The same old trick. Refocus the debate on having something at all, make the difficulty just getting to the table with anything, so that it looks like the only choice that is even possible is the one you really don't want anyway. In short, if the Americans really need a green pen and the power interests want a red pen, make it seem impossible to have any pen all, so they will be happy with the red one. Things never change as long as money and corporations own the government.</span></p>

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have <a href="http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002532105.html" target="_blank">threatened to filibuster</a> against the Bingaman amendment.&nbsp; With the polls showing very strong, indeed overwhelming, support for clean alternative energy sources and for action against global warming, it's hard to understand this position. Nearly half of all states (24) have similar renewable energy standards already, and some have even passed new laws increasing the percentages of renewable energy required.<br /><br />In any event, prospects for passage of the amendment are now in question, since 60 votes rather than a majority would be required.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Thomas O. Gray<br /><a href="http://www.awea.org" target="_blank">American Wind Energy Association</a><br /><a href="http://risingwind.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Risingwind</a>

Just a quick update: the Domenici amendment was just defeated, 56-39.&nbsp; The inside word on the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio Standard is that the vote will be very tight. If you support this first meaningful step to fight global warming, the time to weigh in is &lt;b&gt;right now&lt;/b&gt;. You can reach any Senator's office through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Thomas O. Gray<br />American Wind Energy Association<br />&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.awea.org&quot;&gt;www.awea.org&lt;/a&gt;<br />&lt;a href=&quot;http://risingwind.blogspot.com&quot;&gt;risingwind.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;

Senate Republicans have <a href="http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002532105.html" target="_blank">threatened to filibuster</a> against the <a href="http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_statement_on_national_RPS_061207.html" target="_blank">Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard amendment</a>.&nbsp; With the polls showing very strong, indeed overwhelming, support for clean alternative energy sources and for action against global warming, it's hard to understand this position. Nearly half of all states (24) have similar renewable energy standards already, and some have even passed new laws increasing the percentages of renewable energy required.<br /><br />The Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard would:<br /><br />- Reduce global warming pollution from electric power plants;<br />- Create brand new manufacturing industries with thousands of new jobs;<br />- Revitalize rural communities through the increased tax base and payments to landowners that wind and other renewable energy projects bring;<br />- Help meet America's steadily growing electricity demand;<br />- Save consumers more than $100 billion through 2026.<br /><br />If you support this first meaningful step to fight global warming, contact your Senator's office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and let him/her know you support the Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard.&nbsp; Or go to <a href="http://www.powerofwind.com" target="_blank">powerofwind.com</a>.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Thomas O. Gray<br />American Wind Energy Association<br /><a href="http://www.awea.org" target="_blank">www.awea.org</a><br /><a href="http://risingwind.blogspot.com" target="_blank">risingwind.blogspot.com</a>

<p class="MsoNormal">Isn&rsquo;t it interesting how our political/economic system functions in the real world to promote the wealth accumulation of the few at the expense of the rest of us and the destruction of the planet we live on?<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Case in point--- the Domenici/Craig bill that was recently floated on the House floor. While it didn&rsquo;t fly this time, if things take their usual course the nuclear and coal lobby will keep buying votes until something similar does land on the president&rsquo;s desk. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">There are three salient points that should be kept in mind:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-indent: -0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportLists]-->1-<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->The nuclear &ldquo;industry&rdquo; is basically a scheme to extract subsidies from the Federal Government. At this point they have already been successful in that endeavor to the tune of 175 billion dollars. Electricity produced from nuclear plants is several times more costly than from other sources, and even the hint that more plants may be built has sent uranium prices skyrocketing.</p> <p style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-indent: -0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportLists]-->2-<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->&ldquo;Clean Coal&rdquo; is a public relations slogan, not a reality. The industry has successfully avoided installing even basic scrubber technology on the vast majority of it&rsquo;s power plants.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is wildly unrealistic to expect that they will be willing to adopt an unproven technology for carbon capture and sequestration that would make coal fired generation of electricity more expensive than wind or solar in the future.</p> <p style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-indent: -0.5in" class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportLists]-->3-<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><!--[endif]-->Senator Craig&rsquo;s home state of Idaho sits atop the largest and most concentrated geothermal aquifer in the country. A recent INEL study identified 855 MW of continuous base load potential immediately available using crude exploration techniques and shallow well systems. This is the equivalent of 2600-3000MW of new wind or solar capacity, and enough to supply a third of the entire state&rsquo;s electrical needs.<span>&nbsp; </span>The total resource base potentially could support 10 to 20 times that level of energy production if fully exploited using EGS techniques under development in other countries combined with advanced binary cycle turbines.<span>&nbsp; </span>The source of this energy is the earth&rsquo;s thermonuclear reactor at its core &ndash; a reactor that will still be functioning long after the planet looks like Mars.<span>&nbsp; </span>It doesn&rsquo;t have to be mined, transported, burned, carbon captured, refueled, or imported.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">I wonder which industry made the largest contribution to Senator Craig&rsquo;s re-election campaign?</p><p class="MsoNormal">ps Not all renewable energy sources are intermittent or partial. Geothermal has the highest capacity utilization factor-- full plant capacity is achieved 95-97% of the time, where wind and PV solar produce at 25-33% of rated max, and nuclear at perhaps 80%.&nbsp; Solar thermal plants have the ability to store energy in their fluid systems and thus extent their work day a bit beyond that of PV systems. </p>

Are the&nbsp; Republicans&nbsp; drunk?&nbsp; Do they want to assure future election defeats?&nbsp; I am consistantly amazed at the short sightedness of the right.&nbsp; This is not a battle that they should choose to fight...I can find no other conclusion than they just want the cash for the lobbies pumping it their way.&nbsp; It is not just about the environment--it is simply about creating a stable energy supply that is not going to take funding away from the countries who hate our&nbsp; free society.&nbsp; You must cut off the &quot;supply&quot; of blood to the tumor to kill it...oil and NG $$$ are their life blood and yet we continue down this road.

Nuclear power collapsed in the 80s-90s&nbsp;because of valid concerns about safety and waste disposal. Those concerns remain unsolved, of course, with absolutely no solution to the problems even on the distant horizon. Like time travel, fantasies are all that is there. Once there is a clear solution to these issues, we should talk about nuclear again. As it is, nuclear&nbsp;burdens 1000 generations with our waste: immoral and intolerable? If this is meaningless to you, consider that&nbsp;nuclear economics is founded upon&nbsp;this lie:&nbsp;to not discuss, and to neglect the costs for:&nbsp;i)&nbsp;plant decommisioning (somewhat larger than the build cost of several billion) and ii)&nbsp;the cost of storing and watching the highly toxic waste for 1000 generations.&nbsp;Nuclear energy costs&nbsp;around $0.5/kWh (far more than renewables) when these costs are fairly factored in. (Intolerable) risks, horrible&nbsp;economics, and&nbsp;no CO2&nbsp;are the nuclear choice today: NO WAY, nuclear belongs in the waste heap.

<p>Thank you, Mike Holly, for hitting the nail on the head! Industrial wind power comes with a myriad of questions about its real benefits, and improper placement has severe ramifications. Pretty little pin-wheels they are not! Everyone needs to learn all the facts or else we will be heading into a horribly destructive boondoggle courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer and at the expense of our beautiful mountain tops, ridgelines and wilderness. <br /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

<span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial">The Wind Energy Association and their push for </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial">renewable portfoilo standards is a bigger barrier to clean energy than the oil and utility companies.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are selling out because they think wind&nbsp;needs mandates in both regulated and deregulated markets.&nbsp;&nbsp;Apparently, even their subsidies can't cover the need to backup </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial">intermittent wind with another power source.<span>&nbsp; </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial">It is&nbsp;a terrible monopolistic idea to&nbsp;require electric utility companies to generate a&nbsp;percentage of their power from renewable energy sources.&nbsp; A disturbing trend&nbsp;is&nbsp;for utilities to&nbsp;just build their own wind farms, instead of giving small businesses a chance to bid.&nbsp; The nation is just mandating opportunities for utility monopolies that they really don't even&nbsp;want.&nbsp; Instead, t</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial">he nation must open its regulated and deregulated markets to competition from&nbsp;entrepreneurs that&nbsp;develop other more competitive technologies.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial">&nbsp;</span>

<p>Its not so hard to figure out why Republicans would threaten to filibuster against the Bingaman amendment - the lobbyists who funnel money to them told them to do so. </p><p>We all need to keep voting for the politicians who are the least corrupt, in the hope that something good will come out of Washington. Unfortuneately, the vested interests have a whole lot of our money to spend defending their special interests, so expect the spin machines to work overtime, telling whatever lies seem the most palatable for their purposes. </p>