Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (10)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
National Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) legislation introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), which included clean coal technology and nuclear power alongside traditional sources of renewable energy, was voted down in the U.S. Senate this afternoon 56-29.
Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced an amendment yesterday to establish a National Clean Portfolio Standard (CPS) as an alternative to a proposal introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). Bingaman's amendment calls for a National Renewable Portfolio (RPS) requiring 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewables by 2020.
The legislation proposed by Domenici, which was co-authored by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), expanded the standard to 20 percent as well as included clean coal technology and nuclear power—and argued it would bring more states into the clean energy fold.
"If we insist on forcing electricity generators to reach specific targets on the use of clean energy sources, then let's make sure we allow all clean sources to be considered," said Domenici yesterday addressing the U.S. Senate.
"The costs associated with a [Bingaman's] RPS would be prohibitive—over $175 billion for our nation, according to one estimate. States that lack the natural resources to meet the mandate—primarily wind energy, which many states don't have-would beat the brunt of the costs. Regardless of whether some states would see savings from RPS, costs would still go up for consumers in states that don't meet the standard. For that reason, the RPS proposal is unfair and unaffordable," Domenici continued.
But with only 15 or 20 percent designated for traditional renewables such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and tidal, industry experts noted that adding clean coal technologies and nuclear power into the mix would only weaken a National RPS. In addition, nuclear power requires huge subsidies and clean coal technologies are at least 10 years away from being commercial, said Jim Rubens of the Union of Concerned Scientists in an interview with RenewableEnergyAccess.com this week.
"There is no reason to dilute the bill," said Rubens. "[Renewables] are ready for market now. They're cost competitive now and they don't require continuing operating and construction subsidies."
A national RPS is a good move, but longer term I think people are selling individual power systems/efficiency short. Several things are going to collide in the next 10 yrs such as battery technology, more efficient electronics, nano tech, etc. If we use solar on our homes, which is becoming more efficient and less expensive, we will greatly reduce the need for large coal fired plants or nuclear. Solar will work if you have good battery technology and size the system properly in most locations. I also believe that vertical wind turnbines could be used on/near homes. They work off of turbulent currents and can be used on high rise buildings too. Geothermal heat pumps would also save us from using nat. gas. We waste so much energy just getting the raw materials and energy distributed that if we had decentralized power we would not need as much.
I really wish we could add in all the externality costs of coal and nuclear right in the kwh price. The utilities cannot acknoledge that they can be replaced or no one will invest in their companies. how much for clean air/water? Once we recognize the true price and the need to think about the enegy we use it will change the way everything is done. Also, the younger generation is more environmentally in tune and I feel will choose renewable energy because they learned about it in grades school.
The bottom line still for some is price, if coal/nuclear become expensive enough they will price themselves out of the market and renewables will be adopted.
This is America, we can do anything if we put our minds to it.
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?
Rejecting Domenici's amendment was the right thing to do, but the decision is not as clearcut as it seems.
Coal (conventional, dirty) provides 50% of the country's power, and isn't going away in our lifetime. Those who think otherwise need to explain what will replace aging coal and nuclear (19% nationally) powerplants if modern replacements are not built. The dirty little secret about the most coveted renewables (solar, wind) is that, current growth rates notwithstanding, their contribution remains marginal, and fuel-fired generation capacity remains in standby mode ready to go on-line when renewable generation falls below demand.
Cleaner variants (CGCC, coventional w/sequestration, etc.) aren't yet ready for prime time, but must be encouraged.
Square Pegs
Legislatures made the rules,
Proving now they are not fools,
Coal is coal if black or clean,
Taken from the earthen seam,
Nuclear is not so safe,
Will not alternates replace,
Square pegs aren’t the same as round,
Renewables we find are sound.
adrianakau2aol.com
The important issue with coal/nuclear is that all of America is benefitting from the $.08 per kwh while solar can go from $.30 to $.60 kwh (solar buzz year end report 2006) and wind is in the mid teens per kwh.
If people are serious about cleaning up the enviroment and stoppoing C02 and green house gasses, then they need to get use to electric bills that are x4 to 8x hire than today. That means summer air conditionin bills hitting the $1,000.
Do you think anyone would vote for mandatory renewable energies, if they knew ahead of time that would mean a $1,000 per month Summer electric bill? Of course not. It would be cheaper to let global warming happen. Besides, I don't live within 10 meters of the high tide mark, so the flooding wouldn't really hurt me that much.
Fools are fools. Nothing will change the stripes on a skunk you can bathe it scrub it but it still is a skunk.
Adding Coal and Nuclear to the Clean energy bills are a no go with me.
Coal is less toxic but nuclear is all toxic.
D~W
Renewable is the low cost local energy source but not convenient. Busy and lazy purchase centralized energy and complain that the public and government should be more responsible. Other than complain, no action is taken. 300 watts solar ($3000 initial) powers corn stoves heating full homes for $300 to $500 annually. Lazy minds challenge the figures but never check the facts. Lazy bodies choose couch convenience and not cost effectiveness. Oil companies show a corn field while discussing high gasoline prices. If you buy the false message you will pay in real dollars with no sense. Local renewable energy is the low cost energy source but is not convenient. Lack of knowledge of energy facts does not negate the facts. If you want facts, contact by e-mail any one of the several hundred members of www.groups.yahoo.com/group/cornstoves Learn how labor intensive and cost effective local renewable energy can be. Ask someone local on the list that has local knowledge. Add government tax subsidies to the cost of coal/nuclear/gas/oil and compare actual cost of alternative central to local renewable.
Local renewable is the low cost labor intensive energy source. Individual physical exercise is the byproduct of local low cost effective renewable energy.
Government public tax subsidized central power is conveniently high cost without regard for pollution concerns. Ali Gore states that the public and government should be held responsible and take corrective action for pollution. Who is John Q. Public if he is not me?
I disagree with George that we need new coal and nuclear facility. He is right that renewables remain small. According to EIA, wind will only break the 1% mark this year. However, there are two keys to bringing this to 15%. One is efficiency and conservation. We need to reduce the total "pie" of electric generation so that the 15% slice becomes smaller in overall terms. The electric utilities are helping (not on purpose, I am sure) by raising the price of electricity, thus encouraging efficiency and conservation. However, we need much more education on the residential level to let people know that (a) their rates are going up and (b) what are some easy, cost effective ways to reduce demand.
The other thing to consider in terms of getting to 15% and beyond is that the infrastructure is finally being put in place to be able to see dramatic increases in renewables. For example, wind installed 2454 MW of new capacity last year. In comparsion, in 2000, wind installed only 67 MW. It is completely reasonable to think wind could install 10,000 MW per year by 2010 and 20,000 MW per year by 2015 if we provide the industry with the support it needs such as a long terms extension of the production tax credit and a RPS. This would easily get us to 15%.
I hate to say it but the old coal plants aren't going to be retiring any time soon. Utilities will just keep fixing them up for a long, long time.
In his opening statement, Mr. Ukeiley challenges my assertion that aging coal and nuclear plants will have to be replaced. In his closing remark, he concedes that "old coal plants aren't going to be retired anytime soon." The sooner the better, IF we can replace them with more efficient (and relatively cleaner) CGCC plants, or upgrade to include CSS.
Some numbers to frame the discussion:
- current US population; 300,000,000
- forecast for 2050: 400,000,000
Current US electric energy mix; Coal; 50%
Nuclear: 19%
Nat. Gas: 19%
A "baseload" generator, nuclear is vastly more efficient, operating as it does at 90-91% capacity, with no emissions. Like it or not, the die has been cast. For millenia to come, humanity will be burdened with the need to safeguard both the processes and the waste. Given that reality and timeline, another 50 or 100 years of nuclear plant operation hardly matters.
While natural gas has been the fuel of choice for new power plants, US natural gas production has already peaked. Hence the need to build LNG facilities around the country to receive shipments from abroad. (It makes no sense to further consolidate our energy infrastructure along the Gulf of Mexico. It's bad enough so much of our domestic capacity is already centered in that weather-vulnerable region.) But the longer-term prognosis for natural gas is only slightly better than for oil.
I fully embrace and support efficiency. CFLs and LED lighting, and all the rest. But however worthy the goal, it requires a leap of faith to suppose that a population 1/3 larger than today's can be supported with the same, or less energy than today. Just switching out the existing fleet of fuel-powered cars for all-electric vehicles will entail a very substantial increase in electricity production and consumption. Will that be coal, nuclear or natural gas?
I also support higher energy prices. The market system really does work, and the ONLY way renewables will succeed is if they can compete with cheap oil, gas and coal. Now that "cheap oil" exists only in our rearview mirror, consumers have begun to make more prudent decisions as relates to vehicle purchases. And less we forget, most of us are reading and writing on electric-powered computers, from the comfort of our air-conditioned spaces. The radio is on in the background, and our cell phones are charging. Can you hear me now...?
Previous Article
