Re: How do we do it? was Re: So what now do we do?

REPLY: I certainly don't want to drag this list into a political debate, but
despite the fact that the enrgy bill that did not make it through the Senate
contained provisions for expanding nuclear power, I encouraged my Senators to
vote against it (both did, as did Vern Ehlers- a fromer colleague, now my
Republican Representative in the House). Here are some of the reasons I did not
support this enrgy bill, although we surely do need an energy bill that will
point us toward the future.

Reasons why the current energy bill is a seriously flawed effort.

1. A $31 billion dollar cost - more than 70% of which will be structured as
tax incentives toward the electric power, coal, oil, and natural gas industries
(perhaps coincidentally those industries that have the closest of ties to the
current administration and whom the administration consulted with most closely
in drafting this energy policy) - this at a time when efforts to increase
domestic oil and gas production will likely have little success. Moreover,
such efforts will expand oil and gas exploration into environmentally sensitive
areas including drilling in off-shore areas that previously have been closed to
energy exploration due to pollution concerns

2. This heavy focus on continued development fossil fuel development,
especially coal-based technology, is the wrong policy for the 21st century as
it promises to continue both the US dependence on these fuels to run its
economy and it promises to exacerbate already serious atmospheric pollution
problems - increasing carbon dioxide levels (global warming); increasing sulfur
dioxide emissions (acid rain) and increasing nitrogen oxide emissions (acid
rain and urban smog).

3. The bill contains a provision to exempt manufacturers of methyl-t-butyl
ether (MTBE) - a fuel additive that was introduced in California to try to help
reduce smog generation but now has been found as a contaminant in a variety of
ground water systems - from litigation, thus relieving these companies of any
obligation to help pay for the clean-up of this environmentally persistent
substance as well from suits alleging claims of injury due to exposure to this
chemical.

4. The bill expands a flawed policy of providing tax subsidies to encourage
the generation of fuel ethanol from corn. Given the manner in which corn is
produced and harvested in the US agricultural system, the fossil fuel energy
used in the production of the ethanol (provided by oil and natural gas) turns
out to be only marginally less than the fuel energy provided by the ethanol so
produced! And if ethanol is to provide any significant energy supply to the US
system, the amount of alnd neede to grow the corn (or other biomass) would
jeopardize our food-producing capacity

5. The bill contains minimal provisions for fuel conservation efforts; it has
no provision at all for improving the fuel efficiency standards for cars, light
trucks and SUVs - an area where even small improvements well within current
technological capability would have significant impact not only on fuel usage
but also on greenhouse gas emissions.

6. The bill contains no provisions at all for improving public transportation
systems - bus, light rail, rapid transit - despite the fact that these systems
are by far the most energy efficient ways to move people from one location to
another.

7. The bill has only the most modest of proposals to move the nation in the
direction of alternative energy sources - especially those based on renewable -
wind and solar -
energy strategies

In summary, the energy policy as it stands is very much a 20th (some say 19th)
century energy policy for a nation that very badly needs a 21st century energy
vision.
ken piers

>>> "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com> 12/4/2003 8:06:25 PM >>>
Getting the Energy Policy Act of 2003 passed would be
a good start. Of course, there is definite special
interest pork in it, which is what is creating some of
the problems and I don't pretend to be able to justify
everything contained in the bill. However, it
includes a lot of tax and other incentives for further
development of nuclear power.

--- Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This is a truly great post!.
>
> Now, how do we at ASA make this happen? It is
> important for my heirs and therefore
> it is important to me. Even my atheist friend who
> says that he "worships the
> selfish gene" would "rise to that cause".
>
> I was only partially joking when I said that we
> should delete the word "nuclear"
> from energy discussions. In my career at a major
> contractor, the use of terminology
> often made the difference between success and
> failure.
>
> Let us "rally around the flagpole" and do something
> instead of just yapping on this
> list.
>
> It could be worthwhile.
>
> IMHO!
>
>
> Walt
>
> .
>
> Kenneth Piers wrote:
>
> > REPLY: This discussion again points out that we
> (and the rest of the world) are
> > in a serious position regarding our energy future.
> None of the reports about
> > world oil supplies and discovery rates are very
> encouraging; and natural gas
> > reserves, while abundant in several overseas
> countries, are on the wane in the
> > US and Canada. So our access to sufficient natural
> gas may be even more in
> > doubt than our access to oil, since getting
> natural gas from overseas sources
> > will require a huge investment in LNG technologies
> -shipping and port
> > facilities - all of which will be costly and will
> have significant lead times.
> > And of course, there are substantial environmental
> reasons for reducing our use
> > of fossil fuels
> > The only known technology that has the potential
> to provide sufficient energy
> > for an indefinite time period and that is not
> subject to the problem of
> > intermittent supply (as are direct solar and wind
> technologies) is the nuclear
> > fast breeder technology. An energy supply system
> based on fast-breeder nuclear
> > technology could, in principle, supply all of the
> energy needs of the world for
> > an indefinite time into the future. Of course, it
> would mean an eventual switch
> > to an all-electrified energy economy, which is
> certainly possible, but would
> > entail major, major changes in the way our society
> is structured - particularly
> > its transportation system. But currently there are
> no commercial fast-breeder
> > reactors in operation. France has permanently shut
> down its 1200 MWe
> > SuperPhenix liquid metal (sodium) fast breeder
> reactor for several reasons
> > including: high cost of operation; low
> operation/downtime ratio; difficulty of
> > servicing the reactor; and a rather poor safety
> record. Unless costs of the
> > fast breeder technology come down, its safety
> record improves substantially,
> > and we solve the socio/political problems
> associated with the operation of
> > nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, one cannot be
> optimistic that fast breeder
> > technologies have a promising future.
> > MIT has just published a new interdisciplinary
> study entitled "The Future of
> > Nuclear Power"
> (http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/n/nuclearpower/ )
> in which
> > they make various recommendations regarding the
> expansion of the open-fuel
> > cycle (one time through then waste storage - no
> reprocessing) nuclear program
> > (the current US system) to three time it current
> level within the next 15-20
> > years. Their contention is that there exists a
> sufficient supply of uranium to
> > afford a significant expansion of the conventional
> nuclear power generating
> > system. They do, however, note four problems that
> must be solved in order for
> > this to occur: the construction cost of nuclear
> power plants must be reduced;
> > safety of operation must be improved (and be so
> perceived by the public); the
> > nuclear waste storage issue must be solved; and
> the nuclear proliferation issue
> > must be solved. Again most of these problems have
> significant socio/political
> > components and do not allow of a simple technical
> solutions.
> > We are living in an age when energy issues are
> becoming extremely critical. We
> > can not afford to long-delay making very important
> and world-shaping decisions
> > about our energy future. Given the fact that the
> US now has a significant
> > presence in nearly all of the major oil-rich
> regions of the world (including
> > the Caspian region , but excluding only Iran) it
> seems clear that our leaders -
> > knowingly or not - have positioned the US so that
> it can assure some kind of
> > stable access to the remaining world oil
> resources. But that at best will be a
> > stop-gap measure. We need to develop other
> resources on a vast array of energy
> > fronts. I think that there will be no one single
> answer to our energy future,
> > despite the lure of nuclear fast-breeders.
> Certainly energy conservation, on
> > the consumer level, but also on the industrial and
> commercial level needs to be
> > part - and an important part - of our energy
> future. But I also think that an
> > expanded nuclear program of some kind must be a
> much more significant component
> > of our energy future than it now is.
> > ken piers
> >
> > >>> George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> 12/4/2003
> 12:39:55 PM >>>
> > Jay Willingham wrote:
> > >
> > > Telling people in a technology driven society to
> back off on using that
> > > technology is simply not going to work. Ask
> Gray Davis.
> >
> > There's a difference between telling
> people to stop driving cars and
> > asking them
> > to use cars more prudently & efficiently. It
> would not be in any serious
> > sense a
> > backing off of technology to get people to stop
> driving SUVs.
> >
> >
> Shalom,
> >
> George
> > George L. Murphy
> > gmurphy@raex.com
> > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> --
> ===================================
> Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
>
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> ===================================
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
Received on Fri Dec 5 14:46:43 2003