Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (19)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
Energy policy is once again up for debate on Capitol Hill with Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) expected to introduce an amendment today that would require 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewables by 2020. The legislation will be countered by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who is planning to offer a "weaker" amendment that defines coal and nuclear as clean energy, and eligible for renewable credits.
"There is no reason to dilute the bill. [Renewables] are ready for market now. They're cost competitive now and they don't require continuing operating and construction subsidies."
-- Jim Rubens, Union of Concerned Scientists
A National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) that includes clean coal technologies and nuclear power will reduce the demand for "genuinely clean" renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal, said Jim Rubens of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"There's only 15 percent to go around," said Rubens, adding that nuclear requires huge subsidies and clean coal technologies are at least 10 years away from being commercial. "There is no reason to dilute the bill. [Renewables] are ready for market now. They're cost competitive now and they don't require continuing operating and construction subsidies."
The proposed RPS (or Renewable Electricity Standard) would be added as an amendment to bill S.1419, The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which Bingaman, who is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, co-authored with Domenici. The bipartisan legislation is intended to boost domestic renewable fuel supplies and spur regional diversity of biofuels production and infrastructure across the U.S.
But while Bingaman's RPS amendment is considered to be the most far-reaching energy bill likely to make it through congress this session, it won't pass without opposition.
"Undoubtedly, we will debate amendments that will bring out strong opinions, and we will have some heated—yet honest—debates," said Senator Bingaman addressing Congress on Monday. "But I am confident that as long as we keep in mind our shared goal—to work together and produce legislation that makes meaningful progress on securing America's energy future—the Senate will rise to the occasion. The American people expect nothing less."
Heavy opposition, however, is not coming solely from oil lobbyists as many in the American public might assume, but the multi-billion dollar utility industry as well. Early last month, an article published on RenewableEnergyAccess.com reported that the utility Southern Company openly opposed a National RPS—and was spending huge sums of money lobbying against such legislation arguing that it would increase costs for it's 4.3 million customers in Alabama, Georgia, Florida and Mississippi.
"It's a bit of moving target," said Rubens, who noted Bingaman's amendment is expected to be filibustered after being introduced. "The challenge will be overcoming the filibuster."
According to a recent United Press International article, a National RPS has been proposed 17 times since 1996 by various policymakers—but none of the bills passed into law at the federal level. However, 23 states have now passed individual RPS legislation indicating that both elected officials and the American public are recognizing the environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy.
In addition, a new study released yesterday by The Network for New Energy Choices reports that a National RPS would create a level playing field for states. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard study notes that under the present system, some states enjoy deflated electricity prices from cheap, dirty sources of energy, which leaves ratepayers in other states with more stringent environmental safeguards picking up their tab.
While the government will be instrumental in establishing a National RPS, many believe that it should only create the rules and standards and define what technologies qualify for renewable energy credits. From there, said Rubens, it should let the market establish what technologies will be used to accomplish the goals set by the RPS.
"Government certainly has a place and a role," said Rubens. "But to single out one particular technology for massive subsidies ends up distorting the marketplace and slowing the progress of development of sources that have the potential to make much, much larger contributions to satisfying the nation's energy demand in future."
When I see this; I see as a techincal challenge for us all, specially those who dedicate their life to this matter. We as R&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 money) reguardless it has goverment hand-out or not. They will do it to . . . make money.
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.
I beleive the above challenge met. 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
Hope it hepls
Thanks
Phi
The notion of "freedom" means a lot to me.
So the National Electrical Code, the National Building Code, manditory seatbelts....etc, are encroachments on your freedom.
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.
Whoever heard of nuclear waste being "clean". This stuff is about as dirty as can be.
adrianakau2aol.com
Perhaps laws mandating the use of renewables are not the answer. When you tell someone they must conform, it often generates a automatic challenge of authority. It certainly does with me, even when I agree with the cause. I hate being told what to do. It brings to mind an old quote from Woody Guthrie: "The more laws you make, the more criminals you're going to have."
Incentives are the better approach. When it makes financial sense to change fuel types, we'll see far less push-back from from budget-driven companies and individuals. 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. People (and companies) will still resist any change, but the ultimate choice of what fuel to use would still be up to them.
The notion of "freedom" means a lot to me.
Can pork barrel politicians make any meaningful legislation about a national energy policy? I think not.
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.
Isn’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?
Case in point--- the Domenici/Craig bill that was recently floated on the House floor. While it didn’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’s desk.
There are three salient points that should be kept in mind:
1- The nuclear “industry” 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.
2- “Clean Coal” is a public relations slogan, not a reality. The industry has successfully avoided installing even basic scrubber technology on the vast majority of it’s power plants. 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.
3- Senator Craig’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’s electrical needs. 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. The source of this energy is the earth’s thermonuclear reactor at its core – a reactor that will still be functioning long after the planet looks like Mars. It doesn’t have to be mined, transported, burned, carbon captured, refueled, or imported.
I wonder which industry made the largest contribution to Senator Craig’s re-election campaign?
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%. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Previous Article
