Energy Policy for Obama

ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA

Sue — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:03:15 EST

Dear Mr President Barko Bama:(Who died & made Joe Lieberman King?I get that the majority party in Congress & the White House is large & diverse. With a range of opinions & options from Uber Liberal to Conservadim. Often compared to . . . herding cats.Well I know a thing or two about herding cats. It's demanding & thankless. But it's my job after all. We all expected the minority party, the opposition party in the immediate past election, the Party of No, to oppose. To adhere to tired Party Lines & talking points memos. To smear & demonize. To attack individuals instead of addressing issues. To distract & deflect public focus. To strike fear wherever. To basically conduct bidness as usual. No one really expected much better from the Party of Nope. We, here @ Todo Chroncles, & ordinary Americans who voted for you, Pres Barko Bama, & your party in the past election are starting to become a bit weary of calls for bi-partisian ship & mutual agreement on the largely looming big issues. Health care 4 all. Global Climate Crisis. The economy & jobs. Asset management & resource allocation. Those are the same problems as when you campaigned for change. With party in-fighting on each & every step in the process we don't hold much hope of seeing any improvement within the foreseeable future. This ain't no party at all for ordinary Americans.I get that you inherited a big fat mess from your predecessor. A big fat mess that no one in high places even knew existed until practically the eve of the election. I get that Congress permitted itself to be herded & cajoled into a rush to judgment. I get that you inherited 2 wars that the previous administration failed to finish. I get that jobs were disappearing long before anyone bothered to notice. While bankers & Wall Street Fat Cats ran the national economy & security off a cliff. I get all that. I also get that the Medical/Industrial Complex & Insurance Cartel still pretty much run the show & that ordinary Americans have to apologize when they get sick or injured for presuming to collect on health insurance promises they've been paying on forever. For costing the Medical/Industrial Complex & Insurance Cartel a smidgeon of obscene corporate profits & fat cat bonuses. That women have to apologize & pay more for healthcare because they are women, the bearers of future generations & as such they might also have health care complexities that would deduct from obese corporate profits. When did the focus of health care cease to be cure the sick, heal the injured & comfort the dying & become organized crime?I also get that Americans have to pay 10x more for prescription drugs than any other industrialized nation on AnimalPlanet.com. They have to cringe & apologize & pay vastly more should their PCP prescribe brand name drugs. That's what they go to the dr. for . . . expert opinion & professional services. In order to maintain fat cats like Joe Lieberman in office & the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed & ensure his mate remains on the board of directors of Big Pharma & the Medical/Industrial Complex. No conflict of interest there. & that your party failed to step up to the plate & vote for pharmaceutical & healthcare reforms.While Congress bitches & bickers, splits infinitives & bandies about terms like Public Option & Competition the real discussion remains centered on Wealth Care 4 the Insurance Cartel not how can all citizens get access to the best health care system in the world. The best health care system in the world isn't much good if no one gets services. Not saving lives if there is no service. Congress seems just to have noticed skyrocketing deficits when they thought only last year that double-entry bookkeeping meant keeping 2 sets (@ a minimum) of books & didn't worry much about footing the bill for 2 wars, bad bidness decisions on Wall Street, crisis of credit & confidence, mortgage foreclosure crisis & shipping jobs off to 3rd World Countries.What happened to All Hands On Deck. Change we can believe in? Yes we can. What happened to Healthcare Reform is a moral imperative? It's time for another Jeremiah Wright Moment of Clarity. Who the hell died & made Joe Lieberman King anyhow? OpalK9 OTJ

SMART ON CRIME - A New Obama Imperative

Mett — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:37:32 EDT

One of the sad legacies of Ronald Reagan that Obama should reset with a new, smarter approach are so-called “tough on crime” policies that brought us mandatory sentencing, three-strikes, and a complete abandonment of rehabilitation. Now, America leads the world as the number one incarcerator of human beings. Most of those incarcerated are black and Latino men, and most of the crimes are for non-violent offenses such as drug possession, petty theft and burglaries associated with substance abuse and addiction.

Despite these lengthier sentences, most of these offenders are eventually released, and they are released without any effort to address the root causes that motivated them to commit the crimes for which they were incarcerated. After release, these ex-offenders become victims of employment discrimination and are unable to find work (70-90%) because of prejudice against them. Only five states currently have laws on the books that prohibit employment discrimination against ex-offenders- Hawaii, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As a consequence, over 70% recommit crimes within three years of being released from prison. In stark contrast to this result, in most European countries, over 70% of ex-offenders “never” commit another crime in their lifetime.

This must change!

If America really is concerned about “victims’ rights”, how can we encourage a result where ex-offenders are compelled to commit crimes to feed, clothe, and house themselves? For every new crime committed, there is a new victim, and there doesn’t appear to be much thought at all about lessoning the prospect of these new victims of crime.

Vengeance for vengeance sake, has no place in an advanced democratic country. Such vengeance merely creates a cycle of more, and more crime in which no one benefits. It costs us $37,000 a year to incarcerate each inmate, and most of this money is at the expense of other priorities like K-12 education. At 2.3 million inmates currently incarcerated in the US, that is $85 billion dollars “a year” for incarceration.

All major religions seem to understand the lunacy of this through spiritual principles of forgiveness and human redemption. Jesus was fond of helping outcasts such as lepers, prostitutes, and robbers on the cross. This social gospel of Jesus seems to have been lost in much of modern day Christianity that has been redefined by “judgment” as though we have evolved and become someone elses God.

Obama must reset this “tough on crime” legacy of Reagan with a new “smart on crime” policy. This smart on crime approach must not abandon punishment - as there should be some punishment for lawbreaking - but this punishment MUST be limited to the term of the sentence, and not be “punishment for life” as some sort of perpetual vengeance against those who commit crimes. A smarter approach must include state-of-the-art rehabilitation efforts while one is still in prison. This rehabilitation must continue upon release with supportive services for substance abuse and anger management.

It is also simply smarter to involve employers in rehabilitation efforts by providing a mix of carrots and sticks to hire ex-offenders. The carrots could be tax incentives for hiring “and” retaining ex-offenders. The sticks could be laws similar to the ones in the five states that currently prohibit employment discrimination against ex-offenders. These anti-discrimination efforts force employers to relate hiring decisions to the actual work performed, so if the crime is not rationally related to such work, discrimination is forbidden. Additional measures such as prohibiting criminal history questions on employment applications until a later stage in the hiring process where an applicant is deemed “otherwise qualified” would discourage screening out ex-offenders.

Without this smarter approach, we are simply encouraging more crime, more victims, and more extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility in paying for the incarceration of those who could be tax-paying productive members of American society. As we attempt to pay for healthcare, education and other priorities, the time is now for “smart on crime” policies.

-Metteyya Brahmana

Time for Natural Gas

Suzy — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:03:20 EDT

Why won't someone in this admin take some time to understand the only logical pathway to energy independence is the stepped approach, natural gas is it for now!! Pickens understands, Cramer understands, Geithner probably understands but takes some time to share his beliefs, where is Obama? The obstinence of our current administration to review the obvious is just arrogant and I am thoroughly disgusted by this behavior.

Someone like Jim Cramer (and I am far from his advocate since his stock 'picks' are still only ~50% correct from the ones I've tracked) should be one of your advisors on this topic; he understands both the opportunities and challenges since he has open access to more independent thinking than your administration (at least it appears this way). It is all about jobs, ability to drive our own future without dealing with the threats of other countries and trying to get our country to a point where my children do not need to go to China or India to make a decent living.

Clean coal is vaporware and doesn't address the need for new job creation . As Cramer pointed out the other day, if we succeed in creating a powerful car battery to run our cars, guess what it needs to plug into to get juiced up each night... electrical outlets which are largely run by coal and unless you solve that 'clean coal' problem immediately, we are just back in the old pollution conundrum exponentially.

CAs GOT TALENT

Sue — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:45:28 EDT

Dear CA Lawmakers: Where didja come up with that budget-Craiglist? Only a body that knows nothing about this state could consider that budget. It sells CA short, short changes education, short sheets healthcare, short shrifts local jurisdictions, ignores readily available resources, & just generally punts CA progress back to the Stone Age. Drill Baby Drill is NOT the answer to CA budget problems. This CA not AK. OpalK9 OTJ

Nuclear Power leads to Nuclear weapons

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:59:40 EDT

The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.

Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.

While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:42:34 EDT

HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

DEAR JOE

Sue — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:18:42 EDT

I think I can call you Joe. You're an infinitely more affable fellow that your predecessor. You don't even wanna know what I called him. Anyway, Joe, RE: Solicitation for ideas to ensure recovery/bailout funds spent wisely, I have some suggestions.
1. put the Cash Cow on the extinct species list & leave it there. Cash Cow benefit a very few while exploiting a great many. Hardly democratic.
2. If a project is growth inducing or speculative in nature . . . it's a cash cow. Taxpayers don't need it. If a few speculators or casino operators put a pile of money into something betting on the come, too bad. If a project requires plan amendments, significant & irreversible cumulative impacts, taxpayers don't need it. If a project requires multiple plan & zoning amendments, it's speculative. Taxpayers don't need it. That money can be better spent elsewhere. If a project requires expansion of existing infrastructure, stretching development further into wildlife habitat & over burdening existing urban services, it's growth inducing, speculative. There is plenty of in-fill land for growth & development. There is a standing stock of commercial structures in which to house new or expanding businesses. Heaven knows, there are plenty of vacant residences in all manner of condition. We are overbuilt. It's speculative, growth inducing & there are better ways to spend tax payers dollars.
3. If a project contributes to the sustainability of existing urban areas, fine & dandy. If a project relieves traffic congestion, makes roads safer & smarter, ensures the existing standard of living will continue, dandy. Bring it on. If a project contributes to viability of urban areas & reduces further encroachment into wildlife habitat. ducky. If a project sustains existing agricultural land or perhaps even reverts to ag land, fine & dandy. We need to start growing & producing our own food again. In fact, we need to return to the self-reliance & ingenuity that sustained us in the past.

We need some standard for comparison to figure out how well we are doing. We should have drawn urban limit lines around all urban areas 6 months ago. It's not too late to get started. Urban Limit Lines around the perimeter of all urban areas would provide a geographic area in which to assess resources & assets, raw materials & laborl. We've got nowhere to go but up from here.

Sincerely OpalK9 OTJ

Rooftop Resources-Its a Win/Win

Sue — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:13:48 EDT

I am a member of SMUD Greenergy program. Am in receipt of request to enroll in SMUD Carbon Offset Program, costing me another $10/month. I was the chair of the Subdivision Review Committee for the City of Sacramento Planning Dept. I personally saw to it that 80% of the residential lots created in Sacramento in the 1980shad adequate orientation to take advantage of solar energy. Very few of those rooftops were fitted with solar panels & rooftops are a wasted resource. Solar energy is still regarded as some sort of new age oddity when in fact the technology has changed very little since the 1960s. So instead of joining another greening of CA effort I'd like to suggest that SMUD take advantage of an existing resource that is over our heads. The answers to our energy & environmental problems are no longer beneath our feet. All these token programs are not nearly as efficient or effective as putting solar panels on rooftops in the CA sun. There are few, if any localities in CA that couldn't take advantage of a vigorous program to put solar panels on residential rooftops. I know SMUD has other efforts for solar panels. But state & federal rebates aside, the net obligation to the homeowner is far more than my first home cost & I am not willing to obligate myself to that kind of debt. Wind & solar farms are fine & dandy but they require significant expense for the infrastructure to get power from source to usesr. & wind & solar farms repressent significant encroachment into wildlife habitat. Quit reinventing the wheel when you've got readily available resources to reduce SMUDs & the state's carbon footprint, reduce energy bills & individual energy consumption. SMUDs role in a new Smart Grid would be to monitor the system for efficiency & maintain the infrastructure. It's a win/win.

CA HORNBLOWER

Sue — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:19:54 EDT

Come on, Californians. Are we the Land of the Fruit & the Nuts or what? Are we gonna stand around swooning while Lawmakers & Politicians bicker & squabble, tinker & Twitter & hi-jack the Golden State back to the Stone Age?

Take a look @ this site: www.commonsense4ca.org. Tell them what you think. At least resolve to solve the budget crisis in a fair & sensible manner. Vote early & often.I, 4 1, am kinda tired of CA Apologists Inside the Beltway. CA is not just Hollywood Royalty & 90210, sun & silicone. We gotta lotta assets, resources & infrastructure to work with . . . if decision-makers could get beyond their own personal agenda & parochial bias.

I know what a mess bio-fuel manufacture made in other states. Saw that on my roadtrip last summer. CA's got an abundance of rooftops & sunshine. Put 'em together & whadda ya' got? A statewide solar array ready-made to take 1 state off the grid. No additional encroachment into wildlife habitat. No huge new infrastructure investment. Wind & solar farms are a redundancy we can't afford. Plus manufacture & sale of solar panels = Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. My. That was easy.

CA's gotta lotta car & a lotta outta work auto sales personnel. What with dealerships closing & all. They could be employed mining DMV databases, searching for the oldest cars in the fleet which are eons old & powered by old, old school technology. CA has car crush programs. Charities are begging for dontated cars. Those Old Smokers & Gross Polluters can be replaced with newer used cars or new cars from an inventory that must be given away anyway. Gear up fleet turnover. Create green jobs. Presently common wisdom is jobs, jobs, jobs, not location, location & location. If we can force the turnover of the TV fleet from analog to digital, we can facilitate the turnover of the truck & auto fleet.

USC (go Trojans) is developing a bionic eye to make the blind see again. Do you think the bionic eye will give lawmakers & decision makers new insight? Whatever. Maybe research could focus on battery operated residences. They said rock n rock was a fad. They said the PC was for geeks & gearheads. They said Who wants a Tweet from a Twitter? & yet Twitter is facilitating revolution in Iran. Stranger things than battery operated homes have happened if we just focus & concentrate.

Heretofore, I had taken as an article of faith that CA Curbside Recycling is indeed removing reuseable resources & materials from the wastestream. Given the many, many betrayals of public trust lately revealed, perhaps I shouldn't assume . . . If our junk is merely being shipped off to China or some 3rd World Banana Republic, we better reform recycling cause idea is fine. CA better work out reciprocal arrangements with industries in other states that do the heavy lifting in the recycling arena. Then all our resources, plastic & paper, metal & glass can be accounted for & we aren't wasting anything. Not rocket science.

CA has an emissions trading program developed to comply with federal clean air standards. Presently the program only address smog forming emissions. Wouldn't take much to tweak that model into a national Carbon Cap & Trade Program. CA's budget shortfall & crisis of credit are not derivative of environmental sensibilities. Global Climate Change is real. It's now. & it's expensive to fix. CA's got the model. It's not brain surgery.

I know . . . I'm just a dog. Oughta shut up & mind my own bidness. Oughta quit digging in Mymi's garden too. As long as there's a squirrel or a cat out there, that ain't gonna happen. Besides what's good for humans is good for dogs & other critters. What's good for GM is good for CA is good for the USA. OpalK9 OTJ

WHATCHA CALLIT

Sue — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:46:19 EDT

What do you call it when the President announces tough new nationwide rules for automobile emissions & vehicle mileage standards? We, here @ Todo Chronicles, call it . . . a good start, tho not enough, & a downpayment on our carbon obligation & an end to W's War on CA which started with Enron & never stopped really & a great big OH Yes We Can . . . if we have the political will & economic huevos. We, here @ Todo Chronicles, noticed that our Govenator has been uncharastically low-key recently. Turns out, he's been Eastward. Inside the Beltway. Doing deals with President Bama. Guiding & assisting Auto Industry Execs with that Vision Thingy they have heretofore been so sadly lacking.We, here @ Todo Chronicles, have it on good authority that CA has been ratcheting down emissions & ramping up efficiency for a long time. Automakers have opposed CA emission controls & fuel efficiency standards for a long time. In the end, Automakers hadda build cars with CA Catalytic Converters because CA is too big a market to ignore. That was back in the day, the 70s. Auto Industry Execs . . . get a clue. (No dissing the Fellow on the Factory Floor or the Gal on the Assembly Line cause they weren't involved in the High-Level Decision Making that went into such bad bidness decsions.)We, here @ Todo Chronicles, wonder how much $ coulda been saved if Auto Industry Execs had Mbraced CA's emission controls & fuel efficiency instead of fighting it out in the courts & Congress? How much further down the path to energy independence could the nation have been if Auto Industry Execs hadda been prepared with a responsible marketing plan & reasonable market share estimates instead of permitting foreign auto makers to out-engineer & out-build us thus beating us @ our own game? We, here @ Todo Chronicles, don't know whatca callit when certain industries, Special Friends of the (Past) President are subsidized & supported to the detriment of other industries or sectors of the economy. We, here @ Todo Chronicles don't know whatcha callit when Friendlies of the President of Vice are contracted with to the exclusion of all other bidders. We think it might be something like Socialist or Organized Crime with fancy naming conventions.OpalK9 OTJ

Dear Mr President Barko Bama

Sue — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:45:00 EDT

I know you gotta lot on your plate re: health care reform & all. But you promised you could walk & chew gum @ the same time. If the banking & financial industries do not receive serious scrutiny with an eye to reform, then many, many more voters, supporters & taxpayers are going to fall prey to continued predatory & uninterrupted lending practices. Banks are indescriminately soliciting new credit card business while remaining unresponsive to borrowers attempts to modify their mortgage. Consumers are having to hire lawyers to act as intermediary with the banks so they can refinance mortgages which were seriously flawed & designed to fail in the first place. What's the matter with an old school Audit of the Banks to get to the root of the mortgage meltdown & credit crisis which we all know was created by an unregulated & unethical banking industry in the first place? & if Geitner has a problem seeing himself in the role of regulator, show him the door. He's unsuited for the position he holds. OpalK9 OTJ

WOOL DAY

Sue — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:11:41 EDT

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.201472/?msource=kw3209My Opinionator, Stephen, intereviewed the Director of Heifer International so I decided to google the organization. It must be karma or something because today is International Wool Day.At Heifer International, April is Pass the Gift Month & the UN has declared 2009 the Year of Natural Fibers.April 25 is also Earth Day. http://greeneffect.nationalgeographic.com/Not the 1st Earth Day certainly. The (now) annual celebration of Earth Day evolved from 1960’s political activism. The idea was spearheaded by then Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson (Note: Nelson was NOT some fuzzy-headed West Coast Leftist Liberal Tree Hugger. WI is in the midwest, in case ya didn't know). Nelson wanted to create a venue for concerned Americans to voice their displeasure over what was seen as a lack of domestic environmental responsibility on the part of the U.S. Government.

The first-ever earth day was held in the United States in 1970 with over 20 million participants. Today Earth Day is by far the largest participatory environmental event in the world, with an estimated 500 million people in 184 countries taking part in last year’s event.So maybe the solutions to some of today's greatest challenges are not so difficult & complex. Give a Heifer, a goat or a silkworm. Plant a garden. Pick up the trash. If we can all do a little, we can effect great change.OpalK9 OTJ

SOLAR PREPAREDNESS

Sue — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:58:19 EDT

Our Govenator may have failed to mention yesterday, upon the occasion of the Presidential visit, that CA has an Air Resources Board, CA Energy Commission, CalEPA, local planning agencies, special districts & coordinating councils & other agencies responsible for cleaning up CA's environment & managing natural resources. Probably because during the 80's when a lot of these agencies came into being he was busy being Hollywood Glitterati & Legend of the Silver Screen.

Be that as it may during the 80's a lot of time & angst was spent attempting to prepare for this New Age of alternative energy sources by requiring residential developments to orient lots so that at least 80% had adequate roofline orientation on which to place solar panels to take advantage of CA's almost limitless sunlight.

Now would be a good time to use the Budgetary Scalpel to forge a new public/private partnership to retrofit existing residences with solar panels. That's a shovel ready project.

Wind & solar farms are fine & dandy & will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil & reduce our carbon footprint. But it is very expensive infrastructure & ignores a resource we already have available - residential rooftops. Wind & solar farms are also centralized power grid structures. People could have more control over their energy needs & resources if their home became an energy generator instead of energy absorbers.

Centralized power grids are also very vulnerable to terrorist tactics & being held hostage by the Enrons & Ken Lays of the world as happened to Californians when CA deregulated the energy industry (mostly at the pleasure of a Republican Governor much in the image of Ronald Reagan).

This is a win/win because: 1. Energy purveyors could reduce the amout of investment required to upgrade infrastructure; 2. People could be employed to manufacture, sell & install solar panels on existing residences (probably a career for a generation); 3. The average home would reduce energy costs per year in orders of magnitude; 4. the resource already exists so there would be little if any additional impact to the environment & other natural resources like wildlife & water resources; 5. we might possibly Zero Sum our carbon footprint in our lifetime; & 6. the CA Model is not applicable only to Sunny CA. But it's a good place to start. OpalK9 OTJ

A PRAGMACRATICAN DOGMA

Sue — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:49:07 EDT

On Walkies today we found a lotta tin foil shaped like hats. Could it be the Tin Foil & Fringe Crowds have shrugged the Foil? Who needs Foil Hats when you've got a President that talks straight to the people via that new fangled invention . . . the TV machine? Back in the day, the road to the White House went straight over Dave's Desk. Now information from the White House goes over Leno's Desk. Is this bi-coastal rivalry?Who needs a Foil Hat when you've got a President that speaks in short & complete sentances. & explains circumstances so clearly even myself, a mere dog, could understand that we've been digging this hole for a long time. We're at the bottom. Quit digging. Who needs Foil Hats when you've got a President that gets it . . . understands that bandaids & blame won't fix anything so massivly broken as the System? Take some down & pass it around. 99 Bottles of Blame on the Wall.Who needs a Foil Hat to understand that while Lawmakers were dithering & distracted re: Don't ask, don't tell . . . Reproductive rights . . . Pledge of Allegiance . . . Science . . . & . . . Fiction . . . Intelligent Design Gay Marriage . . . Brangelina . . . Stem Cells . . . Gun Control . . . Immigration . . . Wall Street's Whims & Displeasure . . . Isms of all ilk & hue . . . Precisely which class (within a truly classless society) is entitled to health care & education . . . & well you get where we're goin' here with this.It's enough to give an objective bystander (such as myself) the notion that the Smugly Superior & Morally Certain espouse Family Values & Conservative Principles merely in order to expand market places in which to peddle trinkets & propaganda. The Reagan Revolution is over & we're all sadder but wiser. Time to clean up our House & restore order. OpalK9 OTJ

Acomplishments so far

dfillingham — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:43:35 EST

President Obama has done a lot in his first few terms. He has outlawed torture, pledged to close Gitmo and give a real trial to each persons there. He has announced sunshine laws for all gov't activity, and he is not ducking the committments to unions and to gay and lesbian people. He is struggling against a terrible legacy, and he has my sympathy for all the people trying to go backward instead of forward with green energy and green jobs, stop giving away money to groups that do not care about the country or the people who live in it. He is trying to stimulate the economy, and we all know that tax cuts for businesses are no stimulus. So many unemployed, so many homeless, we need to focus on basics like healthcare, housing, infrastructure, and hunger/poverty.

I support Obama and I wish him peace and love from his family as he goes through this terrible time. May we all have hope as we go into a future we did not make, but we now have to deal with.

Ending Pay-to-Play Culture in Washington, Now!

Mett — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:04:56 EST

I usually don’t take Republican makeovers very seriously, as most have simply tried to re-hash some version of trickle-down, small government, Reaganomics. But the other night I was watching an infomercial by Mike Huckabee on Winning Back the Middle Class that seemed to focus on changing Washington politics as usual.

Isn’t that supposed to be Obama’s line?

Well, with two cabinet picks who have admitted to failing to pay taxes and only admitting to their tax liability “after” the nomination process had begun, and another withdrawing due to pay-to-play type accusations resulting in an indictment, ethics and undue influence in Washington may actually be an opening for the Republicans, particularly if Obama does not get REAL campaign finance done in his first term.

So what exactly is REAL campaign finance reform…the kind that doesn’t create additional loopholes for influence peddlers?

Publicly funded elections for all federal elections, and “reasonable” Supreme-Court-proof limits on the free speech of so-called independent groups like 527s so that they cannot run campaign ads for or against a candidate within 90 days of a primary or general election would be REAL campaign finance reform.

If Obama does not get this done in his first term, much of his change agenda could be thwarted by the handful of special interest groups that have dominated the agenda in Washington for quite some time. And as stated above, he could create an opening for the Republicans to portray him as a “change is only a slogan to drum up votes” type of candidate while Washington continues business as usual.

Such an appeal to ignore empty change rhetoric will resonate with the very swing voter that put Obama over the top in previously red states like CO, NV, NM, IN, OH, VA, FL, and NC. This is therefore a critical issue for Obama to pay close attention to if he wants to hang on to these voters.

With an 80% approval rating, NOW is the time for Obama to push for this kind of reform, as there are enough Democratic and Republican votes, especially if one vote meant they did not have to face reprisals from these same special interest groups in subsequent elections. Obama’s popularity will not always be this high, and if he waits until his popularity slips, it may be too late to get this done.

Let’s take money completely out of politics now!

-Metteyya Brahmana

AWAITNG MR FIXIT

Sue — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:38:43 EST

What about his campaign does Sen McCain not remember? The part about The People have spoken & they have spoken clearly? Or the part about the fundamentals of our economy are still sound? What part of November 4th don't House Republicans quite get? The part where You guys trashed a permanent majority in Congress? Or the part where Barack Obama WON? Somebody oughta tell Congressional Republicans: the Universe no longer revolves around Conservative Values & AnimalPlanet.com is no longer flat. Unregulated Capitalism is no longer King & Yes, CEOs have a responsiblity to actually balance the Balance Sheet; other nations are watching their economies tank too & ohboy, are they pissed which means , . . we are not winning hearts & minds around the world. We're all in this together is the new I Got Mine, FU: $18B Bank Executive Bailout is just fine . . . accompanied by Windfall Profits Tax of . . . oh just shootin' in the dark here . . . around oh say . . . $18B. Green is still Green & we'd like the sky blue & water clear again. We're not afraid to pay for it; the High Moral Ground is a slippery slope & noboby believes your hollow rhetoric anymore. You talk so much you forgot your purpose. Who took the Conserve out of Conservative anyway? & quit talking down to your constituency. The public has a large & collective Memory & we're not afraid to use it.At least we're no longer burdened with images of W smirking around the Oval Office, skulking around the Rose Garden. Now he just smirks around TX. They should try to keep him on a tighter leash. I'm OpalK9 & I composed this message cause my TV signal failed & I can't watch Keith & Rachel until the Satellite Repairman Fixes It. Just Fix It.OpalK9 OTJ

The Obama Campaign: Legendary Insights

renovatio — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:03:02 EST

This multimedia production celebrates the landmark political win of Barack Obama in 2008. Illustrated by quotes from the media and supporters from all walks of life, this production helps us remember some of the most momentous times of the Democratic campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFAgZs1uqv4

Gasoline from Air and Water

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:49:10 EST

by Marcel F. Williams

Fossil fuels are predominantly responsible for putting excess carbon dioxide and methane intothe Earth's atmosphere, greenhouse gases that are melting our polar ice caps, raising global sea levels, and causing more extreme climate conditions around the world. The coal and natural gas power industry has looked looked towards future technologies for the on site capture of flu gas in order to recover and sequester carbon dioxide. However, there is no cost effective technology for capturing the CO2 from the mobile producers of carbon dioxide: automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and sea craft.

But there are new technologies that are rapidly being developed that may eventually divorce carbon dioxide polluting sources of energy from the need for on site capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. These devices are sometimes referred to as mechanical trees. But what they do is to simply extract and recover carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And these future technologies appear to be far more efficient at extracting CO2 from the air than the plant life on our planet.

Some argue that these carbon dioxide from air extracting technologies could be the saviors of the fossil fuel industry. Ironically, such future technologies could also eventually lead to the complete extinction of fossil use on this planet if the CO2 taken from the atmosphere is used in combination with hydrogen from water to produce hydrocarbon fuels such as: gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether.

Hydrogen

Because the combustion of hydrogen produces only energy and water, hydrogen via the electrolysis of water through hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar has often been proposed as a replacement for hydrocarbon transportation fuels. Liquid hydrogen fuel has been used in US space craft since the days of the Apollo Moon program. And liquid hydrogen has also been frequently proposed for future generation subsonic and hypersonic airliners and aircraft. Hydrogen fueled buses now transport commuters in many urban areas in the US. And hydrogen automobiles have been demonstrated by many automobile companies around the world .

However, hydrogen automobiles have a substantially shorter range than hydrocarbon fueled vehicles and are a lot less efficient than electric vehicles. Refueling hydrogen vehicles also takes much longer than refueling with gasoline, ethanol, or methanol. Because of the hydrogen embrittlement of metals like steel, hydrogen pipelines are more expensive to maintain than natural gas and oil pipelines. Aircraft, seacraft and ground vehicles, and the infrastructure associated with these vehicles, would also have to be completely replaced if we completely replaced our fuel economy with hydrogen.

Hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and hydrogen

Alternatively, there are several demonstrated methods for synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels by utilizing carbon dioxide in combination with hydrogen which could allow a country to avoid any major overhaul in its transportation energy infrastructure.

Chemist have known how to produce methanol from hydrogen and carbon dioxide for more than 80 years:

CO2 + 3H2 → CH3OH (methanol) + H2O

Methanol is mostly used as a feedstock for making other chemicals. But methanol can be converted into dimethyl ether (DME), a fuel that can be effectively used in diesel engines equipped with new fuel injection systems. The fact that dimethyl ether produces no black smoke, soot, or sulfur dioxide is an clean advantage it has over diesel fuel.

Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline via the Mobil Oil methanol to gasoline (MTG) process. Back in the 1980's, the New Zealand government produced 600,000 tonnes of gasoline a year from methanol derived from natural gas using the MTG process.

Methane gas can also be synthesized from hydrogen and carbon dioxide:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 (methane) + 2H2O

And methane can also be converted into diesel and jet fuels via Fischer-Tropsch and hydrocracking processes.

Mechanical extraction of atmospheric CO2

Plants capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while utilizing sunlight to convert the CO2 into starch. During photosynthesis, trees, for instance, convert carbon dioxide and water into starche molecules and oxygen through a series of oxidation and reduction reactions:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + sunlight ---> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre (4047 square meters) of biomass a year. One tonne of dried tree consist of 0.45 tonnes of carbon which would translate into the extraction of 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually extracted from the atmosphere. That's 33 tonnes of CO2 per acre extracted on an annual basis.
Even though the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a meager 0.04 per cent, companies like GRT (Global Research Technologies) in Arizona and Canadian researchers at the University of Calgary have already built machines that can extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far more efficiently than any tree or any other source of biomass. GRT claims that its carbon dioxide air extraction system is a thousand times more efficient than a tree of equal size.

GRT CO2 absorbent material

The University of Calgary team has shown that they could capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon dioxide. Their carbon dioxide from air extraction tower was able to capture the equivalent of about 20 tonnes per year of CO2 on just one single square meter of air scrubbing material. Astonishingly, this suggest that even the most conservative estimates would allow these CO2 extracting machines to produce more than 80 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide per acre annually.

University of Calgary carbon dioxide extraction machine

Because of the need for cheap electricity for hydrogen production, only nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would be currently viable for hydrocarbon fuel production utilizing carbon dioxide from air extraction technologies. Hydroelectric facilities currently produce electricity at 0 .85 cents per kwh while electricity from nuclear facilities currently cost 1.68 cents per kwh. Wind and solar thermal electricity, however, is much more expensive and ranges from over 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents per kwh.

At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, F. Jeffrey Martin and Williams L. Kubic, Jr. have developed the Green Freedom concept for using the cooling towers of nuclear reactors to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for the production of gasoline and methanol.

They argue that a 1 GWe power plant using their Green Freedom method could produce 18,000-bbl/day of gasoline or 5000 tonnes a day of methanol.

Carbon neutral hydrocarbon synfuel production at nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would not only allow such power facilities to produce transportation fuels and industrial chemicals, they would also allow them to pump methanol and oxygen up to 80 kilometers away to high efficiency power plants for the production of peak-load and back-up-load electricity and commercial waste heat. Nuclear power plants could therefore not only produce base-load electricity but could also supply methanol fuel to replace greenhouse polluting natural gas power plants which are used for daytime peak-load energy and back-up energy for wind and solar power plants.

In 2006, the US consumed nearly 21 million bbl/day of petroleum for transportation fuel and industrial chemical use. If we assumed that nuclear power plants replaced all of the petroleum used in the US in 2006, that would roughly require more than a thousand new 1Gwe nuclear reactors, over 1000 GWe of electrical capacity. Existing nuclear sites that already have nuclear reactors could probably on add an additional 200 to 300 Gwe of capacity. However, if one large centralized nuplex (nuclear park) with about 30GWe of average electrical capacity were set up in every state in the union, then that could add an additional 1500 GWe of electrical capacity, more than enough to replace all of our petroleum needs today and probably our needs 30 years from now.

If the new Obama administration is going to invest substantial R&D money into new energy technologies, I would strongly suggest investing in the fast tracking of these carbon dioxide extraction from air technologies that could revolution synfuel production by helping to achieve US independence from the petroleum fuel economy while protecting the global environment from the dangers of global warming and climate change.

Links and References

1. Green Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November 2007 F.J. Martin and WL Kubic,

2. GRT (Global Research Technologies, LLC)

3. Giant Carbon dioxide Vacuums

4. Snatching Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere

5. CO2 capture from air

6. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved:

7. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company, (2007) Earth Institute News Archive, 04/24/07

8. Carbon capture and storage:

9. Researchers Scramble to Create CO2-Busting Technologies:

10. CO2 capture from ambient air: a feasibility assessment:

11. Carbon Capture and Storage A False Solution

12. The Case for Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air

13. Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air

14. K. Schultz, L. Bogart, G. Besenbruch, L. Brown, R. Buckingham, M. Campbell, B. Russ, and B. Wong HYDROGEN AND SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBON FUELS – A NATURAL SYNERGY General Atomics Poster

15. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

Public Power & the Future of Nuclear Energy

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:51:40 EST

by Marcel F. Williams

Because of the dangers of climate change and America's dependence on foreign oil, there's been a lot of speculation about a nuclear renaissance in America and in the rest of the world. The advantages of nuclear power are numerous. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, takes up extremely little land area relative to renewable energy sources, produces 100 times less radioactive waste than coal power plants, and thousands of times less toxic waste than coal power plants.

Nuclear energy represents 20% of electrical power production in America and is currently the second cheapest source of electricity in the country after hydroelectric power. Nuclear power also produces 70% of the non carbon dioxide polluting electricity in the US.

Cheap electricity from nuclear power also enables us to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis that can be combined with carbon from biomass or from the extraction of carbon dioxide from the air for the production of carbon neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, methanol, and dimethyl ether.

If our planet were totally powered by once through uranium reactors there would only be enough terrestrial uranium to power human civilization for 15 years. But if uranium extracted from sea water were utilized, then our entire civilization could be powered for more than 3600 years. If the spent fuel from these reactors were also utilized, as they are in France, then nuclear power could supply the world with all of its energy for over 5000 years.

So even without a new generation of nuclear breeding technologies that could allow us to power the entire planet forever, current nuclear technology could power our planet for at least 5000 years at current levels of energy use and for more than 1600 years if global power consumption was three times our current level.

So its easy to see why numerous countries around the world are interested in either acquiring or expanding nuclear power. However, in the US, the ability to significantly expand nuclear power faces financial and political obstacles that could eventually leave Americans far behind Asia and Europe as the world tries to move towards a non carbon dioxide polluting energy economy.

The US, which created and pioneered the development of nuclear
energy and provided it to the rest of the world, now ranks behind more than ten other countries in the percentage of electricity derived from that technology. Even though the United States has more nuclear reactors than any other nation, as mentioned above, the US produces only 20% of its electricity through nuclear power.

Percentage of electricity produced through nuclear power:

France - 78%
Belgium - 54%
Ukraine - 48%
Sweden - 46%
Switzerland - 40%
Hungary - 37%
South Korea - 35%
Finland - 29%
Japan - 27%
Germany - 26%
USA - 20%
Taiwan - 19%
Russia - 16%
UK - 15%
Canada - 14%

In the US, however, the ability to significantly expand nuclear power faces financial and political obstacles that could eventually leave Americans far behind Asia and Europe as the world tries to move towards a non carbon dioxide polluting energy economy. Jason Ribeiro's recent blog States with Laws that Impede Nuclear Power points out some of the political obstacles in each state that impede the construction of more nuclear reactors in several states.

The problem of spent fuel and nuclear waste is largely a political problem rather than a scientific or technological one, IMO, which I addressed in my article Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste . And the best way to decommission a nuclear reactors is to simply allow irradiated parts of the reactor to safely decay over a period of about 100 to 150 before safe dismantling.

However, the unpredictable cost of capitalizing new nuclear reactors is a cause for concern. Estimates for a new single 1000 MWe nuclear reactor in the US have ranged from less than two billion dollars to as high as over 10 billion dollars. Charles Barton has recently addressed this on his Nuclear Green blog: Are Nuclear Costs Unreasonable?

In my opinion, the fact that US nuclear facilities rely too much on private capital is the biggest obstacle to nuclear power expansion. In the US, there are hundreds of utilities that are generally too small to be able to risk the large capital investment required to build nuclear facilities. In a country like France on the other hand , a single government owned utility provides electricity for the entire country.

The French government owns and operates 59 nuclear power plants which produce over 78% of France's electrical power. France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total electricity production to Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Britain. France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of pro-renewable energy countries like Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which doesn't have any nuclear plants.

The US government also owns a few nuclear facilities via the TVA. And this federal public power corporation was the last utility to build a nuclear power plant in American and is now the first to order the new AP1000 Westinghouse (Toshiba) reactors.

With the desperate need for the US to move towards energy independence from the fossil fuel economy, I believe that it is time for the federal government to move aggressively towards helping to fund new nuclear reactors. Under the new Obama administration, I believe the federal government should provide up to 45% of the investment capital for new nuclear reactors on existing sites.

Alvin Weinberg proposed an existing-site policy back in 1979 as the best way to expand nuclear power in the US. By simply increasing the number of nuclear reactors at existing nuclear sites already in operation, the US could increase its nuclear capacity up to 343 Gwe. That's more than triple current nuclear capacity and would allow America to power nearly 70% of its electricity from nuclear sites that already exist.

In the long run, however, I believe the best way to keep the cost of electricity low in the US for baseload distribution and for synfuel production while finally achieving total energy independence from the fossil fuel economy , is to build multiple reactors within nuclear parks (nuplexes) consisting of 10 to 40 reactors and which include enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing facilities and on site nuclear waste storage facilities. While I strongly believe that nuclear power facilities should continue to be built and operated by private industry, I also believe that nuclear parks (nuplexes) should be capitalized and owned by the Federal government.

That's why I favor the creation of a Federal Nuplex Corporation (FNC). I will elaborate in more detail on this nuclear electricity and synfuel concept in an upcoming post because I believe that it is the cheapest, safest, and most energy productive way of achieving energy independence in the United States.

References and Links

1. Nuclear share figures, 1996-2007

2. Nuclear Power in France

3. Nuclear power in France (Wikipedia)

4. Short & Long Term Solutions for Nuclear Waste

5. Are Nuclear Costs Unreasonable?

6. States with Laws that Impede Nuclear Power

7. The Economics of Nuclear Power

8. Fueling our Nuclear Future

Consider INVESTING, but NOT GIVING to Auto Companies

Scott F. — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:20:39 EST

This country must not even consider giving financial support to U.S. auto companies without MANDATING LARGE STRIDES TOWARD ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND REDUCED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Paradigm changes are needed, not just tweaks to CAFÉ standards.

I feel that the best way to start this is by implementing the PICKENS PLAN -- the first step of which would be to mandate that, in the very near future, all new vehicles be powered by natural gas.

No other technology is ready to implement now, and the investment in wind and solar power needed to free-up the natural gas for use in vehicles would be foundational infrastructure for things like plug-in hybrids or all-electrics, should those technologies become available sooner than expected.

Electoral Predictions

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:12:18 EST

As the final tabulation of votes are revealed on Wednesday morning, I predict that Barack Obama will win the presidency of the United States by winning a total of 318 electoral votes-- including Florida.

The fatal flaws of the McCain campaign, IMO, were:

1.) Picking Sarah Palin, a woman who clearly lacks the foreign policy experience to be the Commander-in-Chief. If McCain really loves this country and cares about the safety of this country more than he wants the presidency, he certainly didn't show that by picking Palin as his VP nominee!

2.) McCain's failure to focus like a laser beam on the energy re-industrialization of America through both private and public investment in order to end our dependence on foreign oil and to create jobs here in America. McCain did best in his campaign and even in the debates when he talked about energy and especially nuclear energy even though I strongly disagree with him on off-shore drilling. It was a huge mistake, IMO, that he didn't make energy independence through nuclear and renewable energy the primary focus of his campaign.

and

3.) Trying to instill fear and division in America through negative campaigning with phrases like 'paling around with terrorist', 'socialist', folks at his rallies referring to Obama's middle name and screaming for Obama's death. Sorry but that's not what America is all about, or at least it shouldn't be about that.

But if for some tragic reason, McCain and Palin do win the White House, I'll pray (and I'm an atheist:-) for McCain's good health because a Palin presidency, IMO, would put this country and the rest of the world in an extremely dangerous situation thanks to her total lack of foreign experience. The woman got her first passport in 2006!

McCain's picking of Palin is simply an unforgivable act. Unforgivable!!!!

Marcel F. Williams

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

Role of Science in Facing Energy Challenges

Anatoly from Los Angeles, CA — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 22:31:26 EDT

Dear Senator Obama:

I am writing in regards the New Energy for America plan. Many Democrats want to see America using nuclear energy, which is electrical in nature. However, potentially revolutionary research is often too risky or multi-disciplinary for the scientific elite who, with no accountability, has been in control of the allocation of scientific resources for many years. Since there has been nearly fifty years of multi-billion dollar hot plasma and fast reactor research without any significant commercial outcome, various short-term solutions for our growing nuclear waste problem are being implemented. About 700 temporary storages hold spent-fuel assemblies at densities that approach those in reactor cores, creating a high potential for radioactive leakage.

This is symptomatic of a broader problem and carries a warning that we ignore at our own peril. We are living in a world powered by fossil fuel, unsafe nuclear reactors and time/memory consuming operating systems – a major factor in the increase of hazardous electronic waste. Since public school funding is mainly based on the average attendance in all classes–not in core academic programs, classes for easy credits have seriously damaged science education. A loss of knowledgeable personnel in the most important fields of science and technology greatly increase the likelihood of human error.

A century ago, instead of careful analysis of the systematic errors in the Michelson-Morley experiments, scientists chose a temporary solution to explain its results. Because many prominent physicists, including Michelson himself, have opposed this temporary solution, there was an effort to politicize this scientific issue. This politicizing resulted in the development of gravitational theory, in which material bodies do not attract each other, as well as the postulate of constancy of light velocity, that led to a difficulty with the mathematical formulation of modern electrodynamics. Since any one algebraic formula equally applies to any numbers, anisotropic values of light or sound velocity are used in Einstein’s original manuscript and in all applications of the Lorentz transformation. Legislators should consider this when they blindly rely on the words of experts with vast interest in the status quo.

This temporary-solution approach has been a persistent trend for many years and the evidence shows that a change in research and education funding must take place for an effective solution to be implemented. In this context, I have been conducting my own research in the field of nuclear technology for over 30 years, and through my work I have developed a process to safely convert the most hazardous waste products of industrial society (carbon dioxide, plutonium and depleted uranium) into emission-free, high energy density fuel (88,200,000 MJ/kg vs. oil’s 42 MJ/kg).

The proposed design (patent pending) could be introduced in the near-term future without requiring significant modifications to the reactor systems. It could be done in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as I discussed previously with some MIT professors at the 2008 MIT Energy Showcase. I would like you to consider the possibility of modest funding ($70,000, 1 year) of a project at MIT as the pilot program for the ARPA-E.

Anatoly Blanovsky

Tel: 323-650-7739, e-mail: ablanovsky@yahoo.com, URL: www.wetc.us

Focus I: Energy Decision Making

Jason — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:11:52 EDT

This blog post written by Charles Barton from http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/ is being reposted with permission. This is an excellent summary of what is at stake for our country and makes the point that the market cannot be expected to reign free and deliver a strategic solution to our energy problems. For further reading please go to http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/

Focus I: Energy Decision Making

During the next few years our society faces basic choices on its energy future. The decisions have been long deferred. The decision making process should be finished by the end of the next administration, and implementation should be underway. The decision making process should be public, and should bring the best minds in the country to the table to share in the decision making process.

The decision making process should begin by identifying potentially valuable candidate technologies for resolution of components of the energy crisis. These technologies would include solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal and other technologies for electrical generation; electrical and liquid fuels for transportation; solar, nuclear and other sources of process heat for Industry; and solar and electrical technologies for heating and cooling, in some cases the decision might not involve exclusive use of one technology. Air transportation would be impossible without liquid fuel, and without a carbon neutral liquid fuel technology we will simply loose the ability to achieve transportation through the air.

The decisions related to electricity generation will be perhaps the most important, because potentially up to 80% of the energy in a post carbon society will be transmitted through electrical lines. Decisions cannot be left to the market. The market, while providing efficient mechanisms to determine price, and product choice, is poorly equipped to make strategic choices for the future. Decision makers have to basically anticipate future markets. That involves informed guesses, something the market regards as speculation. Markets like to gamble only if there is a great deal of money potentially to be made on bets. There is far too much at risk, and too much uncertainty about the energy future at the moment for most investors to feel comfortable about the risks involved in future energy investments. In the case of solar and wind generated electricity, this has led to the demand for government subsidies, both for the construction of generating facilities, and in tax linked support of revenue produced from energy generation.

The stake in the decision making process is such that wrong decisions could easily lead to the misspending of tens, or hundreds of billions of dollars and perhaps even trillions of dollars of tax payer, rate payer, and investor money, without the production of a satisfactory electrical system. Impossible you say? Well just pay careful attention to where the decision making process is today. If the decision making process is not improved; it will lead to very unsatisfactory outcome.

We cannot hope to reach a proper decision without a judicious determination of facts, and there are at present a lot of enemies of facts in the environment. Enemies of facts include people who are selling flawed ideas and flawed products. Fact finding needs to be turned over to people who are skilled in determining facts, and this would certainly include Nobel Prize winning scientists. Others who are somehow representative of the general public need to included among the fact finders, and the fact finding process needs to be open to the public. The fact finders need a first rate staff, and the ability to commission research.

The fact finders need to be aided by skilled politicians who have ascended to the rank of statesmen. My father observed one such politician while attending a hearing of Project Independence in 1974. "I was most impressed," my father wrote. "He is young, intelligent, and highly articulate." Such a figure, if he were still around 34 years later, might well prove a valuable asset to the fact finders, perhaps as chairman of a fact finding commission. And if the politician, by now an elder statesman, were to hold high political office, so much the better. The name of the young politician who so impressed my father was Joseph Biden.

Any group of fact finders would need to carefully separate fact from hype before reaching its decision. As I have demonstrated on Nuclear Green there is a lot of hype in our current discussion of energy options. In fact the hype to information ratio in any discussion of renewable electrical sources is astonishingly high.

During a discussion with wind advocate on The Oil Drum Wind advocate "Jerome a Paris "acknowledged that a basic assumption of wind advocates was an electrical grid to which a very large number of fossil fuel burning electrical generators were attached, which would pick up the slack when the wind does not blow. In this view the function of wind is to partially and temporarily defer fossil fuel burning rather than replace it.

It might be added that solar power also partially defers rather than replaces fossil fuel use. Nuclear reactors can replace fossil fuel burning facilities.

Thus the choice between nuclear power and renewables is a choice between an approach designed to stop emitting CO2 in the generation of electricity, or to decrease the burning of carbon based fuels. This is a choice of fundamental importance and should be the focus of an important decision about energy.

Atmospheric scientist James Hanson argues that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries. Hanson argues, "The only realistic way to sharply curtail CO2 emissions is to phase out coal use . . ." While the use of wind and solar defers the burning of some coal, renewables by themselves would never be able to replace the burning of coal.

Hanson envisions coal fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration, but the EREOI of CC&S is very unfavorable, with somewhere between half and three-fourths of the energy produced by burning coal being going into CC&S. Thus electricity from CC&S plants will be very expensive. In addition we appear to be facing the almost immediate prospect of peak oil, with a significant decline in oil production looming in the near future. Energy currently derived from oil, including energy used in transportation, must be replaced by energy from other sources. Among the proposals is the use of fuels derived from biological sources, but this proposal like coal CC&S has a low EROEI. Other liquid fuel options include hydrogen production, and the production of methanol from atmospheric CO2. The later two options would require massive amounts of process heat from non-carbon sources. There is one further option, to power land based transportation with electricity. This is technologically possible, but still leaves an energy gap for water born shipping and air transportation. Switching the land transportation system to electrical energy will increase the demand for reliable carbon free electrical production.

Efficiency Hoover Style: There is a wide spread belief in American society that energy efficiency will make up for short falls in carbon free generating capacity, but far to much is expected of electrical efficiency. The belief in efficiency as an economic solution is an old one in the United States, and is called Hooverizing after the 31st president of the United States, who was a great proponent of efficiency and enemy of waste. (World War I propaganda posters from the Herbert Hoover lead Food Administration contained slogans like, "Feed a Fighter: Eat only what you need. Waste nothing that he and his family may have enough.") First achieving high levels of energy use savings through Hooverizing electricity would require very large capitol investments. Secondly some energy uses may be relatively impervious to the Hooverizing approach. If effective post carbon energy sources are available at reasonable prices, then it may be more cost effective to invest in them rather than higher priced efficiency measures.

We need to know a great deal more about the impact of efficiency before we will know how much impact greater efficiency will have on the energy situation, but given the possibility of electrifying land transportation it is not a safe bet that Hooverizing will lower our demand for electricity.

Such is the American faith in Hooverization, that it will take us some time and considerable discussion before we realize that efficiency will not by itself replace coal. Once attention is fixed on our problems, it will then take us some time as a country, before we clearly focus on our energy options, and begin the process of making choices.

Personal Note: I am American enough to admire efficiency; I just cannot accept blind faith in it as a remedy for our energy problems.

Natural Radiation

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:28:20 EDT

NEW PAPYRUS

The online magazine of science, technology, socioeconomics, and politics

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

Monday, October 20, 2008

Natural Radiation

by Marcel F. Williams

Humans exist on a planet and within a universe that is naturally radioactive. In fact, humans and all other plant and animal species that live and breed on Earth are also inherently radioactive.

Since the birth of the cosmos, the earth has been subjected to an endless hailstorm of cosmic radiation. These potentially deleterious ionizing particles consist of highly accelerated protons, electrons, and neutrons originating mostly from other stars in our galaxy.

Our planet of evolutionary origin is also radioactive due to naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth's crust such as: potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, and rubidinum-87, and radium-226. In fact, the radioactive decay from uranium, thorium, and potassium may be responsible for 45 to 90% of the earth's internal heat source which is the source of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain building, hot springs, and continental drift.

On average, humans receive 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of cosmic radiation. People also receive about 0.5 mSv (50 millirems) of terrestrial radiation. We also inhale about 1.2 mSV (120 millirems) of radiation from radon gas annually.

The human species is also internally radioactive due to the potassium in our bones which exposes our tissues to 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of ionizing radiation. So being in constant proximity to other human beings increases one's exposure to ionizing radiation.

So if you lived with at least one other person in your house, you would receive 0.4 (40 millirems). That's more than ten times as much radiation as you would receive by living near a nuclear facility. If you lived in California and moved to Colorado, you would receive 45 times as much ionizing radiation as you would living next to a nuclear power facility.

Ionizing Radiation Levels (annual):

0.39 (mSv) Annual human internal radiation due to radioactive potassium

0.35 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Louisiana

1.20 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Colorado

0.30 mSv Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of Texas

1.15 mSV Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of South Dakota

0.07 mSv Annual radiation exposure to while living in a stone, brick, or concrete building

0.03 mSv Annual radiation exposure while living near the gate of a nuclear power plant

0.01 Annual USA dose from nuclear fuel and nuclear power plants

1.15 mSv Annual radiation exposure while working at a nuclear power plant

2.0 mSv Annual human internal radiation due to radon

1.0 mSv Annual Limit of dose from all DOE facilities to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker

5.0 mSv Annual USA NRC limit for visitors

Ionizing Radiation Levels (acute):

0.o5 mSV One round-trip to Paris-New York

0.46 mSv off-site exposure to the Three Mile Island core meltdown accident

2.2 mSv Average dose from upper gastrointestinal diagnostic X-ray series

50 mSv Lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults

100 mSv USA EPA acute dose level estimated to increase cancer risk 0.8%

500-1000 mSv Low-level radiation sickness due to short-term exposure

Persons working at a nuclear facility are normally exposed to 1.15 mSv (115 millirems) annually. This would be the equivalent of living in the state of Ohio where Americans there are exposed to an equivalent amount of cosmic and terrestrial radiation and below that of states like Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where one receives a lot more background radiation.

If you lived near the gate of a nuclear reactor and never left the house, you would be exposed to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation annually from that nuclear facility. However, you would receive 0.07 mSv (7 millirems) of radiation if you were living in a stone, brick, or concrete building. So you would receive more radiation from your house than from living near the gate of a nuclear facility.

But what about a nuclear meltdown?

Thanks to the fact that US reactors are housed in huge protective containment structures, the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island exposed nearby residents to only 0.46 mSv of acute radiation. That's nearly five times lower than receiving a gastrointestinal medical X-Ray and more than 100 times below the level of cancer causing radiation. But the new generation of nuclear reactors such as the AP1000 and GE's ESBWR have core damage frequencies at least 100 to 1000 times lower than current reactors such as the LWR at Three Mile Island. But, again, even if a meltdown did occur, the public would be protected by the containment structures which are also designed to withstand an impact from a jet plane.

Americans are exposed to natural radiation from cosmic and terrestrial radiation ranging from as low as 0.75 mSv (75 millirems) to as high as 2.25 mSv (225 millirems). And Americans are exposed to an additional 2.0 mSv (200 millirems) of radon gas on average. Yet living near the gate of nuclear power facility would only expose them to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation. And even consistent contact with a family member would expose you to another 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of radiation annually. So the idea that a dramatic increase in nuclear power would expose humans to a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation is clearly not supported by the scientific evidence.

References and Links

1. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

2. Ionizing radiation (Wikipedia)

3. Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor

4. Martin D. Ecker, and Norton J. Bramesco (1981) Radiation: All you need t know about to stop worrying...or to start, Vintage Books, New York

5. Radiation and Life
Posted by Marcel F. Williams at 12:53 AM 0 comments:

T. Boone Pickens should be considered for Secretary of Energy

Scott F. — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:48:29 EDT

I believe that Barack should seriously consider T. Boone Pickens for energy secretary.

He is a believer in energy independence. There can be no doubt. He has invested BILLIONS OF HIS OWN DOLLARS in the technology necessary to implement his plan.
- For those who don't know, his plan (Pickens Plan) is to use wind and so forth to generate electricity, so that the domestic natural gas currently used to make electricity, can be used to power cars instead of oil (gasoline & diesel).
- He is spending tens of millions just to promote the idea.
- Yes, he might make some money in the process, but:
  - He could probably make more in oil -- especially these days
  - There is nothing wrong with making money on something you believe in. Don't we all want a job that we love?
  - If he were to accept the position, which I believe would force him to divest and put his money in a blind tust, it would be a great demonstration of his committment to the country, and put any quesion of motive to rest.
As an old "oilman", I believe that he would be able to interact well with potential opponents to the plan.
- This would include the oil industry in particular (that I think could be wooed as potential allys in geothermal power by paying them to help with drilling technology)
- Also he speaks to the whole non "green" crowd, by talking about the issue from the economic and strategic perspective.
He understands that not everbody is going to join in the push willingly. In one interview (Jay Lenno I think), when discussing the first step in his plan, which is to start making all vehicles natural gas powered, the interviewer basically said "Come on now, you and I have both been around for a while. You know the auto companies scream any time anyone even suggests that they make a minor change." Mr. Picken's response was essentially, "I know. It's going to be a 'cram down', no doubt. But we're not going to ask them. We're going to tell them."
This is just my impression, but I don't believe he would tolerate the initiative degenerating into a jobs program -- which is something I fear that it could do. I think if he felt that it wasn't yielding results as measured by energy independence, he'd step down and let us know what was going on.

Followup Comment on The Party of Debt and Deficit

Sahil — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:39:57 EDT

Thanks for your comments. I would like to say the following in response:

The figures are for annual deficits not for federal debt which everybody knows is $10 trillion now. That figure effects the US credit rating and the currency. The federal debt has been growing almost all the time over the past forty years. The years it has shrank, it has shrank by very little i.e.

1970: $2 billion,

1974: $2,

1975: $4,

1999: $2,

2000: $105,

2001: $102 billion

The deficit each year adds to the federal debt. Even if you balance the budget the federal debt still remains at the same level. The only way to reduce the debt is to have budget surplus.

I still tend to think that the Obama campaign may have missed the clarity of these figures. It is at least better to talk about than defending against remarks about Joe the plumber.

If at this point the Obama campaign needs to introduce a new talking point it should be something like this because of the economy and it will also help other democrats running for the Congress.

Is there a way to make sure that the Obama campaign knows about the apparent clarity of these figures? Please.

News from the Future: Obama Administration Unveils Rebuild America Act

Bryan K. Long — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:10:20 EDT

While browsing around in my crystal ball, I came across the following news article from early next year. Very intriguing!

Conservation as a national initiative, not just a virtue

Scott F. — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:31:22 EDT

As a nation we should be talking about conserving energy as actively as we talk about developing new technology to improve our energy situation? It is something we can start immediately; is the cheapest way to reduce our energy imports and our greenhouse gas emissions; and a focus on conservation could help to carry the housing industry through the current period of slow housing starts.

I haven't yet figured the best way to push implementation, so I may discuss that in another post. In addition to the usual discussions (energy star rated appliances, etc) I think there are some other ideas that haven't gotten the credit they deserve, that need to be included in our technical approaches to conservation:

Strong emphasis for doing things the right way during new construction and overhaul. It is so much cheaper to do things right as you build, than to tear stuff apart to build it back better.
A scientific basis for evaluating what to implement. I think the metric should be pay-back time, and there should be a minimum threshold established, and all projects paying back within that time implemented.
- The estimation of pay-back time should include local weather, and site conditions. I don't think it would be hard to write a software application to generate a package of conservation technologies to use for a given situation. I envision it using things like a longitude/lattitude/altitude coordinate (easily obtained from GPS or online maps), soil depth, presence of shade (adjacent trees or taller structures), house dimensions, window types, existing insulation, existing HVAC type, existing lighting, major electrical load types.
I tend to think we need government involvement of some sort to avoid massive fraud. I think the entity generating the list of items to be implemented, should be different than the one doing the work. I'm not sure whether a government agency should generate the list. If not, I think the entity generating the list needs to be licensed, and random spot checks performed. I'd say the same for the contractors doing the work. (There are too many cases of seniors and other overly trusting people getting "taken" by unscrupulous contractors.)

In addition to the well publicized recommendations (energy star rated appliances, etc) I think there are some other ideas that don't get the credit they deserve, that need to be included. Technologies/ideas that jump out to me as needing to be heavily utilized.

Ground-source heat pumps, where soil conditions permit
- They're very efficient. According to the EPA, geothermal heat pumps can save homeowners 30 to 70 percent on heating and 20 to 50 percent on cooling costs over conventional systems.
- Being electrically driven, they offer the greatest flexibility in terms of utilizing future renewable and domestic energy sources that are brought on line
"Whole house fans", where weather makes going without an air-conditioner viable (these large fans allow the whole house's air to be exchanged rapidly in the evening, as soon as peak outside air temperatures pass)
Good windows: Low emmissivity, multi-pane, inert-gas filled, etc. Windows matched to the geographic location in terms of glass type, number of panes, etc.
- Current window ratings are biased for their ability to keep solar heat OUT, but that is not what is needed everywhere. For those cases where most energy goes to cooling, the "soft-coat" low-E glass that has become overwhelmingly used in the U.S., is great. For places that expend most of their energy on heating, however, blocking the sun is blocking free heat. For these places, the original "hard-coat" low-E glass is actually more energy efficient. Note, it is still low-E, in that it blocks the frequencies of radiation (radiated heat) associated with the warm interior of the house, but just not so much of the solar radiation.
Better insulation than standard 2x4 walls with lots of insulation in the attic
- Go thicker, use preengineered panels, etc.
- Use radiant barriers where cooling is important (preengineered, foil coated panes; radiant paint such as InsulAdd's additive)

Rate vehicle's fuel efficiency in terms of "Gallons per 10,000 miles", instead of "miles per gallon". Not magic but helps people to more easily make good purchase decisions. Picture a truck improving from 12 to 16 mpg, or a car from 30 to 50 mpg. Which saves more if driven 15,000 miles per year? At first glance you'd think the car, right, but the truck saves 312 gal, while the car only 200 gal! If we rated vehicles this way maybe we wouldn't have a bunch of people making fun of the hybrid Tahoe -- they'd realize that those are the EXACT vehicles we want to hybridize. (Of course it would be even better to drive a smaller vehicle, but there are people with large families, or who haul a whole neighborhood of kids around regularly.)

Drilling Offshore and Nuclear Energy taken with a grain of Salt!

Kyle — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:45:28 EDT

To My Fellow American,

We environmentalist have been fighting long and hard the last eight years to make sure that our environment, the environment we will pass down to our children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren is still a good and healthy environment with nature given a chance to flourish and man right with nature because we are a part of nature.We environmentalist and conservationists are not anti business or industry. We need to work, and we also like to have our cars and other things that businesses and industries make and sell just like anyone else, but we have to sometime just slow down and stop and think, do we need to pollute that river or kill those animals or worsen global warming to help business. There are ways that we can help business and not harm our environment.

John McCain, it seemed like the last few years has seemed to change his attitue concerning the environment. Before 2000, McCain was a very traditional Conservative Republican Senator from Arizona. After losing in two thousand to Bush, he seemed to pull a different attitude especially towards the environment. He and Sen. Lieberman wrote a bill to help combat global warming. Although it was a weak bill it still was a bill to get things started. Lateley he seems to be going back to his old ways. The League of Conservation Voters lifetime score for John McCain is a low 24%. The best score he has recieved from that organiations was from the early 2000"s of 53%, which is not a great score either. McCain's stance on off shore drilling certainly doesn't say that he is a strong environmental advocate. McCain'sstance on nuclear energy is a little worrismoe too. Nuclear does not add any pollution to global warming there is always the concerns of a meltdown is always justified. If you asked anyone at the Department of Energy what are the chances of a meltdown, they might answer not as high as it was in the seventies with three mile island but it certainly isn't zero either. Plus the question of what we do with the spent fuel afterwards id a question that the answer is still being sought out. McCains is against the spent fuel rods from going through Arizona on its way to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. What does that tell you? I have my doubts about Nuclear. I am not against it, I just have my reservation about it.

Several months ago, John McCain, after recieving a big endorsement check from the oil companies, is when John McCain seemed to change his stance on the subject of drilling off shore 180 degrees.Therefore, I am taking everything that McCain says, especially on the subject of the environment, with a grain of salt.

The Cost of Non-Carbon Dioxide Polluting Technologies

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:26:24 EDT

by Marcel F. Williams

Today America and the world finds itself at the dawn of an energy, economic, and environmental crisis.

Carbon dioxide and methane gas pollution from the fossil fuel economy is causing the melting of the polar ice caps and a gradual rise in sea levels that could threaten our coastlines and, in some cases, threaten the existence of entire nations. More violent and extreme weather patterns are also believed to be caused by increasing global temperatures.

The importation of foreign oil is causing the US to send more than $700 billion annually to foreign nations. That's $700 billion dollars a year that is going to other nations instead of being invested right here in the USA. The oil imports do not include the $60 billion a year that the US military spends on protecting the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, essentially a $60 billion a year subsidy to the international oil industry by the US tax payers.

Increasing population and economic growth could also cause an electricity shortage in the US and in many other nations in the near future.

So what do we do?

Energy re-industrialization through nuclear and renewable energy technologies would appear to be the most logical solution to the problems of our energy, the environment, and our economy. Energy re-industrialization through through non-carbon dioxide polluting technologies could not only solve our future energy and environmental problems but could also create tens of millions of jobs in practically every region and community in America.

Cheap base load energy is essential for a growing economy while affordable peak load energy helps to supplement base load capacity during periods of high energy demand. Cheap hydrogen through water electrolysis also requires low priced base load electricity. Hydrogen is an essential ingredient for the production of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, and methanol.

While the shift towards electric vehicles and plug-in-hybrid electric automobiles could help the US wean itself off of foreign oil, it will also increase the demand for non-carbon dioxide polluting electricity in order to avoid increasing greenhouse pollution from electric power generating resources.

In our current fossil fuel dominated economy:

coal cost 2.4 cents per kwh

natural gas cost 6.8 cents per kwh

oil cost 9.6 cents per kwh

Amongst non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies:

hydroelectric cost 0.85 cents per kWh

nuclear cost 1.68 cents per kWh

garbage incineration (non-subsidized) cost 4.0 cents per kWh

wind (non-subsidized) cost 4.35 to 6.56 cents per kWh

solar thermal (Sunny climate) cost 6 cents per kWh

home photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 37.78 cents per kWh

home photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 83.13 cents per kWh

commercial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 27.49 cents per kWh

commercial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 60.47 cents per kWh

industrial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 21.41 cents per kWh

industrial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 47.11 cents per kWh

With hydroelectric sources in the US already fully exploited, only nuclear power has the capacity to replace coal as our primary source for base load electricity in the future. While new nuclear power facilities are likely to generate electricity at a higher price than current nuclear reactors, this may be somewhat mitigated by the continued reduction in the cost of electricity from current nuclear facilities as more of these existing sites reach the point where they've paid off their amortized capital cost, leaving only the cost of labor and fuel. However, the building of large clusters of new nuclear power plants in centralized nuclear parks could dramatically reduce capital, labor, security, and fuel transportation cost in the future.

Although significantly higher priced than nuclear, the incineration of urban biowaste could add additional base load capacity in practically every community in America. The off-peak production of methanol via base load water electrolysis synthesized with carbon dioxide flue gas from biowaste incinerators could produce methanol and oxygen to power peak load power plants. Methanol can even be used by current natural gas electric power plants with cheap modifications. The fluctuating load capacity of wind and solar thermal could also be backed up by synthetic methanol.

Eventually, the emerging aerocarbon extraction devices could utilize base load electricity to produce all of our hydrocarbon transportation, industrial chemical, and peak-load fuels once these devices become fully commercialized.

However, the extremely high cost of photovoltaic technologies would appear to regulate these technologies to only marginal aspects of our energy economy in the near future. While solar enthusiast and the wealthy may continue to place these extremely expensive devices on their rooftops, the best place for solar photovoltaics will probably be in remote communities that have very little access to alternative sources of electricity.

References and Links

1. FACTS ABOUT HYDROPOWER

2. Solar Photovoltaic Electricity Price Index
October 2008 Survey Results

3. 6 Cents Per kWh: World's Largest Solar Project Unveiled

4. Cost of Wind: American wind energy association

5. ELECTRICITY AND HEAT FROM BIOMASS

6. The Value of the Benefits of U.S. Biomass Power

7. Municipal Waste Combustion

8. U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Set Record Highs
For Electricity Production, Efficiency in 2007

9. Nuclear Power:Economic Alternative for Baseload Electricity

10. Industry Leader Cites Value of Nuclear Power Plants to California’s Mix of Energy Sources

The Party of debt and deficit

Sahil — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:14:58 EDT

I download the following federal budget data from the Congressional Budget Office. It clearly shows that for the last forty years the Republicans have been the party of huge federal deficits. During both the Carter era (1977 – 1980) and the Clinton era (1993 – 2000) the deficit shrank and during the Reagan era (1981 – 1988) and the Bush II era (2001 – 2008) the deficit broke all previous records.

All figures in Billions of dollars. The 2008 Budget deficit is a record $455 billion.

1968 -31

1969 -3

1970 2

1971 -10

1972 -21

1973 -20

1974 2

1975 4

1976 -35

1977 -21

1978 -32

1979 -14

1980 -9

1981 -17

1982 -43

1983 -112

1984 -143

1985 -179

1986 -211

1987 -157

1988 -126

1989 -117

1990 -120

1991 -150

1992 -186

1993 -192

1994 -144

1995 -146

1996 -93

1997 -81

1998 -38

1999 2

2000 105

2001 102

2002 -131

2003 -288

2004 -294

2005 -239

2006 -229

2007 -152

2008 -455

I think, given all the attacks democrats get for taxing people, democrats should highlight the deficits the Republicans have created for us and the debt they are leaving for our children. The Republicans have been a party of debt and deficit for the last forty years. They have shown fiscal indiscipline of the worst kind.

There must be a reason as to why the Obama campaign is not highlighting this in ads and campaigns. Any guess any body, please.

Long term fix for the financial crisis

Sahil — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:36:10 EDT

Dear Senator Obama:

Now that the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has shown some understanding of the financial problem, it is time for us to see it as well. As I had strongly advocated in my two previous blogs (Sahil's blog) that helping the banking system directly was the right thing to do. Main Street deals with the banks and banks are the institutions we regulate and have responsibility for. FDIC insures deposits in these banks.

Now that we seem to be focusing on the banks and will probably get the short term fix; we need to look at the long term fix for our economy.

I have sent many letters to you and to Dr. Jason Furman and would really wish that you look at my proposal once. We are in problem of very unusual kind, one that happens once in hundreds of years, and it needs a very radical solution.

In my proposed solution I have done away with interest and income tax and changed the powers of money itself. My solution is the only one so far available that will solve the problem for good.

Please take a look at it; you will need it down the line when it becomes clear that solutions proposed by the experts are not working. This is the time when the experts change.

Sincerely,

Syed G.Q. Sahil

Evaluating Energy Technology in the 21st Century

Herbie Robinson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:12:30 EDT

Back in the 1950s, we only thouht about one thing when we designed a technological marvel. How it worked and how much it cost to build. We didn't consider:

1. Safety of the General Public.

2. Safety of the Operators.

3. The Envronmental.

4. Cost of Disposal.

In the past 50 years, we have learned a lot of hard lessons:

1. We really don't want to kill and maim our friends and neighbors.

2. If we poison the evironment, we eventually poison ourselves and our children.

3. We have to pay for getting rid of things, now: Burying it doesn't work any more.

So when we evaluate a power technology, we must consider the costs and evironmental impact of the entire life cycle, not just building the power generation technology. This includes both the life cycle of the generation technolocy and the fuel it consumes (if any). This includes all the operating costs, including insurance.

It also goes to say that when evaluating any technology, that any government subsidies for that technology are part of the cost (even if the person or organization building the power facility doesn't bear the costs).

Herbie Robinson, BSEE, Cornell, 1974.

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:26:51 EDT

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Nuclear Mutagenesis. Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4397307903287515932

Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Excessive Cost: "When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!

"These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio. (courtesy of rmi.org)

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program has said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."

Here is the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.

Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.

The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No.

1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: "Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. The power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change." Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines."

2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document "that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants." Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer.

3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal."

4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."

Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

Fueling our Nuclear Future

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:13:28 EDT

by Marcel F. Williams

One frequent argument against the expansion of commercial nuclear power is the the claim that our planet is simply running out of the nuclear material to power the world's nuclear reactors. So any future expansion of the commercial nuclear power industry would simply be out of the question.

Uranium ore

Nuclear power produces approximately 20% of the electricity in the US and represents approximately 6% of the world's energy consumption. Uranium currently sells at below $35 per kilogram on the world market. But it is estimated that there are approximately 5.5 million tonnes of proven uranium reserves at a cost below $130 per kilogram. With the resurgence of nuclear power, however, it is estimated that the exploration for new uranium sources would increase total reserves to more than 16 million tonnes. The current world demand for uranium is 65,000 tonnes per year. So there should be enough uranium to supply current global nuclear power facilities for 246 years.

Countries with the most abundant uranium supplies

But if nuclear power were required to supply the world's total energy needs, 1.1 million tonnes of uranium would be required annually. So these terrestrial uranium reserves could only power our planet for less than 15 years. And even reprocessing spent fuel would only extend the nuclear fuel supplies to no more than 20 years.

However, there are alternatives to terrestrial uranium.

The world's oceans contain more than 4 billion tonnes of uranium in seawater. That's enough to power our entire planet for more than 3600 years or over 5000 years if spent fuel is also utilized. Japanese uranium from seawater demonstration projects estimate that marine uranium could be extracted at a cost of $135 to $250 per kilogram. Current world uranium prices are less than $35 per kilogram but expected to rise as uranium demand rises as new power plants are built around the world. But since uranium fuel only represents about 5% of the total cost of the energy produce by a fission power plant, that would only increase the total cost of energy via nuclear power by 14 to 31 percent which would still make the cost of nuclear electricity significantly lower than coal and natural gas. New laser uranium enrichment techniques, however, could dramatically lower total fuel cost which could, in theory, wipe out the increase in cost of using seawater uranium since enrichment represents 30% of the cost of nuclear fuel.

Yellow cake extracted from seawater

So even if our future global society used three times as much energy as we use today, marine uranium and spent fuel could provide more than 1600 years of energy. Of course the contribution of renewable energy systems (hydroelectric, wind, solar, and biomass) could stretch uranium supplies even longer.

But even without marine uranium, breeder technologies could power our global society at three times the current level for 700 years using terrestrial uranium. Nuclear breeding technologies such as fast neutron reactors or ADS accelerator reactors could increase fuel supplies by a factor of 140 since fissile uranium 235 only represents about 0.7% of natural uranium. In light water reactors (LWR), approximately 70% of the uranium 235 is converted into energy while another third comes from the conversion of plutonium into energy which is created as a by product of the neutron irradiation of uranium 238. Breeder technologies could give the world a 500,000 year supply of nuclear power or a 166,000 year supply at three times current energy use levels. However, the oceans are constantly being replenished with uranium from the worlds oceans, depositing over 32,000 tonnes of uranium annually. Since breeder technologies would only require less than 24,000 tonnes of uranium annually, marine uranium could power our entire society at three times the current level essentially-- forever!

Thorium is another alternative to terrestrial uranium. There is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is terrestrial uranium 238. Neutron bombardment within a reactor can convert fertile thorium 332 into fissile uranium 233. And there is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is uranium 238. So terrestrial nuclear fuel sources could power our global society at three times the current level for approximately 2800 years.

A CANDU heavy water reactor could have an 80% conversion rate if it utilized fissile uranium or plutonium inside of a thorium blanket. A modified CANDU heavy water reactor that uses thorium fuel enriched with fissile uranium 235, plutonium 239, or uranium 233 can produce as much fissile fuel as it utilizes. An ADS accelerator reactor could also breed uranium 233 from thorium. For every kilogram of plutonium burned in a thorium breeder, approximately 2.73 kilograms of uranium 233 could be produced, more than 8o% of a reactors total fissile fuel requirements. Combined with the 30% of reprocessed uranium 235 from spent fuel, an ADS could supply all of a reactors fuel needs through uranium 238 and thorium 232. However, it might by easier and cheaper just to gradually replace third generation reactors with thorium and uranium burning ADS reactors.

Japanese companies currently lead the world in uranium extraction from sea water technology. But, in my opinion, the next US administration should set the goal for the commercial extraction of uranium from sea water within 10 years time. The US should also set the goal of having a functioning full scale ADS accelerator thorium breeder online within a decade with the goal of having commercial ADS reactors online within 20 years time. The same goal should be set by the Canadian government for the CANDU thorium breeder reactor.

Such policies should insure a smooth transition from our current terrestrial uranium, third generation, nuclear economy to a more diverse nuclear economy that includes current reactor technology, fast neutron reactors and ADS breeder reactors along with a more diverse fuel supply that includes terrestrial uranium, uranium from seawater, and thorium.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/10/fueling-our-nuclear-future.html

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com

Stronger energy plan in the debate

CCVirginia — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:52:44 EDT

I thought McCain scored on one point - energy, by having a clear position on utilizing nuclear McCain seemed more on top of it and Obama was defensive. While Obama has supported nuclear energy, it is tenuous. I suggest the “if it can be worked out” perspective be replaced with a stronger message - “we will make it work – safely and economically” with specifics of doubling our nuclear energy capacity in 10-15 years. This, combined with carbon-free renewable and the strong energy conservation plan will be a winner.

What would we rather have – more coal plants or carbon-free nuclear plants based on modern safety designs and factory production to keep down costs? Those are our real options.

Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008

Jason — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:06:33 EDT

Senators Hatch and Reid have introduced the "Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008". Thorium will provide a proliferation proof nuclear technology and dramatically reduced waste products. It is very important to have this bill pass so a new energy alternative can be developed. For more information, see http://www.thoriumpower.com/

Here is the text of the bill:

A BILL
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that—
(1) the United States and foreign countries will require massive and increasing quantities of energy during the 20-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act to support economic growth;

(2) nuclear power provides energy without generating unacceptable quantities of greenhouse gasses;

(3) the generation of nuclear power in the United States and many foreign countries has been discouraged by concerns regarding—(A) the proliferation of weapons-useable material; and (B) the proper disposal of spent nuclear fuel;

(4) nuclear power plants operating on an advanced thorium fuel cycle to generate nuclear energy—(A) could potentially produce fewer weapons-useable materials than uranium-fueled plants; and (B) would produce less long-term waste as compared to other nuclear power plants;

(5)(A) thorium is more abundant than uranium; and (B) the United States possesses significant domestic quantities of thorium to ensure energy independence;

(6)(A) thorium fuel cycle technology was originally developed in the United States; and (B) cutting-edge research relating to thorium fuel cycle technology continues to be carried out by entities in the United States; and

(7) it is in the national security and foreign policy interest of the United States that foreign countries seeking to establish or expand generation and use of nuclear power should be provided—(A) access to advanced thorium fuel cycle technology; and (B) incentives to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

The US Economic dilemma and the bailout

Sahil — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:20:08 EDT

The $700 billion bailout package proposed by the President and not passed by the Congress highlights the economic dilemma being currently faced by the US. It is somewhat similar to that faced by Japan in the 1990s.

The US government wants the house prices to stabilize and the financial system to keep working. Houses are still over priced by almost any standard and it is unlikely that we will have much interest in buying houses unless house prices take another significant dip. But allowing house prices to fall further may accelerate the rate of delinquencies and foreclosures and as a result may cause many of our financial institutions to fail and the financial system to slow down to a dangerous level or grind to a halt.

The economic dilemma is that if we allow house prices to fall to its natural levels a major part of our financial system will fail but if we prop up house prices, higher house prices will stand in the way of economic recovery.

Faced with this dilemma the administration sided with Financial Institutions and Wall Street players. Wall Street is so well entrenched in Washington that it managed to get the administration come to its rescue. Wall Street’s money and power reach every center of power in Washington. By the way I would like to mention that both Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson came from Goldman Sachs.

They sent a bill to the Congress when the Congress was about to go on a recess to campaign for the November elections, they probably thought the trick that worked so well on “Yes Minister” TV series should work in real life as well. No wonder the bill lacked details, it was barely three pages. I have heard part of the testimony the Treasury Secretary and the Federal reserve Chairman gave to the Congress: All they said was that the alternative was far worse. Does anybody remember anything more?

A solution to this economic dilemma and other related economic problems has been sent to both candidates in a 34 page letter. Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Economic adviser to the McCain Campaign responded with a promise to “give it some thought” and said that he had distributed it within his Policy Team. No response from Obama Campaign.

Good news: Bailout failed

Sahil — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:05:51 EDT

The failed bailout

The failure of this $700 billion bailout makes me proud as an American. I now have much more confidence in the ability of the Congress to do the right thing. Here are my reasons:

1. The Federal Reserve has a trillion dollar war chest for these situations. It has enough tools and ammunition to deal with the problem. It can pump liquidity into the banks that it regulates. These banks deal directly with Main Street and we need to help them directly not through Wall Street. The Federal Reserve has the channels and the means to do so effectively. We need to watch and save our regular banking system.

2. The Hedge Funds, the sovereign wealth funds, the private equity can go ahead and park their money in US treasury for as long as they want. They have no where else to go. Somebody, including the Federal Reserve, will sell those Treasury Securities; the money from those sales should be channeled and is also likely to go to the main street banks. The FDIC could launch a program to insure special Jumbo deposits made to these banks for the time being.

3. There are plenty of banks who may need help down the line and we don’t want to exhaust our ability to help when Main Street really starts to hurt. Any rescue package should be specifically targeted to Main Street and not through Wall Street as has been the case for the last 28 years. Let us focus on saving the banking system that the Federal Reserve regulates.

4. The banks may not be willing to lend to other banks but they are willing to lend to customers. Lending to other banks has become risky and it is easy to see why; one wrong loan to another bank can wreck the lending bank. The Federal Reserve has the knowledge, know how, and the tools to address this problem effectively. Just yesterday I received three offers from my banks for a 0% promotional financing; my business has yet to turn a profit.

5. The housing market needs to go through a correction and that means more losses for the lenders. The correction is essential for recovery. The faster the correction the faster the recovery. The government should not get in the way of market correction by buying those toxic assets. It should focus its efforts to help people to remain in their houses by designing programs that would restructure mortgages. Our money, effort, and focus should be on Main Street directly and not through Wall Street.

6. Most of the $700 billion would have gone to the players on Wall Street, including the Hedge Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, private equity, and investment banks. These players would have again gone to lend aggressively to the housing sector to keep the house prices up. High house prices would weigh down on the economy and we would again be facing new crises a year or two down the line. We may even keep mired in a recession because the housing correction was not allowed to happen. Remember Japan.

7. This bailout was a favor to those who have been reckless and excessively greedy. This bailout would destroy the basic ingredient of free market for ever. It would destroy market discipline and induce unmanageable amount of moral hazard in the economic decision making in the financial markets. In other words it would set the wrong precedent. The meltdown predicted is a hoax. It is mid day Tuesday and I predict not much else is going to happen on Stock Exchange. What happened yesterday is correction. Let us not try to bailout Wall Streets profits.

I hope the Congressmen who showed the courage to go against the wind are rewarded for their courage.

If you want to save the world, read this article

Withfeeling — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:51:32 EDT

The green bubble bursts Amid the energy crisis, Democrats are losing the high ground on the environment to a GOP that is pushing oil drilling.

By Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

September 30, 2008

As the election enters its endgame, Democrats and their environmental allies face a political challenge they could hardly have imagined just a few months ago. America's growing dependence on fossil fuels, once viewed as a Democratic trump card held alongside the Iraq war and the deflating economy, has become a lodestone instead. Republicans stole the energy issue from Democrats by proposing expanded drilling -- particularly lifting bans on offshore oil drilling -- to bring down gasoline prices. Whereas Barack Obama told Americans to properly inflate their tires, Republicans at their convention gleefully chanted "Drill, baby, drill!" Obama's point on conservation and efficiency was lost on an electorate eager for a solution to what they perceive as a supply crisis.

[...]

A better approach is to make clean energy cheap through technology innovation funded directly by the federal government. In contrast to raising energy prices, investing somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion annually in technology R&D, infrastructure and transmission lines to bring power from windy and sunny places to cities is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Instead of embracing this big investment, greens and Democrats push instead for tiny tax credits for renewable energy -- nothing approaching the national commitment that's needed.

With just six weeks before the election, the bursting of the green bubble is a wake-up call for Democrats. Environmental groups, perpetually certain that a new ecological age is about to dawn in America, have serially overestimated their strength and misread public opinion. Democrats must break once and for all from green orthodoxy that focuses primarily on making dirty energy more expensive and instead embrace a strategy to make clean energy cheap.

By continuing to hew to the green agenda, Democrats have not only put in jeopardy their chance of taking back the White House and growing their majority in Congress, they also have set back the prospects of establishing policies that might effectively address the climate and energy crises.

Read the rest here

Also go to

Federal support for non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 04:47:22 EDT

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Federal support for non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies

by Marcel F. Williams

Management Information Services, Inc. of Washington D.C. has recently come out with a report that indicates that most of the US tax subsidies and R&D for the energy industry from 1950 to 2006 has gone to the fossil fuel industry. The oil industry led the way with 335 billion dollars in Federal Energy incentives. The natural gas industry was second with over 100 billion dollars in federal energy incentives. Coal was third with 94 billion dollars. So the greenhouse gas polluting fossil fuel industries have received over 529 billion dollars in Federal energy incentives from 1950 to 2006.

Amongst renewable energy technologies, hydroelectric power has received 80 billion in federal energy incentives, wind and solar has received 45 billion in federal energy incentives, and geothermal has received 7 billion in federal energy incentives. So the amount of federal energy incentives for renewable energy was 132 billion between 1950 and 2006.

Nuclear energy has received 65 billion in federal energy incentives. However, less than 6 billion dollars of federal energy incentives have been provided for light water reactors in the US which are the only nuclear power facilities that produce commercial electricity in the US. The rest has been for R&D for breeder reactors and other reactor types that have never gone on line commercially in the US.

While nuclear energy has received less than half the federal energy incentives of renewable energy systems, it currently produces nearly 20 % of electricity in the US while renewable energy systems produce less than 9% of US electricity. Solar, Wind, and Geothermal energy has been provided with 52 billion in federal energy incentives, yet , combined, they provide only 1.1% of US electricity.

So it is clear that amongst the federal energy incentives for non-carbon dioxide polluting technologies, nuclear power has produced substantially more electrical energy than renewable systems for far less money. And this is especially true when it comes to wind, solar, and geothermal technologies which currently produce nearly 20 times less electricity than nuclear power.

References and Links

1. Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development September 2008By Management Information Services, Inc. Washington, D.C.

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Bezdek_Report.pdf

2. Which Energy Industry Gets the Biggest Subsidies?

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/09/which_energy_in.html

3. Support for nuclear dwarfed by that for fossil fuels A New Papyrus Publication

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-US_government_spending_on_nuclear_dwarfed_by_fossil_fuels-2509085.html

Kunstler, Falling into the Fall

Allen Hussein from Visalia CA — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:03:17 EDT

(Allen Hussein note: posted with the permission and encouragement of James Kunstler whom I ran into at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) conference in Sacramento CA)

www.kunstler.com

Falling Into Fall       So many shoes are poised to drop this week that the American scene might be confused for the world's greatest-ever clog dancing festival, but a closer look will reveal a circle of cavorting skeletons.
     Last week's ripe moment turned out to be the Thursday night Washington photo op when Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chief Bernanke emerged from a huddle with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and just about every other legislative eminentissimo in an attempt to reassure the nation that its financial system had not turned into something like unto a truckload of stinking dead carp. I don't know about you, but I got two distinct vibes from the faces in that particular tableau: 1.) abject fear, and 2.) a total lack of conviction that they knew what they were doing.
      The product of that huddle was a cockamamie scheme for the US treasury to absorb all the losses from a twenty-year binge in which Wall Street created and retailed the most complex set of swindles ever seen on this planet Earth. The background music to the tableau was the whoosh of a several trillion dollars exiting the US financial system never to be seen again.

The myth that John McCain is Green

Withfeeling — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:16:36 EDT

Salon.com
John McCain's hot air
He may claim to be green, but McCain's environmental record is every bit as dirty as that of Sen. James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe.
By Joseph Romm

Sep. 20, 2008 | Few politicians in history have more successfully sold a phony image about caring for the environment than Sen. John McCain. His deceptions and distortions and lies would fill a book.

Understandably, an overwhelming majority of the public strongly believes we need a major push toward alternative energy. So as a presidential candidate, McCain has repeatedly claimed to be a long-standing supporter of clean energy.

...

The facts are clear. All you have to do is look at his voting record. It reveals that McCain has long been one of the strongest opponents of clean energy in Congress, with a record matching that of James Inhofe, the most hardcore global-warming denier in the Senate, who comes from the heart of the oil patch in Oklahoma.

source

Nuclear Power is not a good option.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:56:15 EDT

Nuclear Power is not a good option.

“A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

“That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.

“Yet the more decisively nuclear power is humbled by swifter and cheaper rivals, the more zealously its advocates claim it has to serious competitors. The web of old fictions ingeniously spun by a coordinated and intensive global campaign is spread by a credulous press” and boosted by the new nuclear enthusiasts.

http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf

Global warming from the carbon in coal, all the other air pollution from coal burning, and the destruction of Montana, Wyoming and Appalachia are all a part of a steamroller bearing down on us, one that if we act and act now, we can dodge to a fair degree. But there will soon be a worse steamroller bearing down on us if you and I let it happen. A planet so poisoned with radioactivity that all life will be sickly.

Nuclear Power is a dinosaur. But not just any dinosaur. It is unsafe, and it is too expensive. And during the nuclear cycle, plutonium for nuclear weapons is produced.

Regardless of the steady propaganda recently pumped into the major media outlets by the nuclear power industry, nuclear power’s time is past. Come on over to our side. We currently are staring at 2 steamrollers, and nuclear power apologists would have their steamroller BIGGER??

Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option. The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No. 1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: “Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.” Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines." 2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document “that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants.” Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer. 3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal." 4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."

Here is the NRDC's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.

Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.comgroup, Nuclear Power?, here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

T. Boone Pickens and Energy Policy

Beth — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:53:41 EDT

Wouldn't it be a great boost to the campaign and better policy to focus on T. Boone Picken's plan for natural gas in the short run and wind farms in the long run?

Senator Obama lets down Columbia University

Sahil — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:03:20 EDT

Senator Obama studied at Columbia University. It is his alma mater; he also claimed home advantage there during his interview on September 11, 2008.

When the Columbia University was attacked for not allowing the Military to recruit on campus and for allowing President Ahmedi Nijad of Iran to speak at the university; he took the opportunity to make his position clear on ROTC, which is to allow the military to recruit on the campus, but he did not say a word in defense of Columbia University.

We all including Senator Obama, he also studied at Harvard University, work hard to get into these universities and even try to get our children into these universities but when time comes to stand by the values promoted by these very institutions we are increasingly choosing to look the other way. When negative emotions against our country was at an all time high around the world and when emotions at home were also that of belligerence Columbia took the enormous risk of showing civility and establishing our value of free speech by inviting the President of Iran to speak at the University. It was just providing him an opportunity to speak; there was no danger of the President of Iran converting the students of Columbia into Shiite militants. The President of Columbia went to great length to pacify the hawks of our country by berating the President of Iran even before he spoke.

In my view it was a courageous effort by Columbia. It is the stuff civil societies are made of.

Our nominee Senator Obama failed on these counts:

1. We are supposed to defend our school; we go to great lengths to root for our schools at games etc. Senator Obama didn’t have a single word for Columbia. When you defend your school it has a parallel to defending the country or the institution or the people you have associations with. It shows your loyalty. A word or two for Columbia would have been appreciated even by the Republicans because you would be defending your home ground.

2. Columbia did not do anything outrageous by either of the two acts. It does not allow RTOC because of its opposition to “Don’t ask don’t tell policy.” It was not as if they were taking sides, DADT was signed into law by a Democratic President. Even though I personally disagree with the proportionality of the response by Columbia and others to “Don’t ask don’t tell” I appreciate the courage and the underlying effort to fix a wrong in favor of a minority of Americans. As to inviting the President of Iran I have already discussed the matter above.

Senator Obama is already branded as a liberal. But still people keep asking as to who is “Nominee Obama,” with some justification. If Senator Obama had said a word or two in defense of Columbia that night it would somewhat answer that question. People tend to define you with the associations you keep. Senator Obama has to establish some solid associations. Columbia could be one of those.

It is not a good strategy to fight off associations other people throw at you but to make one yourself. A good offense is the best defense.

If people don’t associate you with Columbia somebody else will have them associate you with Pastors you disassociate. Somebody is associating himself to the military and the Vietnam War some to Caribou hunting, gas pipelines and Alaska. You have to associate yourself to some piece of America that we are all familiar with. South Side of Chicago is not as well known as Columbia. Your association with South side of Chicago may not be as relevant to becoming the President as your association with Columbia and Harvard.

In these days of economic crisis and global turbulence people are more likely to value your association to Harvard and Columbia. Please say something for Columbia and Harvard; it will help define you better.

Its time for the Democrats to start attacking McCain and Palin on Global Warming

Marcel F. Williams — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:23:59 EDT

John McCain claims he wants to fight climate change yet he wants to drill for more off-shore oil which will increase global warming from both carbon dioxide and the methane released from drilling. An now he's chosen a VP nominee in Palin who doesn't even believe in global warming.

McCain and Palin need to be severely attacked in television adds on the issue of global warming and Obama needs to argue that technologies already exist that will allow us to produce carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, and aviation fuel from the urban refuse from our cities, farms, and forest.

Marcel F. Williams

Vote Palin-McCain - Alaska First

Withfeeling — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:38:38 EDT

Vote Palin-McCain - Alaska First

The Obama Campaign needs to talk about Sarah Palin's Republican Alaskan Government as a banana republic, but with Big Oil & Gas instead of bananas. Michael Kinsley calls Alaska an adjunct member of OPEC.

Sarah Palin is the Governor from Big Oil.

High oil prices are GOOD for Alaska. Alaska receives about 75% of the value of a barrel of oil produced in Alaska. Why is this a benefit only for Alaskans, not for all Americans? Americans have no cheaper access to Alaskan Oil than we have to Middle-Eastern Oil.

Alaska is the only state that has no individual income tax or sales tax because the state government is supported by oil revenue.

Despite this fact, the Alaskan Government has been by-far the highest in earmarks and in the overall number of federal tax dollars received for each dollar sent in ($5,434 sent, $13,950 received). Quite a double whammy.

The Alaskan Government is so awash in oil revenue that it sends yearly REBATE checks of $2,000 to each Alaskan citizen (kids too). No wonder Palin's popularity is so high there.

Wouldn't any other U.S. Governor love to be in that position? Don't you wish your state was like that? Does this sound like her "experience" being Governor of Alaska has anything to do with running the U.S. Government?

Why is Obama not going on the Offensive?

Surferboy — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:49:09 EDT

The enemy is the media. The media is allowing McCain/Palin to paint Obama as they wish and the Obama camp is not doing a thing. In fact, they are playing nice and saying good things about McCain. Its time to get dirty Obama. We ask that you go on the offensive right now against the republican party. 1st contrast the Clinton years with the Bush years. Show how we were prosperous during the Clinton years. Then show the disturbing effect of the Bush years. End that ad with "If you want your Son's and Daughters to have a bright future vote Obama" Secondly, expose the entire Republican party as a lie and a fraud. Point out the lies in your ad especially the tax lie. Then end the ad by asking the American people "do you want to place the leadership of our country on the hands of liars?" We need to use harsher words. Its time to stop this meaningless kind-heartedness towards the republicans. They are the enemy. Treat them like they are Putin and the Russians that aim to destroy our country. If we don't turn this around soon we might lose this election.

Ideas for handling Sarah Palin

Withfeeling — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:37:17 EDT

Palin's positions are in many ways closer to the RNC Platform than McCain's. Honestly, though, I don't really know what McCain's positions are. Did you hear Cindy stumble through answers about Row v. Wade? It was clear she didn't know a "party line". If there were one she could have expressed it flawlessly.

The most important issue to pin on Palin is earmarks. It is such a clear contradiction to one of the few clear McCain positions that the Democrats should be having a lot of fun with it.

Secondly, she should be attached to the Republican corruption in Alaska. I would call her "Sen. Stevens Protege". She is little less.

Palin's far-right religious issues should be attributed to the McCain campaign, as in, "Hey, I hear that the McCain campaign no longer believes we are having global warming and wants to protect the right for oil wells to destroy Polar Bears". Or, "It is now the McCain campaign's position that victims of rape must carry the fetus to term".

Let McCain deny them. If the McCain campaign positions are indeed different, let Palin deny them. That would be fun too!

The Most Problematic Nuclear Facility in Europe

!Thomas — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:26:23 EDT

Leaking nuclear waste in a storage facility in Lower Saxony has raised the temperature of the conversation over nuclear power in Germany. Conservatives say nuclear power is safe and clean, but the Left is saying, 'I told you so.' But no one knows what to do about radioactive water leaking from the mine.

Phasing out is possible

!Thomas — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:54:02 EDT

Read this Nuclear power in Germany about how Germany phases out nuclear installations.

Thanks,

Thomas

P.S.: Wackersdorf wasn't built in part due to my efforts :-)

My Nuke is Bigger than Your Nuke

Herbie Robinson — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:31:20 EDT

There have been a lot posts recently about nuclear power. A lot of people have the knee jerk reaction that all nuclear power is simply too dangerous. I mean after all, if the insurance companies won't offer liability insurance for it... But that's not really true. Let me describe my nuclear reactor.

1. it has already been built.

2. It is delivering 36000 Terawatt hours of power to the United States every day. That is 6200 times the projected yearly electricity demands in 2030.

3. The power is really free -- all we have to do is capture it.

In case you are wondering, what I am talking about is the sun.

Speech change

!Thomas — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:46:24 EDT

The speech that I would have liked to hear would have had one change:

"find ways to safely harness nuclear power" -> "find ways to shut down existing nuclear power plants"

Thanks,

Thomas

Boycott Public Radio

ganerd — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:40:12 EDT

Public Radio has been very biased by not covering the Democrattic Convention.
They are covering the Republican. and they are supported by tax payer dollars.??????

I apyed close attention to who was covering the convventin on DirecTV and
CNN was the only network to cover it.

How can we get sometihing going on ths??? Please feel free to contact me about this...

"safely harness" nuclear power

!Thomas — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:00:35 EDT

I have to say I was taken aback by that statement from Barack. Having
lived in Europe when the Challenger exploded, the major disaster for me
was the meltdown of Chernobyl. It was this event that made me politically
active, after I learned that "safe" nuclear energy - similar to "peaceful"
one - is an oxymoron. I'm a big fan of Obama's, but I had hoped or taken
for granted that he would be on the right side of the nuclear issue. How
did this happen? Can we simply ignore these issues:

- susceptibility to terrorism
- global or at least nationwide impact in case of an accident
- stamping out proliferation
- no solution for the waste problem
etc.

What are your thoughts? Can this be reversed or at least be back paddled on?

Thanks,

Thomas

Sarah Palin sheds light on the painful side of the Pro Life agenda

Sahil — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:56:58 EDT

I think Sarah Palin will end up hurting the Pro life camp and also her presidential ticket.

Sarah Palin’s choice of continuing with her pregnancy even though she knew the child had Down syndrome has made me think about the abortion issue. I was surprised to realize that Sarah Palin’s choice of continuing the pregnancy symbolizes one of the most questionable and painful positions of the pro life camp. I think every body who thinks about Palin will think about her this particular choice and as a consequence think about pro life positions in a fearful way. I wonder as to why Senator McCain would try to portray pro life position in such a painful way.

Gasoline from Garbage

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:43:48 EDT

Gasoline produced from biomass could be in fuel tanks by 2010 with new technology

TEES researchers and Byogy Renewables, Inc., are working to turn everyday waste into gasoline.

Turning everyday waste into gasoline may seem like a distant dream, but thanks to researchers with the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) and Byogy Renewables Inc., it could become a reality within two years.

Dr. Kenneth Hall, associate director of TEES and the Jack E. & Frances Brown Chair and professor in the Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering at Texas A&M University, and his colleagues, Mark T. Holtzapple, a professor in chemical engineering, and Sergio A. Capareda, a professor in biological and agricultural engineering, have developed a process to make converting biomass to high-octane gasoline possible.

The advanced process is possibly the only integrated system that converts biomass directly to gasoline. Most other emerging processes convert the biomass into alcohol and then blend it with gasoline. The system is relatively inexpensive and focuses on using biomass waste streams and non-food energy crops rather than food products such as corn.

Additionally, the cost of such a conversion would lie between $1.70 and $2.00 per gallon excluding all government subsidies and tax credits. This cost range is dependent on the type and cost of feedstock as well as the size of the biorefinery. This would provide some much-needed relief for consumers when it comes to fueling their vehicles, whose current options are to pay more or drive less.

Biomass includes garbage, biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, green waste such as lawn clippings, food waste, and any type of livestock manure. Additionally, since it does not use crops such as corn, it will not put a strain on food supplies. The process could also utilize non-food/feed crops grown specifically for biomass energy.

"This technology is important because it addresses many issues - eliminating waste, producing economical fuel quickly and being friendly to our environment," Hall said. "It's a win-win for industry and consumers. Furthermore, this technology is ready to be commercialized now and does not require any new scientific or technological breakthroughs to become a reality."

Through an agreement with the Texas A&M University System, Byogy has licensed the process and hopes to have a plant using the technology up and running within 18 months to two years. The intent is to have raw garbage going in one end of the plant and 95-octane gasoline coming out the other.

Texas A&M University's Department of Chemical Engineering is world-renowned in the area of process design, integration and optimization. A team led by professor Mahmoud El-Halwagi, a pioneer in the field of Process Integration, has been assembled to conduct the initial process integration work to provide a detailed set of design and operating procedures that will lead to the most competitive biofuels production processes for this technology.

"Our goal with this technology is to achieve as much as a 2 percent contribution to the nation¿s gasoline demand by 2022 through the building of 200 more bio-refineries," said Benjamin J. Brant, President and Chief Technology Officer of Byogy. "We firmly believe the TEES technology combined with the Byogy team offers this possibility."

The focus at the initial plant would be on using urban waste, which the plant would grind, sort and then convert into gasoline. The fuel produced by this process could immediately be used as a drop-in substitute to the current petroleum gasoline supplies with a seamless integration into the existing fuel distribution infrastructure. Nothing needs to be changed at retail gas stations, pipelines, regional fuel terminals or in any motor vehicle.

"Our plan is to produce two-and-a-half billion gallons or more of carbon neutral renewable gasoline per year, said Daniel L. Rudnick, Chief Executive Officer of Byogy. We are positioning ourselves not only to handle the opportunity biomass waste streams that are available today, but also the sustainable biomass energy crops of the future. This green substitute for conventional gasoline is the Holy Grail of all biofuels."

About TEES: TEES is the engineering research agency of the State of Texas and a member of The Texas A&M University System. TEES researchers conduct quality research and provide practical answers to critical state and national needs. The agency partners with industry, communities and academic institutions to solve problems to help improve the quality of life, promote economic development and enhance the educational systems of Texas. TEES also promotes new technology education and investigates problems in health and the environment.

About Byogy Renewables, Inc.: Byogy is a new technology company that offers the next generation of high-octane liquid transportation fuels derived from renewable biomass waste streams and dedicated non-food energy crops. It was founded by leading renewable energy entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists and industry pioneers from the private sector and academic world.

For more information, contact Dr. Kenneth Hall, 979-845-3357, krhall@tamu.edu; Benjamin J. Brant, 303-670-0880, bbrant@byogy.com; Daniel Rudnick, 661-333-2662, drudnick@byogy.com.

For more information on Byogy visit http://www.byogy.com.

McCain didn't vote on renewable energy bill!

The Obama kid — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:20:02 EDT

A renewable energy bill for expanding credits (which expire in December) for renewable energy companies was defeated on July 30th. The bill was extremely important to Wind and Solar companies to help them to contend with oil, coal, and natural gas.

Sen. John McCain a supposed advocate of renewable energy did not vote on the vastly important bill. Before the bill had been voted on by the Senate 7 previous times none of which McCain voted on.

Sen. Barack Obama had voted 3 times for the bill but didn't vote on July 30. We can't let McCain get away with this. Neither can we afford to elect him President of our great nation.

What Obama should say on energy on thursday!

Marcel F. Williams — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:36:25 EDT

Obviously, Barack Obama won't say any of this on Thursday night in Denver. But I really wish that he would make a bolder statement on energy independence at the convention in order to-- capture the imagination-- of Democrats and Independents in this country. But this is what I'd like him to say:

"While my opponent, John McCain, continues to advocate the Bush administration policies of drilling for more oil in order to enrich the multi-national oil companies while threatening our coastlines and putting more greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere, I believe that it is time to move America in a much different direction.

I believe that it is time for this nation to commit itself towards achieving the goal of generating all of the electricity in this country though non greenhouse gas producing technologies within the next 25 years. Such an effort will not only require our continued use of clean hydroelectricity but will also require a major expansion in the use of non carbon-dioxide polluting technologies such as wind, solar, and nuclear energy if this goal is to be achieved. But if our nation is to help mitigate the potential catastrophe of global climate change and global sea rise then we're simply going to have to stop putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I also believe that it is time to commit this nation towards achieving the goal, also within 25 years time, of producing all of our nation's liquid transportation fuel needs through the production of carbon-neutral gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, methanol, and dimethyl ether through the utilization of urban and rural biomass and, or the extraction of carbon dioxide from air combined with clean hydrogen produced through wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear energy. This will not only help America and the rest of the world deal with climate change but will also finally put an end to America's importation of carbon-dioxide polluting petroleum fuels from the multi-national oil companies.

These efforts towards energy independence from petroleum and other fossil fuels will require huge private and public investments in America's clean energy infrastructure over the next 25 years. But I believe that these goals can be achieved if we aggressively set up and properly fund the clean energy infrastructure necessary to make America's gradual transition from a greenhouse gas polluting petroleum and fossil fuel economy towards a clean, carbon-neutral, electric and synthetic fuel economy."

I seriously wish Obama would say this because I believe that this transition can occur in less than 25 years-- if we're truly serious about energy independence and putting an end to our contribution towards global warming.

Marcel F. Williams

Young people go into nuclear engineering

Marcel F. Williams — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:59:49 EDT

Nuclear power's resurgence generates need for engineers By Jeffrey Tomich ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH Monday, Aug. 25 2008 ROLLA, MO. — On a July afternoon when many teenagers are savoring the final
weeks of summer by the pool or at the mall, Erica Bay of Mexico, Mo., was busy
explaining the workings of a pressurized water reactor and calculating neutron
multiplication factors.

Bay, 17, was among 25 high school juniors and seniors who spent a week at
Missouri University of Science & Technology's nuclear engineering camp — a
Nuclear 101 crash course for prospective students.

The camp, the only of its kind in the nation, began in 2000 as a recruiting
tool. At the time, nuclear engineering enrollment at Missouri S&T was dwindling
and administrators were desperate for new ways to interest students in what was
viewed by some as an outmoded technology.

Today, nuclear engineering programs aren't worried about empty classrooms. The
nuclear power sector is in the early stages of a revival. Utilities and vendors
are hungry for more workers. Salaries are rising. And some schools that once
couldn't find enough students now have too many.

Missouri S&T (formerly Missouri-Rolla) will enroll 168 nuclear engineering
students — three times as many as a few years ago — when classes start today.
And interest in the camp has swelled to the point that the school charges $500
to attend. Until this year, it was free, except for a $50 application fee.

"We're not struggling to find students anymore. We're looking to find good
students," said Arvind S. Kumar, chairman of the school's nuclear engineering
department. Enrollment "has been increasing ever since 2000, to the point that
we're bursting at the seams."

It's the same story at the University of Missouri-Columbia, where the nuclear
engineering graduate program capped enrollment at 65 to keep class sizes
manageable.

"We're saturated," said Mark A. Prelas, a professor and director of research at
Mizzou's Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute. "We just don't have the
faculty resources to handle any more."

AGING WORK FORCE

The urgency to find more engineers and technicians can be defined by a single
number: 48 — the average age of a U.S. nuclear worker.

Last fall, Carol Berrigan, an official for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an
industry trade association, told a congressional committee that 19,600 current
nuclear utility employees — more than one-third of the total — will be eligible
to retire by 2012, and the industry also could lose 6,300 more workers to
attrition during that period.

"Plants aren't shutting down for a lack of qualified people," said Charles
Goodnight, a management consultant in Vienna, Va., who specializes in staffing
at nuclear plants. "But there are large numbers of people who will retire in
the next three to five years. It's already starting to happen, and it's
happening worldwide."

AmerenUE has ramped up recruiting efforts for engineers and technicians to
staff the Callaway plant outside Fulton, Mo., said Bill Jessop, manager of
business operations at the plant. The efforts include maintaining close ties
with University of Missouri campuses at Rolla and Columbia. The company also
has been active at job fairs and worked with Linn State Technical College in
Mexico, Mo., to recruit and train technicians.

Since November, the utility has hired 39 new engineers at Callaway. "Our
demographics are similar to what you see in the rest of the industry, there's
no doubt," Jessop said.

BUILDING BOOM

At the same time, utilities collectively are eyeing dozens of new plants, each
of which will require hundreds of engineers, technicians and other workers.

A decade ago, inexpensive natural gas was seen as the clean fuel of the future
and the nuclear industry was still trying to rescue its image following the
accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the 1986 meltdown at
Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union.

Now, concern about global warming and soaring oil and natural gas prices are
helping nuclear technology stage a comeback.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications for 18 new
nuclear reactors in the last two years and expects filings for another 16 by
the end of 2010. Among the companies seeking a license to build and operate a
new plant is AmerenUE, which is considering a new, 1,600-megawatt reactor at
Callaway.

If built, the plant will require 2,500 workers during construction and 400 new
full-time employees.

The nuclear building boom isn't limited to the United States. New reactors are
being built in Russia, France and Finland. China is seeking to build 60
gigawatts of nuclear generation — equal to 50 Callaway plants — by 2020 as the
world's fastest-growing economy copes with surging demand for energy.

And competition for workers isn't just among utilities. The NRC also is hiring
aggressively as are vendors such as Westinghouse Electric Co., General Electric
Corp. and France's Areva NP. The power sector also must compete with the
medical and defense industries for engineers.

"We're all trying to hire from the same pool," said Beth Hayden, an NRC
spokeswoman.

The NRC has added about 400 new employees, or 12 percent more staff, since the
start of last year — about half of them scientists and engineers needed to help
process reactor license applications and applications from companies seeking to
certify new reactor designs.

The agency estimates that just one construction and operating license
application will require the equivalent of 60 full-time employees to process.

"There's a sense of desperation in the industry," said Prelas, of Mizzou. "What
we're experiencing now is just the retirement demands. The next wave is going
to be the actual buildup of the nuclear industry from construction phase, and
that's going to be a real big crunch. We're waiting for it to hit. We know it's
coming."

HIRING OUTLOOK

Renewed interest in nuclear engineering is both opportunity and challenge for
universities like Missouri S&T.

A survey by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, an arm of the
U.S. Department of Energy, showed undergraduate nuclear engineering enrollment
in the country has doubled since 2000. Still, there's doubt whether
universities can produce new engineers fast enough.

At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society this month, the group's president,
William Burchill, said utilities will need to hire 470 nuclear engineers a year
to keep up with retirement and attrition rates and another 200 a year to
prepare for the first eight new reactors expected to begin operation in the
next decade. Meanwhile, fewer than 100 new graduates are entering the work
force each year because many are going on to pursue graduate degrees.

Part of the problem is there are just 31 universities with nuclear engineering
programs — and just 22 with undergraduate programs. Some schools dropped
programs in the 1990s as the pipeline of new reactors — and jobs — dried up,
and interest in nuclear engineering among students waned.

Now, schools once hungry for more students are having to turn them away.

Realizing this, the nuclear industry has stepped up funding to help schools
expand engineering programs. Missouri S&T, for instance, got $160,000 from the
NRC for undergraduate education. The school also got an unsolicited $50,000
grant from Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. operator of nuclear
plants.

The problem for universities is that students aren't the only ones being
recruited. So are the faculty. "Every three or four or five years, we bring
faculty in, and they leave for greener pastures," Kumar said.

HIGH-POWERED PAY

Back in Rolla, highlights of nuclear camp include a visit to AmerenUE's
Callaway plant and witnessing the "blue glow" of the school's demonstration
reactor — a bluish light created when charged particles travel through water
faster than the speed of light.

Even ice cream takes a scientific twist: It's made using liquid nitrogen.

Most of the teens arrived already aware of the demand for engineers and the
salaries and perks being offered to graduates. If not, reminders were
everywhere during their week on campus.

Average salaries for first-year engineers are displayed on a bulletin board on
the second floor of Fulton Hall, which houses the nuclear engineering program.

If that wasn't enough, camp counselors Michael Hoffman and Terry Yu offered
walking exhibits.

Hoffman and Yu graduated from Missouri S&T in May with nuclear engineering
degrees. Both got jobs with Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, a research facility
that supports the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program with starting salaries of
$58,000 a year plus a $16,000 signing bonus.

William Benzer, manager of Missouri S&T's demonstration reactor, said most
seniors have jobs before they graduate. Some have jobs before Christmas break.

One of the students at nuclear camp, John Beagles, 17, was interested in
engineering and had already sent his ACT scores to schools, including Purdue
and Missouri S&T.

Beagles hadn't decided between chemical engineering and nuclear engineering but
said he was impressed by what he heard from instructors and recent graduates
during his week on campus.

"As far as nuclear, the future looks good," he said.

jtomich@post-dispatch.com | 314-340-8320

US airforce looks to buy Californian garbage jet fuel

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:19:52 EDT

Biting the hand that feeds IT

US airforce looks to buy Californian garbage jet fuelBy Lewis PagePublished Thursday 13th March 2008 12:37 GMT

An American tech-licencing company says it is in negotiations with the US Air Force - and unnamed airlines - to supply jet fuel made from Californian household waste. A combination of high oil prices, a military push to find secure fuel sources, and governmental incentives are expected to make the business case viable.

Flight International reports that the Solena Group intends to take biomass waste from communities in northern and central California and convert this to synthetic gas.

This will be done using the company's proprietary "plasma gasification" tech, which uses 5,000°C plasma arcs to convert household wastes - or coal, coke etc - into gas fuel. Solena claims that the energy value of the syngas output is four times that required to run the plasma furnaces, making the process self-powering.

In the proposed jet-fuel deal, the syngas would then be further processed into liquid fuel suitable for use in aircraft. Such processes typically burn a tonne of feedstock for each tonne of go-juice produced, but apparently Solena reckons it can still produce 1,800 barrels of fuel per day in California - enough to fly a jumbo jet to Australia and halfway back again.

The plasma gasification, the gas-to-liquid conversion and finally the airliner engines will release substantial amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. However, this carbon would eventually have been emitted from the decomposing biomass waste if it were simply dumped, and the airliners would have burned fossil fuel instead; so the idea is climate-change-friendly overall. It also saves on landfill, of course.

The commercial economics would seem highly uncertain, however, and Solena chief Robert Do was unwilling to name any airlines in connection with the project. He did say that the present high prices of crude oil - and consequently of ordinary fossil jet fuel - made the business case viable.

"We feel that we can survive at the current commercial market price," he told (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/12/222171/airlines-in-price-negotiations-for-solenas-waste-derived.html) Flight.

That said, apparently the Solena numbers also rely on a US biofuels tax credit which will vanish under current plans in 2008: and production cannot begin until 2011. The current crude price can't be relied on not to drop over such a timescale either.

On the other hand, the US Air Force's desire for fuel supplies independent of crude imports isn't going away. This at least would seem to offer a firm customer for Solena's garbage-juice, and a customer potentially willing to be tied down in a longer-term deal at a price higher than airlines would be willing to pay.

The USAF wants to be getting at least 150 kilobarrels a day from non-petroleum sources by 2010, so it could easily take all of Solena's initial planned output. Realistically, the air force seems likely to be Solena's main customer - though airlines might well get involved for publicity and research purposes.

It doesn't seem plausible that one could ever run very much of the airline industry on biomass-waste fuel anyway: US aviation uses 1.6 megabarrels daily, almost 1,000 times what Solena reckons to produce from north-central Californian garbage.

Solena has plans for the future, however. Like many in the airline game, the company sees algae-based biofuel as the solution. Rather than dreaming of miracle/terrifying scum blooms able to live in saltwater and draw their carbon from atmospheric CO2, Solena proposes that relatively ordinary algae be nourished using sequestered carbon from coal powerplants.

This would be substantially easier than making algae grow without artificial carbon inputs. However, it would essentially involve shifting carbon emissions from the powerplant stack to airliner exhausts - rather than eliminating them as many would prefer.

But emissions would be reduced overall; and crude oil imports to the West, with their possible associated costs in jihadi terrorism (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/25/zubrin_energy_terror_alcohol_plan/) and global military campaigns, would also be reduced. ®

Industry seeks alternative to aviation fuel

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:55:35 EDT

August 24, 2008

Industry seeks alternative to aviation fuel

A non-conventional coal blend is being used in S. Africa

By CHRIS KAHN
Associated Press

PHOENIX -- With the price of oil still above $100 a barrel, everything from wood chips to algae blooms is being scrutinized as an alternative to traditional fuel. But when it comes to airplanes, finding the right mix poses a special challenge.

"When you're in an airplane, you don't want your fuel to start solidifying," said Robert Dunn, a Department of Agriculture chemical engineer who is studying biodiesel jet fuel.

The airline industry is aggressively pushing for homegrown alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuel, while leaning on customers with a variety of new travel charges to help control a projected $61 billion industrywide fuel expense this year. A number of alternatives to standard jet fuel have been studied for years, though aircraft manufacturers say the challenge is to find ideas that will work now.

Jet engines can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen, for example. But hydrogen does not pack the same punch as traditional jet fuel -- kerosene -- and would require airlines to buy planes designed with huge tanks. That is a tough choice for cash-strapped carriers, said Billy Glover, managing director of environmental strategy at Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

The best bet right now for non-conventional fuel comes from South Africa, experts said. The country has powered its airline industry for a decade using a coal-based jet fuel blend developed by petrochemicals group Sasol. It's technically a "synthetic" fuel, which means it can be used without altering engines or other aircraft equipment.

A number of U.S. companies are developing a variety of similar synthetics. Airline experts say three companies in particular could provide as much as three million gallons a day of synthetic fuel by 2012: American Clean Coal Fuels of Portland, Ore., Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., and Rentech Inc. of Los Angeles.

Though significant supplies will not be ready for several years, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) -- a coalition that includes the Federal Aviation Administration, airline, manufacturing and airport associations -- wants to set standards by the end of the year for a 50 percent synthetic jet fuel. CAAFI wants standards for a totally synthetic fuel ready in two years.

"We're looking for something that is so correct in its performance that it can be interchanged with petroleum-based kerosene," Glover said. "From a distribution standpoint, from a technical standpoint, it needs to fit without modifications or special handling."

CAAFI Executive Director Richard L. Altman said the push for new fuel standards is meant to show investors that airlines will buy synthetic fuel. Doing so will send needed dollars to energy startups that may one day replace foreign oil, Altman said.

"Nobody will invest unless the fuel is certified," he said. "So we have a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem."

With more companies investing in alternative energy, the thinking goes, the more synthetic jet fuel eventually becomes available. The more fuel available, the easier it will be for airlines to unshackle themselves from volatile petroleum markets.

In February, Boeing partnered with Virgin Atlantic to test a flight that included a biofuel mixture of babassu oil, which comes from a palm tree in northern Brazil, and coconut oil.

Many biofuels may create more problems than they solve, however. Using edible feedstocks such as corn and sugar could raise the price of food. And palm trees for babassu and coconut oil could lead to clearing large chunks of rain forest.

These are some of the reasons why algae-based synthetic fuel is getting a lot of attention.

Algae is inedible, and it has a relatively high yield compared with other crops, using less land to produce the same amount of oil.

"It can be grown anywhere you can have a pool of water and expose it to sunlight," said Stanford Seto, an expert in aviation fuels who works with ASTM International, a Pennsylvania-based organization that develops standards for jet fuel.

Investors have pumped almost $84 million into companies developing algae-based fuel so far this year, up from $29 million in all of 2007, according to the Cleantech Group, an industry research firm.

Despite its promise, it will be years before algae biofuel could be sold at a price that would make sense to an airline, said Dave Jones, co-founder of LiveFuels, an algae fuel startup in San Carlos, Calif.

"If anyone is below $50 a gallon, I'd be stunned," he said. "We have a pretty good idea on how to grow algae. The biggest challenge is in the harvesting and how to extract it from the water."

Even if prices come down, most airlines see synthetic fuel as a chance to run a greener airline, not necessarily a cheaper one, said Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs for the Air Transport Association.

More fuel sources could temper the effect oil speculation has on gas prices, and they could give carriers fuel at a cost they can count on, she said. But "you aren't going to find a fuel that's pennies on the dollar than what we find today," she said.

For travelers, that means that fewer flight options and charges for checked bags, drinks and other items are here to stay.

"Even if we were to double the volume we were to make in biofuels every year for the next 10 years, we're still looking at maybe this will impact 15 percent of the overall fuel supply," said Brian Fan, Cleantech's senior director of research.

"Realistically, for anything to be happening at scale, enough to actually impact an airline's bottom line, we're years away," Fan said.

Global warming time bomb trapped in Arctic Soil

Marcel F. Williams — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 21:36:57 EDT

Global warming time bomb trapped in Arctic soil:

study Sun Aug 24, 1:15 PM ET PARIS (AFP) -

Climate change could release unexpectedly huge stores of carbon dioxide from Arctic soils, which would in turn fuel a vicious circle of global warming, a new study warned Sunday. ADVERTISEMENT And according to one commentary on the research, current models of climate change have not taken this extra source of greenhouse gas into account. Scientists have long known that organic carbon trapped inside a blanket of frozen permafrost covering one fifth of the world's land mass would, if thawed, release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

But until now they simply did not have a good idea of how much carbon is actually locked inside this Arctic freezer. To find out, a team of American researchers led by Chien-Lu Ping of the University of Alaska Fairbanks examined a wide range of landscapes across North America. They took soil samples from 117 sites, each to a depth of at least one metre, in order to provide a full assessment of the region's so-called "carbon pool." Previous estimates of the Arctic carbon pool relied heavily on a relative handful of measurements conducted outside of the Arctic, and only to a depth of 40 centimetres (15.5 inches).

The study, published in the British journal Nature Geoscience, found that the stock of organic carbon "is considerably higher than previously thought" -- 60 percent more than the previously estimated. This is roughly equivalent of one sixth of the entire carbon content in the atmosphere. And that is just for North America. The size and mix of landscapes in the northern reaches of Europe and Russia are about the same, and probably contain a comparable amount of carbon-dioxide producing matter currently held in check only by the cold, the study said. And the danger of a thaw is real, note climate scientists.

The Nobel Prize-winning UN panel of climate change scientists project temperature increases by century's end of up to six degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Arctic region, which is more sensitive to global warming than any other part of the planet. Commenting on the research, Christian Beer of the Max Planck Institute in Jena, Germany, pointed out that the climate change models upon which future projections are based, do not include the potential impact of the gases trapped frozen Arctic soils.

"Releasing even a portion of this carbon into the atmosphere, in the form of methane or carbon dioxide, would have an significant impact on Earth's climate," he noted in his commentary, also published in Nature Geoscience. Methane, another greenhouse gas, is less abundant than carbon dioxide but several times more potent as a driver of global warming.

2008 Policy Change Vision—Energy, Education, Healthcare

David from Holyoke, MA — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:39:03 EDT

I’m interested to know if there’s an active way to help Obama out of his tit-for-tat rut. It’s seriously derailing his candidacy. Imho, we all need to apply what sailors and farmers have learned—sailors guide by stars, and farmers guide by markers at the far side of their field, and then they quickly adjust to handle storms and rocks. Without guide stars and markers, they'd weave aimlessly across oceans and fields. Obama needs allies to do more with his immense gift of concept and delivery to set real markers toward which the country can move. These markers will directly distress business and labor interests and personal habits—and we all must become resonant and clear about connecting why these actions are real and necessary.

People will respond. But please, NEVER call us “ordinary Americans.” We are an extraordinary people, we are being asked to do extraordinary things, and we CAN do them. Today we all are asked to undertake two extraordinary challenges that we can accept, and must accept, in order to achieve results that will respond to our working together for change, for us and our children.

Read on below. And then see the policy integration in my May 26, 2008 Obama blog (2008 Policy Sweep).

Challenge 1: Oil and Climate Change. Deliver the truth—take the American citizen seriously by taking energy and global warming seriously. Make this real by challenging the foundations at the personal and business levels. It’s not oil company baiting that’s on tap—we need to get away from name calling—it’s the need for all of us to face a new situation where we must take all possible steps to stop burning fuel, domestic and foreign alike. Global warming is a bigger issue than drilling here and there or digging coal here and there. That only ekes out small long term price changes after 10 or more years [underlying reality—large short-run dynamic elasticity of global price response, but little or no long-term downward trend-line change after accounting for externality costs and given steadily increasing global demand, relative to incremental supply changes in cyclic and long-term extractive commodities markets, including but not limited to oil]. Offer oil, coal, and any other firms the chance to build the world we need them to develop—a nonburning renewables economy (including truly serious fusion research and fission disposal research)—by offering them access to profitable markets through major competitive public technology development-transfer contracts. This will re-direct current carbon and other cash flow into necessary new directions, funded by (yes) taxes on carbon business income including oil, coal, natural gas, shale, ethanol, trees, cooking grease, grass, etc. Absolutely also bring this home to people and all firms by (yes) a serious CPI-indexed universal business and personal carbon sales tax on ALL forms of carbon usage and burning, offset at the individual level by ongoing CPI-indexed payments to people So yes, fuel and plastics from carbon will cost much more (that’s the key to enlisting real change by firms and people alike), but people will have the cash to cover necessary gas and oil in the short run, and to move to increasingly accessible renewables going forward. This path will elicit jeers, but if we persist in hearing the story of the sailor and the farmer, who must navigate by true guides and markers, who accomplish serious work through open eyes, repeated voyages, and many seasons, we as a people will come to see the reality of what must be done. It’s change, but not any change—it needs to be seen and felt. And there will be sacrifice in order to survive and grow. People will respond. See the policy integration in my May 26, 2008 Obama blog (2008 Policy Sweep).

Challenge 2: Healthcare and Schools. The same deep personal connection and story also applies to healthcare and schools. Again, nobody will take healthcare and schools seriously until the foundations are challenged at the business and personal levels. First, almost no truly bad apples are there—blaming firms, patients, and pupils is not helpful. Second, a set of unworkable rules got jerry-rigged over the years by tugging and hauling without offering people a guide star. Third, the solution is doing more than just some one thing—in the case of healthcare, we need to work it together, starting by making sure everyone has access to information, outcomes, costs, providers, and aggregated experiences across all persons and patients as they explore choices, take steps, and share results with networks of friends and family. Then follow through by supplying informed contact points and active reminders to people to take their meds, do their check-ups, see their dentist, and follow their diet and exercise prescriptions. Sound simple? We’ve never taken it really seriously. These steps will sharply improve outcomes, thus causing major cuts in expensive demand for ER and other hospital services. Experience shows net dollar health cost will fall almost 50%. This would bring the US closer to 8% of GNP, in line with most other first-world nations, rather than 16% and growing fast. While that’s moving forward to re-focus on the human side of health, also be working out from there toward the clinical side, the pharmaceutical side, and the insurance side. For example, cut labor cost for business by pushing medical cost due to chronic, persistent, and preventive conditions—up to 75% of all medical cost—into the public sphere, and at the same time carve out acute and elective care by modernizing a private-public workman’s comp model with insurance firms, public schools, and self-insured private and public employers to cover all workers, dependents, and students, not just full-time people. And education—again we all need to work it from the personal side—in this case, by placing property tax funds in a statewide pool in each state, boosted by US funds (contingent on a state setting up its statewide pool) for college education grants and other education funding as an investment in our shared future. This allows funding to apply individually and equally across all statewide public students by level of study and need—pre-K, K-12, vocational schools, junior or community colleges, and state universities. Also link education with regional workforce development programs and with research and creative programs. Together, these actions aim schooling personally at mind, body, and imagination in context with a fresh ability for people to contribute to the communities where they work, study, and live. And that too is a message that will resonate—again, people will respond. As above, see the 2008 Policy Sweep in my May 26, 2008 Obama blog.

OK, this all probably fits the picture of the classic deluge of details, but there’s also a significant knowledge base in this thinking. If US politics doesn’t get out of the slugfest mode, we all lose, no matter who wins. No substance, thus no charter for change. Organizing and doorbells do win votes, but they won’t help change life for the better for the next generation unless we advance the conversation.

I started to apologize for this polemic, but it’s OK. It’s a direct argument for a better focus on many extraordinary peoples—on we who live now, or have come to live, in this country.

Obama Mischaracterized by Krauthammer on Energy

cleew — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:33:19 EDT

The following Op-Ed piece appeared in the Washington Post today, Friday, August 08, 2008. I wanted to share the Op-Ed and my response to it. On the same page Michael Gerson had an Op-Ed that also highlighted the energy issue although less dramatically.

No Will to Drill

Let's see: housing meltdown, credit crunch, oil shock not seen since the 1970s. The economy is slowing, unemployment growing and inflation increasing. It's the sixth year of a highly unpopular war, and the president's approval rating is at 30 percent.

The Italian Communist Party could win this election. The American Democratic Party is trying its best to lose it.

Democrats have the advantage on just about every domestic issue from health care to education. However, Americans' greatest concern is the economy, and their greatest economic concern is energy (by a significant margin: 37 percent to 21 percent for inflation). Yet Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of 2 to 1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the past 27 years.

Democrats have been adamantly opposed. They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. Does this mean that because any one measure cannot solve a problem, it needs to be rejected?

Barack Obama remains opposed to new offshore drilling (although he now says he would accept a highly restricted version as part of a comprehensive package). Just last week, he claimed that if only Americans would inflate their tires properly and get regular tuneups, "we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

This is bizarre. By any reasonable calculation of annual tire-inflation and tuneup savings, the Outer Continental Shelf holds nearly a hundred times as much oil. As for oil shale, also under federal moratorium, after a thousand years of driving with Obama-inflated tires and Obama-tuned engines, we would still have saved an amount equal to only one-fifth the oil shale available in the United States.

But forget the math. Why is this issue either/or? Who's against properly inflated tires? Let's start a national campaign, Cuban-style, with giant venceremos posters lining the highways. ("Inflate your tires. Victory or death!") Why must there be a choice between encouraging conservation and increasing supply? The logical answer is obvious: Do both.

Do everything. Wind and solar. A tire gauge in every mailbox. Hell, a team of oxen for every family (to pull their gasoline-drained SUVs). The consensus in the country, logically unassailable and politically unbeatable, is to do everything possible to both increase supply and reduce demand, because we have a problem that's been killing our economy and threatening our national security. And no one measure is sufficient.

The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?

Congressional Democrats demand instead a clampdown on "speculators." The Democrats proposed this a month ago. In the meantime, "speculators" have driven the price down by $25 a barrel. Still want to stop them? In what universe do traders only bet on the price going up?

On Monday, Obama outlined a major plan with mandates and immense government investment in such things as electric cars and renewables. Fine, let's throw a few tens of billions at this and see what sticks. But success will require not just huge amounts of money. It will require equally huge amounts of time and luck.

On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.

The problem for the Democrats is that the argument for "do everything" is not rocket science. It is common sense. Which is why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, surveying the political rubble resulting from her insistence on not even permitting drilling to come to a floor vote, has quietly told her members that they can save their skins and vote for drilling when the pre-election Congress convenes next month. Pelosi says she wants to save the planet. Apparently saving her speakership comes first.

I have to agree with Krauthammer’s first paragraph. One thing, the president’s approval rating is 28%, but let’s not quibble. In 2000 the economy was growing, the middle class was rising, oil was selling for $25 a barrel and America was respected around the world. Eight years later all that good stuff has turned into bad stuff. This didn’t happen magically. Republican policies and the Bush government are directly responsible for the collapse. Now Krauthammer wants us to believe that those people who are responsible for our current mess will be able to solve the energy crisis with the same policies that caused the energy crisis. Please pardon my incredulity. The solution is for Republicans to stand aside and give the other team a chance.

Issue two: Krauthammer says: “Democrats have gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling for domestic oil and gas. By an overwhelming margin of 2 to 1, Americans want to lift the moratorium preventing drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, thus unlocking vast energy resources shut down for the past 27 years.”

First, Democrats have not “gratuitously forfeited the issue of increased drilling.” The oil companies already have 70 thousand acres, the same area as is covered by South Dakota, under lease split almost evenly between offshore and onshore sites. The offshore sites are in the Gulf of Mexico, a proven reserve, and the onshore sites are in the West. Democrats want the oil companies to drill where they already have the right to drill before they are given the right to drill in environmentally sensitive areas that could cause a natural and economic disaster for east coast states that depend on their shore lines for a major portion of their economies. Isn’t it reasonable to ask oil companies to drill on sites they already have before handing over new sites? But, who can blame oil companies for hyping this issue to get their hands on leases to areas where they have not previously been able to drill before the Bush administration, the most friendly administration to big oil in history, leaves office.

Second, there is no real proof that the Continental Shelf holds “vast energy resources.” There has never been an exploratory well drilled there. It could very well turn out that the expected reserves don’t really exist. Further, if they do exist, they would not be able to be tapped until at least 2020. An energy policy that really and truly solves our energy problems must be in very advanced stages of implementation by then. If we are where we need to be, we won’t need that oil if there is any.

Issue Three: Krauthammer says: “The green fuels the Democrats insist we should be investing in are as yet uneconomical, speculative technologies, still far more expensive than extracted oil and natural gas. We could be decades away. And our economy is teetering. Why would you not drill to provide a steady supply of proven fuels for the next few decades as we make the huge technological and economic transition to renewable energy?”

Krauthammer is just wrong here. First, you should know that we generate all but 2% of our electricity with fuels other than oil. Much of it, unfortunately, comes from coal. Not exactly the best thing for the environment, but not supplied by Mid-Eastern nations either. To get off of oil, we have to move to electricity to power our cars and trucks. And this technology is not decades away. The all electric Tesla sports car is ready for delivery now. It goes from 0 to 60 in 3.8 seconds and has a range of 150 miles. It easily outperforms a Ferrari in the quarter mile. And it looks great. Electric cars are already in use in Europe. GM is set to put the first Volt plug in hybrids into showrooms sometime in 2010. These cars will run on battery power alone for 40 miles. Then they will use a small gas engine to charge the battery as you drive and extend the range to about 400 miles before a charge is needed. BMW is getting ready to import its Mini Cooper electric also sometime in 2010. A Norwegian company, Think, that manufactures a car called the City, is ready to start full production of a new model that will carry five passengers and have excellent storage space. The roof will be made of photovoltaic solar cells that will produce the power needed to run the air conditioning and other electric equipment along with the electric motor. An interesting side note is that Think was formerly owned by Ford Motor Company. New developments in photovoltaic cell applications promise very thin and flexible solar panels that are cheaper and easier to apply than the current silicon based panels. Advancements in hydrogen cell technology promise batteries used to store energy produced by sunlight for use during the night that are cheaper to produce and last far longer than current batteries. If we spend the $15 billion per year that Senator Obama is suggesting, we can accomplish a goal of selling no car that works on gasoline by 2020. Iran has a program in place to replace all gasoline cars in five years – IRAN! This will make them energy independent and remove any leverage that a coalition of nations might have to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. Currently Iran, because of a lack of refining capacity must import most of its gasoline. So Iran, one of the countries richest in oil reserves will have little need for oil by 2013, while the United States with a small percentage of the proven reserves in Iran will still be tied to oil for the foreseeable future unless we take dramatic action now.

Issue Four: Krauthammer says: “Congressional Democrats demand instead a clampdown on "speculators." The Democrats proposed this a month ago. In the meantime, "speculators" have driven the price down by $25 a barrel. Still want to stop them? In what universe do traders only bet on the price going up?

Speculators have not driven the price of oil down. The last thing speculators want is for the price of oil to fall. They buy what are called “oil futures.” That is, they bid to buy oil at a specified time in the future for a particular price. If they win the bid, they agree to buy the oil at the future date for the bid price. If the price continues to go up and rises above the price they agreed to, they make a profit. If the price goes down, they still have to pay the agreed to price, so they lose money. So, again, the very last thing they want is for the price of oil to go down. Krauthammer knows this. The best face that can be painted onto his contention that “speculators” drove the price down is that it is disingenuous. If you ask me, if someone knows something is not true, and they tell you that it is true then that is a lie.

Issue Five: “On the other hand, drilling requires no government program, no newly created bureaucracy, no pie-in-the-sky technologies that no one has yet invented. It requires only one thing, only one act. Lift the moratorium. Private industry will do the rest. And far from draining the treasury, it will replenish it with direct taxes and with the indirect taxes from the thousands of non-subsidized new jobs created.”

I don’t know if Krauthammer is just ill informed about the current science and technology regarding hydrogen cell and electric cars or if he is cynically hiding the facts in order to make a political point. He certainly is no stranger to the latter strategy. The danger for America is that if we listen to him, we will not move ahead with the commitment and vigor necessary to make an all electric or mostly electric auto and truck fleet a reality by 2020. If we are still relying on oil twelve years from now, we will be in serious trouble in three ways. First, the American auto industry will be in grave danger of becoming irrelevant. The major Japanese auto makers are meeting now to decide on a Japanese standard for components of plug in hybrid and all electric cars. They are already ahead of us in hybrid technology. Their hybrid cars are full hybrids that significantly raise gas mileage. Our hybrids are hybrid lights that minimally raise gas mileage. If Japan takes the lead in full plug in hybrid and electric technology, American auto manufacturing will almost surely go the way of the American made television and radio. Many reading this won’t even remember when televisions and radios were made in the U.S. Second, our economy will be in crisis. Demand for oil is skyrocketing worldwide but especially in China and India. In the next few years the Chinese middle class will grow by 700 million people – twice the U.S. total population. They will all want cars. And according to a recent article in the Washington Post, they want big cars. In India, a new car called “the people’s car is ready for sale. The people’s car will sell for $2,500. They expect to sell a million in the first year. Some experts predict that oil will sell for $500 a barrel before we can get the first drop of oil from the Continental Shelf. Look at what’s happened to us with oil at $135 a barrel. Can you even imagine what $500 would mean to the economy? Oh, yes, the oil companies would get far richer, but the rest of us would be fighting to stay alive. Third, we must do a better job of reducing our carbon footprint. Going to an all electric car and truck fleet would take us a long way toward reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and preventing the overheating of the globe. Krauthammer would say that these things are impossible. They are not only possible, but imperative if we are to retain our position as the number one economy in the world. We can be all electric by 2020. It won’t be easy, but Americans have done many things that weren’t easy in the past. We can still do them. That is, we can still do them if we refuse to listen to those who believe that the best solutions are those we’ve always used; who try to solve the problems of tomorrow with yesterday’s solutions; who say “no” to progress.

Crazy Nuclear!

The Obama kid — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:32:56 EDT

It is said that nuclear is perfectly safe and risk free. But think what happens when just by change there's an accident in the energy plant? Imagine you sitting with your family eating dinner when your plunged into a nuclear winter. There has recently been a nuclear spill in France why not us.

McCain is all up and over with nuclear. In fact he is basing almost whole renewable energy policy on nuclear.

Obama however is for a safer way wind, solar, biofuels etc. as well as nuclear. Instead of all out nuclear partial nuclear that will not be made before all safety precautions have been made. Wind and Solar power are things that will succeed if given support from the government. The full potential of wind power can only be achieved if the President supports it. Does John McCain give substantial support NO. Does Barack Obama support it vigor YES

The New Energy Reform Act

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:13:23 EDT

Last Friday, a group of 10 senators (Chambliss, Conrad, Corker, Graham, Isakson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, Prior, and Thune - 5 Dems and 5 Repubs) released results of a major "compromise" energy initiative for our country. This group has been known as the Gang of 10, the Group of 10, or just the G-10.

The goal and impact or their proposal is to entirely free the U. S. of oil imports within about 20-30 years. The primary focus of this goal is to convert 85% of U. S. transportation to non-oil power in that timeframe. The compromise fassioned by the G-10 recognizes two central facts:

Today, like it or not, 98% of all U. S. vehicular transportation runs on oil-based fuel.
A significant reorientation of U. S. transportation fueling is essential, and
Any major change is national energy policy will require a strong bipartisan concensus.

The G-10 proposal "represents a remarkable moment in the national energy security debate and possibly a decisive [energy policy] development," according to the energy policy think-tank Securing America's Future Energy.

Listed below is a summary of the proposal:

A $20 billion fund will be established to transition 85% of America's motor vehicles to non-petroleum-based fuels within 20 years. To accomplish this,
- A $10 billion R&D effort wil focus on the major technological barriers to alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced batteries.
- A $10 billion program will help U. S. automakers and parts makers retool and become world leaders in the production of alternative fuel vehicles.
- Consumers will be given tax credits up to $7,500 to purchase vehicles that run primarily on non-petroleum fuels, and up to $2,500 to retrofit existing vehicles with advanced alternative fuel engines.

Funding for the above will come from repeal of domestic manufacturing credit for oil production and by imposing an excise tax on oil production. Government revenue from all offshore oil leases is the centerpiece of the excise tax.

A 10-point program will be established to protect the environment and ensure increased conservation and efficiency during the transition. This program will include:
- $2.5 billion in additional R&D for solar energy
- $2.5 billion in additional R&D for next generation biofuels
- Extending through 2012 renewable energy, carbon mitigation, and conservation and efficiency tax incentives which would otherwise expire at the end of this year.
- Consumer tax credits of up to $2,500 to purchase highly fuel efficient vehicles now being sold.
- Consumer tax credits of $2,500 now for purchase of hybrid electric vehicles
- $500 million for R&D for new materials and other innovation to improve vehicle fuel efficiency.
- Incentives for the installation of alternative fueling stations and other infrastructure.
- A Sense of the Congress Declaration that a new, effective and equitable Renewable Electricity Standard should be adopted to encourage clean energy production.
- Expanding transmission capacity for power from renewable sources.
- New, dedicated funding for the weatherization program

Recognizing that during the transition to a new energy future we must still meet our petroleum energy needs, the proposal includes new energy production programs and improved environmental requirements to go with them. Te G-10 Framework:
- Provides a CO2 sequestration credit to encourage oil companies to use CO2, not water or air, as the pressure medium for secondary oil recovery from existing wells, thus reducing greenhouse gasses while increasing oil production.
- Opens additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico for leasing, and creates a state option for leasing off the shores of VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL, but retaining a 50-mile environmental buffer zone where new production will be prohibited.
- Provides grants and loan guarantees for coal liquifaction plants, provided that such plants must have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions below those of the petroleum fuels they replace.
- Increases the staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide workforce training for future nuclear power plant development, and provides accelerated depreciation and R&D on spent fuel recycling to rreduce nuclear waste.

-----

My opinion as one who worked for years on the Carter National Energy Plan (trashed by Ronald Reagan, and never seriously revived in the last 30 years):

If ever there was a national plan, for anything, in which "we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good," as Barack said last Friday, this is it. As Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) so ably said last Friday, this is a "paradigm shift" in national energy policy and a "sharp turn" toward the energy, national security, and pocketbook future we all want.

Yes, we are giving a few things here which some of us (me) abhor. What we are getting in return, however, is, for the first time in American history, an energy-environmental-economics horizon we can cheer for.

I'll be kept informed, and will keep you informed, as the Senate works to translate the G-10 Framework above into specific legislative language over the next few weeks. This is an enormous task (I'm the author of the Solar Energy-Environmental R&D Act of ... 1975; the legal task of researching every possible conflict between the new law and existing law is formidable). Once a full legislative text is completed about Labor Day, the G-10 bill will be "thrown into the hopper," after which you can bet that 535 congresspeople will try to change it to fit their constituents and donors.

If you need more motivation, consider this: if John McCain is elected, this magnificent compromise will not go in the hopper. It will go in the trash.

IF we can hold fast to the law as envisioned above, we'll have done yeoman work for Barack, and the country.

New Energy Policy Details

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:08:34 EDT

I have just received from the Senate an anaysis of the "Gang of Ten" Compromise Energy Framework announced last Friday.

Actual legislative language is being drafted but will not be available until September. Many existing laws would be changed, and the difficulty in drafting an actual new law of this scope is making sure that the changes needed to existing laws are made correctly and in full.

The plan is absolutely brilliant, and I now understand why Barack was so eager to announce his support.

The analysis I received is much to long to post; I will spend time later this afternoon extracting the key facts and will post at approximately 4:00 PM.

Art of the Deal

Marty — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:04:40 EDT

Here's what's so frustrating about the politically tone deaf position the environmentalist wing of the Democratic party is taking: opening up more off-shore drilling is not economical and the oil companies know it.

Obama's Energy Plan

Bruce from Lexington, MI — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:08:46 EDT

On Monday, speaking in Michigan, Senator Obama outlined an energy plan. His remarks were primarily oriented toward Michigan's auto industry which is in serious trouble. Highlights included providing the industry with $4 billion in loans and tax credits to retool and build more fuel efficient cars and offering $7000 tax credits to buyers of those cars.

That approach is indicative of the type of progressive thinking that has not been seen in this country since JFK's "Put a man on the moon" approach. Coupled with Barack's ability to be flexible and modify his plans as needed when situations change further demonstrates why we need him in the White House!

American innovative thinking regarding renewable energy and the sorts of businesses that will likely drive our economy in the future is not dead, it just needs recognition, support, and encouragement to carry our country to a bountiful economic future.

The Systems View of Energy-Environment

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:40:50 EDT

   Obama has the right, practical, political position on energy-environment issues. Nonetheless ...
     We all need to step back from our views on individual projects and see the big picture. What matters is the bottom line of what kind, where, and how much we are hurting the environment. It doesn't much matter whether the next ton of carbon dioxide comes from your auto exhaust or the smokestack of a new T. Boone Pickens natural gas electric plant. (For any scientists in the group who also have studied the source, transport, and fate & effects of environmental pollutants, yes, it does matter some on the secondary issues. I'm trying to take a broad view here).

   And what matters is how much total energy, from all sources, is needed to turn the wheels of our cars.

   As we rush to convert to a hybrid-electric or all-electric transportation system, let's ask ourselves where the electricity to recharge all those batteries will come from. What's your pick: coal, oil, gas, or nuclear power plants?

   IN FACT, wholesale conversion to hybrid or electric cars saves only about 5% of the energy needed to turn the wheels if the total energy system is considered, and recharging is from any of today's massive, distant power plants. Sure, an all-electric car is about 4 times as energy efficient as an internal combustion engine. But the energy efficiency at the plug-in socket at your home is 25% on a good day and cannot be improved, due to the laws of physics as these relate to the steam turbines needed for the power plants.

   HOWEVER ...

   If we had COMMUNITY BASED wind and solar power plants, the "fuel" input from nature would be free, the plants would be emissions-free, and the electric energy efficiency at that recharge socket at home would be nearly 100%. At national scale, construction and use of such plants under strict environmental land-use policies would also provide millions of blue-collar and white-collar jobs.

   (FYI storage of solar, and to a lesser extent wind energy is a challenge, and there are various technologies available or under development to solve this problem. We can start a separate thread on this subject).

   Where community-based solar-thermal plants are built, the efficiency is double that of conventional power plants because the waste heat is piped to homes, businesses, and factories as free heat and hot water. This is called cogeneration. FYI fully 30 years ago, as an energy-environmental consultant to EPA, the Department of Energy, and the Carter White House, I worked with the Swedish embassy in DC to bring their national system of cogeneration to the attention of folks here. Last month, I re-contacted the Swedish embassy and got their latest plan for national energy efficiency (an English language but quite technical document). You should know that by wide-scale employment of community-based solar cogeneration plants and other efficient technologies, the Swedes and Scandinavians generally get about twice the economic benefit per unit of energy as we do.

   The Obama energy plan is a great, progressive, political practical start - if we take the systems view of implementation.

   Let's not transfer our energy-environmental problems from the gas tank and tailpipe to the massive power plants needed to recharge the batteries. Let's get smaller-scale wind and solar plants nearer home, and tell the coal/oil/gas/nuclear folks to go to ...

I want to volunteer as graphic artist or web designer!!

Surferboy — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:21:29 EDT

Hi. I would like to volunteer my time as a web designer or graphic artist. I am open to working with any organization or group could use some of my skills for free. I can do brochures, ebooks, electronic files, pdf files, websites, blogs, news feeds, email marketing, web marketing etc. The limit is that it will have to be a pro Obama pro democrat website or anything related.

I live in Hawaii so I think this state is already a gimme for Obama. I'd like to participate with the campaigning thats going on in the mainland especially those red states. If your interested in my help please shot me a message. I don't know how the turn out will be whether someone out there can use me. But if I have to many offers please don't take it personally if I turn you down.

Aloha,

It is Time to be Realistic, Fair, and Ambitious

Jason — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:54:17 EDT

Nuclear power is a divisive issue among Americans and especially Democrats, who are often lumped all into the same category as "liberal environmentalists" by the media or Republican opponents.

In the spectrum of political beliefs, America is not solely defined by "Democrat" or "Republican". We don't not all march to the scripted party policies. We each have a right and duty as good citizens to examine the facts and make decisions based on good reason.

That said, all the good arguments in the world can be made in favor of nuclear power and those who are in opposition will always find a reason to not be satisfied. It has been said that a person cannot be reasoned with to change their position, if that person has come to their position without reason.

Energy independence and pollution control is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Energy is the basis for our civilization and drives the economy forward. The approach to the problems this presents us with are primarily scientific engineering, secondly economic and thirdly political.

Please set your political affiliations aside for the moment and ask yourself if you have an open mind and are willing to change it given the evidence and information about nuclear energy? I was once opposed to nuclear power, but once I examined the information, economics and relative risks of the technology, I changed my mind. Are you willing to be fair, listen, and possibly change yours?

The time is now to be realistic about our energy options. If the scientific and economic analysis proves one plan is better than another considering all relative risks, why would we not choose the most beneficial options? It is disingenuous to say that nuclear is on the table, yet stonewall the progress with obstacles that have solutions.

Are we ambittious enough to solve our energy problems or will this be yet another titanic challenge that America does not have the will to overcome? We can accomplish far more if we can agree to solve these problems rather than use them as an excuse not to go forward with progress.

Energy-Environmental Policy August 2008

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:31:57 EDT

Obama's position on the “Gang of Ten Energy Framework” proposal (released Aug 1) is the correct position, ultimately pro-environment, pro-solar, pro-biofuels, etc., and practical.

He and/or his communications staff, however, have handled this like rank amateurs at best.

During the Carter years, I was an energy-environmental consultant to EPA and the White House, Chairman of the Energy Committee of the National Security Industrial Association, etc., etc. I have degrees in physics and public law. I spent nearly a decade in the 1970s and early 1980s plowing this turf. I am the author (draft) of the Solar Energy-Environmental R&D Act of 1975. BFD.

The reality of energy politics today is, like all issues, you have to give some to get some. To me, the compromise reached Aug 1 is an extremely sharp turn in precisely the right direction.

Easy for me.

The compromise gives in on LIMITED offshore drilling to get megaBILLIONS for R&D, commercialization, and manufacture of non-fossil fuels. For instance, it sets a firm requirement that within 20 years 85% of American cars will be NON-PETROLEUM fueled. We should support this deal wholeheartedly. The detailed Senate bill will hopefully be released next week and I'll post a point-by-point analysis ASAP.

Nonetheless, good folks by the millions who don't happen to have my background have been made to see a huge McSame win, and an equally huge Obama flip-flop. I'm here to tell you without reservation that Obama cannot possibly win the election with the stupidity of communications repeatedly demonstrated in the last month, and if he by some miracle does win, he'll be eaten alive once in office.

Obama should have kept his powder dry. He should have said simply that the Landrieu "paradigm shift" imbedded in the Gang of Ten proposal looks like the right direction. He then could say simply that we're a long way from debating or enacting the proposed framework, and we'll have to see what it looks like before passing a judgment.

He could have privately told Sens Landrieu, Graham, et al, one politician to another but NOT for public consumption, that he could support the framework once in office IF drilling was confined to the Gulf and IF the full alternative fuels measures were retained. This might leak but would not be attributed to him, and if it was, he could simply reiterate the above “powder dry” statement.

If you care at all about this potentially great man - a Lincoln for our time in my opinion - please this week call the campaign at (866) 675-2008 Menu Option 6.

Tell them IN YOUR OWN WORDS that you understand the compromise but tired of incompetent campaign communications. The gap in quality between the great speeches and the daily news cycle is sickening. This weekend, many supporters threw in the towel and the McCain people made him look like an idiot.

I will do my best to respond to questions and comments.

Peak Oil, Energy, Sustainable Future

Robert Michael Foster, MA — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:48:37 EDT

Some have accused the Democrats for the problem with gas prices, but the real problem is ignorance. I went to the Smart Green Conference on 18 July and heard our congressman Bartlett say: “I am a Republican, but not an idiot.” Like me he is concerned, about his grandchildren's future. He was showing us how drilling or discovery will not solve our “Peak Oil” problem. See: http://bartlett.house.gov/uploadedfiles/PeakOilGapDiscoveryConsumption.pdf

for how even new discovery will not solve our gaps between production and demands for oil. We have to have alternative solutions, that are sustainable, for all our grandchildren. Then see: http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/index.php

for just one sustainable alternative, using an oil bearing plant that grows in land not suitable for food and need little water or fertilizer and has a higher oil yield per acre, than soybeans. We could be planting vast quantities of jatropha many places including locally for biodiesel. We could beat the price of diesel with biodiesel, better than we can with soybeans. As we transition to biodiesel, we will have more oil for gasoline, and that will bring gasoline prices down. We could be growing our oil with jatropha for about $50 to $60 a barrel according to Aviation week.

I just saw an excellent movie, "Who killed the electric car". I saw and heard how much most everyone was fooled by the oil companies' "hydrogen hoax" to kill the cars. The hydrogen energy hoax was led by our easily misled President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger, to kill the more energy efficient electric car. They, and much of the public, were easily duped by most of the the oil and auto corporations. When interested you could start with: http://PlugInAmerica.org and http://WhoKilledTheElectricCar.com and

http://www.oilposter.org

Some kid at a science fair, could show that for the same electricity a battery car would go far further than a hydrogen battery car, that had to use the same electricity to separate its fuel hydrogen from water and to compress its hydrogen to the 10,000 psi they need to be practical. Another kid at a science fair could show that for the same natural gas, you could go far further in a 2008 Civic GX, than if you had to separate out the hydrogen, to use a fuel cell car like the GM Equinox. The problem is that hydrogen loves oxygen as a part of water, and does not want to be easily separated. The other problem is that hydrogen hates being with other hydrogen without oxygen or carbon with it, and takes a lot of energy to make it liquid. Although, hydrogen does not love carbon as much as oxygen, and will separate more easily, the carbon could have been more wisely used as part of the fuel.

See: http://knol.google.com/k/michael-foster/the-hydrogen-car-hoax/2on0cj1ivesbw/2#

Strategy For Attacking The Drill Now Hoax

Johnathan from South Glastonbury, CT — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:06:57 EDT

Listen. We all know that the Drill Now campaign is a hoax. Even the initial poll that was used to show that the American people wanted to drill now was a push poll.

The first question was "How concerned are you about rising gas and energy prices?" and the second question was "In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?".

Are you kidding me? (We really need to watch these polling agencies. Did you see the "Likely Voter" poll that gave McCain a 4 point national lead? It was likely another bogus poll. See Here.)

The poll conditioned the responders to the pain at the pump and then gave them the impression that a drilling now would reduce that pain. It was a basic push poll.

Here are some additional ways to go after McCain on this energy issue.

1. Mock McCain on the Off Shore Drilling Hoax
Premise: McCain doesn’t agree to drill in Alaska. He states that its a national emergency. He states that he will always protect America from all threats foriegn and domestic. Well if he truly believes that Off Shore Oil Drilling will bring down prices and it will help the American people why not drill in Anwar.

Mocks: What do the polar bears have on McCain? Why would he turn his back on the American people for polar bears and caribou? If we are going to take risks with the environment for oil, don’t the coasts of Florida and California mean more to the American people than a tundra in Alaska that 99.99% of American’s have never visited?

Hammer: He doesn’t want to drill in Anwar, because the Drill Now Campaign is a hoax and he thinks the American people are stupid enough to believe him. Even the Bush administration states that there will be no effect on prices.

According to McCain and Bush, the effect is psychological. Just to get elected, they are willing to say anything.

Solution: Drill now is not the answer. We need to need to be oil independent. Obama is investing $150 Billion over ten years to build our economic security by eliminating oil as our major engine for energy. And he is proposing an energy rebate to all American's to help offset some of the cost to fill up your tank.

There is also another opportunity to erode John McCain’s support from the right. Remember, Bob Barr is on the ballot in a few battleground states and many Republicans are not very happy with him. They are just afraid of Obama.

2. Mock McCain on National Security using the Drill Now Hoax

Premise: Drill Now Campaign is dangerous to our national security. Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. all are trying to do us harm and undercut our economy and using oil revenue to do it.

Mock: Why is McCain trying to put this country in danger by sending $700 Billion of our dollars to people who want to kill us and want to do us harm? I thought he loved America and he probably does, but he is willing to fund Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

I thought he loved America. He talks tough, but he wants to continue to pay for their weapons, suicide bombers, military, and economic subterfuge with our oil purchases.

What do they have on him? He seems patriotic, but I just don’t get it? (He would blow his top if this hit the media)

Solution: Drill now is not the answer. We need to be oil independent, not just energy independent. Obama is investing $150 Billion over ten years to build our economic security by eliminating oil as our major engine for energy. He is also providing an energy rebate for families.

What do you think? What are some other ways to mock McCain on his backward energy plan?

Winning the Drilling Voters

Robert Michael Foster, MA — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:22:31 EDT

Some low information voters will be voting for drilling, because of the gasoline prices. We can respond with a simple answers now. Yes we can reduce gas prices now. Yes we can win the hearts and minds in Afghanistan now. Yes we can reduce drugs in America now. Yes we can have an immediate win-win for both the Energy and the Afghanistan conflict issues. Afghanistan needs a new crop to reduce opium production, and to reduce the influence of the Taliban, and to even reduce opium drugs in America. How about helping Afghanistan farmers now, to plant jatropha for its oil and other products from this plant?. Yes we can offer to buy their jatropha oil for $100 per barrel, and to find markets for the other products from jatropha. Yes they can grow jatropha like poppies in those poppy areas because it grows in poor soils and with low water. Yes jatropha can be a guilt free farming alternative for devout Muslims that really want to do no harm. Yes we can have new competitive oil on the market without drilling. Yes we can have gas prices coming down from the more cost effective oil. Yes Afghanistan can then also have their own biodiesel and other products to grow their economy.

Obama vs. McCain Tax Proposals

Surferboy — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:10:27 EDT

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

Time for Obama to fight back the Smears!!

Surferboy — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:03:56 EDT

Ok I have had enough of these false accusations and lies thats coming from the McCain camp. I would like to encourage Obama and his camp to fight back these smears in a truthful and honest way. Call out McCain in public and to denounce his lies in front of the media. The American people need to know that they are lies -- and that they can look up the issues in detail at fightthesmears.com.

Obama also needs to unify his surrogates talking points on these smears. Allow them to talk back and to use what ever necessary in fighting these smears. They don't need to attack McCain or even counter a lie with another. But they also need to be able to talk back in a truthful, honest way that is unified as well as simplified for voters. They need to constantly hammer McCain and his camp for lying. Don't be afraid to call it for what it is.

We only need to look back in 2000 and 2004 on how these smears help to elect Bush. Do we want the same thing to happen to Obama? Do we want another McBush in office with the same ole' tired politics as before? I surely don't and can't afford to. Therefore, I'm more than willing to stand against these false accusations and lies.

Obama needs to start debunking all these lies and should not ignore them. There are many ways in fighting back and should use all our expertise and passion to do so. People like me I know are sick and tired of it. Maybe we can launch a petition showing and exposing these lies to the American public? Call out McCain to prove that his lies has truth and merit.

So I make a plea to those in the Obama camp. Don't let these smears go un-ignored. Allow others to fight for Obama and to help stamp out these smears for him. Together we can beat the evil that is smothering our country.

My Plea to Obama to Fight Back!!

Surferboy — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:45:20 EDT

Please Barack do not let these attacks go unanswered. The reason is that people will believe that these attack ads from McCain are real and that you are nothing more than a bad man. Its time to fight back. Its time to go on an offensive. You don't have to stoop to McCain's level. But you can fight back using the truth. The truth such as showing how much McCain doesn't care for the troops -- then you can show your voting record in regards to Vet related issues and the G.I Bill. Kerry made this mistake in 2004. He let these attacks continue until he realized that it was too late. America wants a president that will stand up and defend himself. Bill Clinton did this. He made it known that he wasn't going to take these smears. He fought back. And he won the election. You must do the same thing Senator. Do not give McCain the upper hand. We want you to win this election. Our future depends on it. We cannot stand 4 more years of McBush. Hit McCain hard. Beat the war drum once again that McCain is a Bush 3rd term and don't stop saying it. Peace and good luck! We need you to win and the fate of our country is counting on you.

Emergency Energy Plan

Herbie Robinson — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:19:52 EDT

I have been working a shorter term energy plan for encouraging the reduction of petroleum consumption. The goal was to come up with something that isn't super controversial that could be passed quickly. It's a 20 page report located here: http://herbrobinson.us/EnergyPlan.pdf. The biggest portion is an incentive program for PHEVs; so, it goes well with longer term renewable energy power generation efforts.

In case anybody is wondering, I am an EE (Cornell, 1974).

Smears by McCain

Surferboy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:23:12 EDT

As Obama travels halfway around the world McCain has leashed some of his most viscious and deplorable smears yet on Obama. One that has gotten me absolutely upset is when McCain said "Obama wants to lose the war in order to win the election." Is McCain actually this delusional? I'm absolutely upset at this and I for one will not take such criticism lightly. What can we do to fight back? I want to meet McCain's neanderthal skull with my back hand. I just hope that Obama will do something to address these attacks when he comes back from this trip. We cannot tolerate such juvenile statements by McCain. Democrats and Obama's surrogates need to fight the fight at home for him. Do not even accept what McCain is saying in the media as truth. Lets all fight back.

Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich and Wealthy

Surferboy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:44:55 EDT

Hi. Can we make an exerted effort on calling the Bush tax cuts for what it really is? The reason for this is that its misleading the public. What do I mean by this? Well, when a Obama surrogate mentions the Bush tax cuts the uninformed Americans think that these are tax cuts that affect ALL citizens including themselves. Therefore, I'd like to call those Bush tax for what it really is. Bush tax cuts for the Rich and Wealthy. Would you all agree with me on that?

The Right Way to Finance America's New Energy Revolution

Marty — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:47:52 EDT

My admiration for Al Gore is second to nobody else's. He is a great man, and I'm proud to admit that when the lights went up on "An Inconvenient Truth," I found tears in my eyes. It had occurred to me that the 2000 election was not just a tragedy for our country, but a tragedy for the world. I am confident that when people talk about the post-political life, they will be talking about Gore, and not Clinton or Carter.

Gore is clearly a visionary, and his recent proposal that America should find a way to generate 100% of its electricity through clean, renewable fuels within 10 years has a boldness to it that we haven't seen in the U.S. since John Kennedy challenged the country to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely to earth by the end of the 1960's.

Unlike the moonshot challenge, though, we already have the technology we need to reach this goal. What we don't have is the political will and a financing plan that can make it all happen. While I am confident that a President Obama can bring the political will to bear, Gore's plan to "tax what we burn," unfortunately, is a non-starter. Aside from the fact that nobody likes new taxes, imposing a new tax and then helping people out by reducing or rebating some or all of the payroll tax as Gore has suggested will cause serious problems elsewhere in the system.

We liberals have been talking about taxes on carbon based fuels to discourage their use since at least Jimmy Carter. It is certainly a good principle to require the externalities related to petroleum--cleaning up environmental damage and the security premium we pay for our military to keep the petroleum supply flowing--to be reflected in its cost. If we had imposed these kinds of taxes years ago, we would be much farther along in weening ourselves off of oil than we are now, and, perhaps more importantly, the new, clean technologies would have been available for India, China and the rest of the developing world to use from the getgo.

But the time for that has now passed. Our economy is in its worst shape in some time, and credible economists are predicting that it will take several years for it to recover from the perfect storm of the subprime mortgage disaster, bank failures, the destruction of the housing bubble, high energy prices, weak corporate profits and inflation. Imposing any meaningful tax on petroleum is likely to do irreparable harm to working people in this country, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale. The country is in no mood for a tax increase as the support Hillary and McCain received for their proposal for a gas tax holiday shows. In any event, proposing a new tax now, with Republicans desperate for any hook they can get would be political suicide for Democrats.

So, if we can't get the trillions of dollars we need to make Gore's vision a reality by raising taxes, are we dead in the water? Emphatically not! There is a large pool of money available for this kind of a project, and there's a way to get at it that avoids increasing the leverage our foreign debt holders already have on us, a way that can make Americans richer, a way that should even make big business stand up and cheer so loudly that it will shake their republican sycophants in Congress (but, unfortunately not the Republican lunatic fringe).

To understand the solution, we have to make sure we have framed the problem correctly. First, who is the "we" who must actually do the productive work, spend the money and build the machines we need? During World War II, America became the Arsenel of Democracy, going from almost no war equipment produced in 1940 to hundreds of thousands of weapons by 1943 because Franklin Roosevelt understood that he would have to involve industry by inducing it to believe that it could make a substantial profit by cooperating with him. Similarly, though NASA is a government agency, in the moonshot effort, the government partnered with industry to develop all of the technologies we needed to get to the moon.

Government does not own or operate factories, nor should it, and so the "we" were talking about is industry encouraged by government. Accordingly, framing the problem correctly first requires that we understand that the heavy lifting required for the coming American Energy Revolution will have to be done by industry driven by the sense that it can profit from those efforts.

The second part of of the framing problem is to address the time scale. Capitalism is very efficient at allocating resources to their immediate highest and best use, but it is not good at allocating resources needed in the future. Renouncing petroleum is something that is certain to happen in time because it will simply be too expensive to use compared to other kinds of fuels; the problem is that we don't have time. We're already seeing that global warming is affecting the environment as predicted years sooner than most climate scientists believed it would happen. Moreover, our national security is at risk every day we remain subject to the whims of foreign oil barrons. That's why Gore's 10 year time fram is so important. If we don't get off of petroleum within the next 10 years and get the rest of the world to do likewise, we're toast. We have to admit that we have a national emergency and we're going to have to bend the rules and alter some of our assumptions to get the job done.

What we need, then, is a way to encourage industry to start making the things we need, and to do so immediately. With industry in extremely bad shape, though, they simply don't have the financial resources to commit to get the job done. That's where a smart, government sponsored financing plan comes in.

As of the end of 2005, some estimates have placed the total value of all retirement savings somewhere north of $14 trillion. The amount of money the press says that we'd need to make the Gore plan a reality is about $5 trillion, or about a third of the value of those retirement assets. What we need to do is to find a way to encourage investors to move some of their savings out of existing retirement plans and into the industries that will need that money to build the national electrical grid, the wind turbines, wave turbines, photovoltaic cells, the batteries and mass transit Gore's plan requires.

Here's how we do it: Whereas now, when a retiree begins to cash in his or her retirement funds (provided they are not in a Roth IRA), he or she pays taxes on both the original principal invested and on any earnings, we could create a tax favored security on which there is NO tax due when the initial investor sells his or her securities and NO tax would be payable with respect to its dividends for the initial investor only. To prevent abuse of these investments, the exclusion from taxation would phase in gradually, based on the number of years the funds had been invested. For example, the securities could qualify for complete exclusion from taxation after 5 years; for each year of investment until the 6th year, the security would qualify for an additional 20% exclusion from taxation.

Think about that for a moment. The two things retirees most fear about their investments is that (a) taxes will be higher when they need to sell them and (b) inflation will erode the value of those assets. While we can't do anything about problem (b) in the context of this problem, solving problem (a) would cause a stampede of funds from traditional investments to the tax favored ones we need to finance the new American Energy Revolution, particularly if he companies that would be participating in the manufacturing effort are required to use transparent accounting practices and if shares in them are packaged into thoroughly regulated, diversified mutual funds that protect individual investors from the failure of any one company. The stampede into these investments would be so great that we would probably have to limit the amount any one investor could invest in them so that we don't too adversely affect the share prices of other companies who do not participate in the effort.

The advantages of this kind of approach are obvious. First of all, whereas the government would play a major role in coordinating the effort, just as it did during World War II and during the moonshot, it wouldn't have to incur more debt or raise taxes to get what we need. Second because we are limiting the privilege of investing in these tax favored securities to funds invested in retirement savings plans, all of the money invested would come from Americans, so we won't have to worry that our new energy infrastructure would belong to foreigners when it is completed. Third, this is a patriotic way of bolstering the incomes of retirees, at least with respect to some of their investments. Fourth, because the investments would be tax favored, the cost of capital for business would be much smaller than it would otherwise be; lower capital costs translate into higher profitability. Fifth, this is a market centered approach that takes the government out of the business of "picking winners," and instead leaves that to the market. And finally, the rewards of the enterprise would initially inure to the benefit of American investors.

Of course, there are a number of problems that would have to be worked out. Some of them include ways of defining which companies are participating in the new American Energy Revolution, providing accounting methods that guarantee transparency and insuring that the financial bonanza the Revolution would initiate would be fairly shared among workers, management and investors. But, these are small problems that should be amenable compromise, particularly if at least part of the population believes that we really are facing energy and climate emergencies and the other part, whether or not they think these two crises are real or "bunk," is, nevertheless, willing to humor the "alarmists" in order to get on with the business of making money.

By adopting this plan, we can immediately invigorate the American manufacturing sector that would be producing goods for use in America and, hopefully, all over the world. We can unshutter those manufacturing plants in the midwest that used to make steel, cars, textiles and electronics and let them be reconfigured so that they can make the energy equipment we desperately need. And, we can create thousands of new jobs for people who have been put out of work by the forces of economics that have moved their jobs overseas.

Now, doesn't that sound like a better way of saving the world than insisting on a new tax?

Top Level Energy Strategy for Today

Robert Michael Foster, MA — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:35:18 EDT

We do have to fix our electrical system. And, we have to admit that the "Enron" unregulated free enterprise system has failed. In Maryland we are already 30% short of our needed electricity. There is a reason that they called them "Public" Utilities! We now need a project office in our DOE with the responsibility to get our country's electrical system fixed and with the authority and money needed to get it fixed by leading the project and outsourcing parts of the project where free enterprise works best. It would be like NASA did on the moon project, only it will be harder to move back to public utilities managed by technical managers, instead of the financiers that are more concerned with profit than our country.

One solution to gas prices, that will do very well in most south western states is planting vast areas with the Jatropha plant along with the many windmills that would do well there. We can easily make significant Biodiesel way faster than drilling and the jatropha plants will still keep producing after the oil wells are past peak oil.
See: http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/index.php About Growing A BioDiesel Fuel Plant
When we are able to ramp up to supply all our diesel, heating oil, jet fuel, and most of our high military needs with Biodiesel, we will be well on our way to transforming to our sustainable future. Lower Biodiesel prices will help drive our economy's recovery. Our gas supply will be expanded, because the part of oil now going to diesel, will be cracked, to make more gasoline.
That could keep gasoline prices down, until we get to other practical here and now alternatives, like sugar cane ethanol. Sugar cane is far more cost and energy efficient since it supplies the energy to distill the ethanol with some left over for electric power. I know an engineer that saw sugar cane growing in Ohio when he was a kid, before we warmed Ohio up some since then. Ohio can play in the sugar cane game too. Right now we are wasting natural gas to distill corn ethanol and using natural gas to make fertilizer to grow the corn. We may have a better alternative coming with butanol from the sugar cane by using an engineered virus. Google: butanol ucla glucose.
On a personal note, I have already bought 100% Biodiesel locally for my 2006 VW Jetta TDI at a Shell station for a lower price than other local Shell stations sell diesel. This is in spite of our declining dollar, that is helping Europe buy more of our Biodiesel to meet their mandatory percentages; and with all the land soybeans has lost to subsidized corn. Adam Smith is telling us that this is biodiesel's time. Ask Harry Smith how to make it happen.

Letter to Senator Obama

Francis X — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 06:31:17 EDT

Senator Obama,

While I applaud your pledge if elected President to invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy I believe that this pledge is woefully shortsighted!

More than 47 years ago on May 25, 1961 President John F Kennedy went before Congress and the Nation and made what is called his "Man on the Moon" Address where he said "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

This was an extremely bold idea and one that would require a commitment from every individual involved in the process and every citizen of this great Nation to see it through. Even though we were starting basically from scratch and faced a number of obstacles, from technology to infrastructure, on the way, including the tragic assassination of President Kennedy that goal was accomplished and 39 years ago today on July 20, 1969 Commander Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the moon!

Today we face another obstacle and one of even greater importance to this Nation, that of Energy Independence. In 1961 When President Kennedy made his famous speech we, as a Nation, were importing 381.5 million barrels of oil annually. Today our imports have increased nearly tenfold to 3.65 billion barrels of oil annually. In 1961 we produced better than 70% of the oil we consumed and today we import better than 70% of the oil we consume. The impact of this tremendous reversal on our economy is staggering and the implications for national security frightening.

This is not the time to be taking what I consider to be baby steps in addressing this issue! This is the time to be taking bold and far reaching steps just as President Kennedy did back in 1961. For unlike 1961, when the Space Program was in its infancy and much of the technology had yet to even be invented, today we already have the proven technology at hand and the infrastructure in place to meet the goal of Energy Independence! What we do not have is the bold vision and the dynamic leadership to articulate that vision!

The United States of America and its citizens have shown time and again that when faced with a challenge, and we have faced many a great one over the two hundred and thirty two years since we declared our Independence from England, that we have the ability to rise to it and conquer it. All we need is to be asked! Will you ask when you become our next President?

Sincerely,

Francis X MacFarlane

McCain's economic plan

Surferboy — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:12:32 EDT

I for one ain't too thrilled with McCain's economic plan. This isn't just my bias talking. But my commonsense telling me that this is exactly just like Bush's and Reagan's economic plan. It its! His plan is nothing more than "trickle down" economics. How this works is to give tax breaks and credits to large corporations which in turn are supposed to take those profits and reinvest it back into company via more workers and infrastructure. Unfortunately, what these corporations did was invest those profits into shipping their entire operations overseas to China or to Mexico. They took those same profits and placed it into Swiss bank accounts or they just used it to form another corporation. Very little of that money of that money got into teh hands of the hardworking Americans who were dedicated to those companies that hired them. Some lost their jobs to these overseas venture.

McCain's plan does have an energy plan. But I think his leaning more towards nuclear energy, which is very expensive and I think will take longer to implement than wind, solar, and clean burning coal. I do like nuclear power. But I don't think its the best alternative fuel source.

McCain has stated his all for free trade and his a big time NAFTA supporter. I for one do not like NAFTA. I think there is too many loopholes there that will allow the big corporations to move their factories overseas and will allow for them to flood our markets with cheap crap. That is what's happening in China right now. These are the same corporations that profited from the "trickle down" policies of the Reagan and Bush II years and now they are flooding our markets with cheap crap.

I think thats unfair for those true blue American corporations that stayed at home and gave jobs to many Americans. I think this is where we need to really focus our attention right now in the economy. But with McCain's plan, this will continue on just like with what Bush is doing.

So thats about what I think the McCain plan is all about. Same old Republican style rich get richer policies. We can't afford this style of economy. The middle class won't have money to save and there will be too few dollars chasing too many overseas goods which don't help our country. I think we need more regulations and oversight and start making our economy more fair and balanced when it comes to trade.

How to recover $3 trillion for the Gore Plan

John Messerly — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:24:40 EDT

Gore can and should propose Transportation fuel displacement as a mechanism for financing his plan that his July 17 speech described.

One substantial source is the revenue that will otherwise go to OPEC for gasoline for our cars. Next year, we will send $700 billion out of the US to pay for oil. If we put in policies that effectively discourage the sale of non plug in hybrids ("PHEV"s) in the US by 2012, assuming a 3% turnover in the vehicle fleet*, by 2019 we will have 24% of the fleet in plug in hybrids. Today, newer cars account for 1.7 times the mileage driven as older vehicles (source). If PHEV owners effectively are paying $2.40 per gallon instead of whatever gasoline costs by then (it's already $8 per gallon in the UK), it is not unlikely that these newer cars will be driven substantially more often than the current multiplier of 1.7. But let's say the multiplier is only 2.0X. Lets also conservatively assume that gasoline prices by some miracle are held down to an annual increase of 5% per year. If you run the numbers, this means that we save 3.12 trillion dollars that would have otherwise gone to OPEC by the year 2021.

That's where we get the 3 trillion dollars to pay for Gore's proposal.

Gore's Goal of 100% Carbon Free Electricity

Allen Hussein from Visalia CA — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:00:44 EDT

At first thought, I thought that was a noble but unrealistic goal. After reading this maybe it can be done.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4316#more

Gore sets goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020

Posted by Jerome a Paris on July 18, 2008 - 6:55am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: al gore, original, power grid, renewable energy, wind [list all tags]

Al Gore has made a major speech in Washington this morning, setting out an ambitious goal for the USA to produce all of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2020. I thought I'd comment on the technical feasibility of the plan, and the underlying economics of such an endeavour.

from the Department of Energy's recently published study about bringing wind power to 20% of total generation

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.

Disclosure (or reminder): I am an investment banker for the energy sector. I do a lot of work with the wind sector, as the posts in my wind power series attest, but not only. Whether a pipeline or a wind farm, the job of a project financier is to ensure that the projects make sense for all interested parties (including the regulator) in the long run, and wind projects have to meet the same hurdles as other power plants or oil fields. Thus I'm supposed to remain level-headed when discussing wind projects!

The Gore challenge: a WWII effort

John Messerly — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:27:53 EDT

Al gave another great speech yesterday. Take a hard look at it. This plan puts the stake in the ground where it needs to be.

It's time to take a cold shower in the numbers and wake up. As Barack's mom would tell him, "this is no picnic for me either, buster". I think Obama knows very well how big this is. $150 billion is nowhere near what we need to meet the goal of energy security.

I think we are ready for the challenge, but let's be realistic- this is going to be tough. Gore's decade sounds like a long time, but it isn't when you consider the production bottlenecks involved with moving from fossil fuel electricity generation. Don't picture Apollo. Picture WWII.

Our total electricity output is 3 terawatts. 50% is from coal, and 20 is from Natural gas, so Al is talking about replacing about 70% of our capacity, or 2100 Gigawatts of power. Gore rightly highlights in his July 17 speech the interstate energy transmission network we need to move power around the nation. We don't have that right now. To get power from Geothermal, Solar, and Wind energy from the western states that are rich in these sources to the big cities in the east and along the coasts we need a whole new ultra high voltage transmission network. Never mind the cost of that generation for a moment- look at the cost of the transmission network.

An example, a recent USAEE report* stated that it would cost $31 billion to ship 16 GW of wind energy from the western regions of the Midwest ISO to states in the Northeast. That's 5% of Obama's 150 billion right there, and that is "only" 16 GWs. Remember- we have to replace 2100 gigawatts of capacity.

That's just the transmission problem. Besides money, we have a problem with time.

Transportation Policy (Nationwide and Fort Bend)

Sunder — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:30:37 EDT

With the rise of higher gasoline prices one is seeing greater use of public transportation. One example is seen in the news story posted below

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/16/mass.transit/index.html

In this context critical funding for buses and for linkages between different county public transport systems will be helpful for all of us.

For people in Fort Bend, many may not be aware of our county's transport system because our leaders have put so little resources in this. For all of those hurt by high gas prices This information is for you and comes from the web site

http://www.co.fort-bend.tx.us/getSitePage.asp?sitePage=3199

Demand Response
Fort Bend County currently offers shared ride demand response services to the citizens of Fort Bend County. The Transportation service provides trips within Fort Bend County into Harris County along the US Highway 59 Corridor, the Texas Medical Center, and the Veterans Administration Hospital. We currently utilize 8 mini-buses. Planned progress for Fiscal Year 2008 includes increasing service to 10 mini-buses.

In order to schedule or cancel a ride contact 1-800-988-2902 between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm Monday thru Friday and ask for the “Fort Bend County Reservations.” Reservations can be made 30 days or up to 1 business day in advance of the appointment time. Fort Bend County Reservations will issue you a confirmation number. Be sure cancellations are received more than 2 hours before scheduled appointment time. If passenger is not ready or decides not to go, the trip will be considered a “no show” trip. If a passenger receives three “no show” trips in a one year period, their services can be suspended.

There are no transit services available on county holidays. Rides are typically scheduled for first “destination” drop-off by 8 a.m. and last pick-up will be no later than 5 p.m. Repeat rides may be scheduled in advance. Rides will be accepted on a “time and space” available basis.

Information needed to schedule a ride:

First & Last Name
Home Address
Pick up locations Telephone number
Address of Destination &
Requested pick up and/or appointment time

Trip fares are $1.00 per person each way. Passengers must be ready 15 minutes before scheduled pick up time. This is a curb-to-curb service however persons with disabilities can request door-to-door service. All passengers must wear seat restraints. Seat restraints must be provided for children 40 lbs or less. Passengers 12 years or younger must be accompanied by another person 18 years or older. For more information, comments, or concerns, please call 281-633-RIDE.

Commuter Service
Fort Bend County also offers commuter services known as the TREKEXPRESS. Services are offered into the Greenway Plaza and Galleria areas of Houston. Initial stops in Sugar Land are made at the University of Houston-SL parking lot (University Blvd. at Highway 59) and at the AMC 24 Theatre (Sweetwater Blvd. at Highway 59). Service runs Monday through Friday. Buses leave between 5:10 a.m. and 8:10 am and return between 3:15 p.m. and 6:40 pm at 15 -20 minute intervals.

Greenway Plaza Stops:

West Bellfort
GWP TC
9 & 11 GWP
24 GWP

Uptown/Gallery Stops:

Sage and Hidalgo
Macy’s on Sage (METRO Bus)
5400 Westheimer Court
St. James Place (Coca Cola)
Marathon Oil Tower
Four Oaks – 1330 Post Oak Blvd.
Ambassador Way at Post Oak (METRO Bus Stop)
Guilford at Post Oak (METRO Bus Stop)
Neiman Marcus (METRO Bus Stop)
Williams Tower (METRO Bus Stop)

Cash Fare:

$2.25 one-way U of H / AMC Theatre to Greenway Plaza
$1.00 one-way u of H / AMC Theatre to W. Bellfort P & R
$2.00 one-way W. Bellfort P & R to Greenway Plaza

Buy TREKEXPRESS Ticket Books and save even more at:

Greenway Transportation Center
Kroger’s Sweetwater Blvd. Sugar Land
Check with your company

Ticket Books:

$40.00 (20 rides) U of H / AMC Theatre to Greenway Plaza
$80.00 ( 40 rides) U of H / AMC Theatre to Greenway Plaza
$35.00 ( 20 rides) W. Bellfort P & R to Greenway Plaza
$70.00 (40 rides) W. Bellfort P & R to Greenway Plaza
$40.00 ( 40 rides) U of H / AMC to W. Bellfort P & R

(Tickets do not expire)

Detroit's focus on the near term

John Messerly — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:03:29 EDT

Many folks focus on Detroit's failure to invest aggressively in alternative power for cars as evidence of a conspiracy. The conspiracies take many forms, but they bring us to the counterproductive state of demonizing precisely the industries we need to fight our way out of the hole that republican administrations have dug us into.

If you think about it, it's not just that Detroit killed the electric car, but they weren't even capable of seeing what they needed to do regarding their profitability against the invasion of Japanese cars in the 70s. It is common populist rhetoric that there was an intentional conspiracy to defeat alternative transportation technologies by the car makers.

Was it also an intentional conspiracy that led Detroit to lose substantial market share to the Japanese beginning in the 70s? I think not. It was really the usual suspects: a conspiracy of arrogance and stupidity, and like many of us who have been managers in large corporations, we know that this is not an unusual state for businesses to be in.

In any case- to the point. I think we have to bypass the populist rhetoric however true or tempting it is to leverage for short term gain.

Focusing on moving from where we are, we need to look beyond subsidies. Detroit is asking for beefier subsidies for Plug in Hybrids, because the power carriers (batteries or fuel cells) are extremely expensive. Sure, at least in the case of Lithium batteries, they pay for themselves over the life of the car.

But guess what. It isn't just Detroit that focuses on the near term. It's us. Most consumers won't pay the extra $15,000 for an electric car even if over the life of the car they will wind up paying less.

The numbers are stunning. On average, we use 1.68 gallons of gas per vehicle per day. Even if all cars got 30MPG, the cost of fuel for the 155,000 miles for average vehicle lifetime means that vehicle will use 5167 gallons of gas. If by some miracle gas prices can be held to an increase of only 10% per year, that means that the cost of the gas for such a "fuel efficient" car will be $37,045 (10% increase starting at $4.50 over 10 years yields an average price of $7.17 per gallon).

At the national average of 10 cents per kilowatt hour, the electricity needed to go the same distance with the same performance will cost you $5,166.

Hmmm. $37,045 or $5K. Which would you rather spend?

Oh. But the battery costs you $15K. So guess which car gets driven off the lot.

The one that costs $20K and costs $37K for fuel, rather than the $35K car that costs $5k for fuel.

People make poor decisions like that every day. The "pay later rather than pay now" mentality is exactly what was wrong with detroit and exactly what is wrong with consumers. It is holding us up with moving aggressively over to plug in electrics, and will guarantee that we will sent 700 billion overseas in the coming year to pay for oil, and 1 trillion the year after that.

A trillion here a trillion there. Soon it adds up to real money. If we don't get smart about the threat to our long term security, our nation is going to divest itself of all of its wealth. Really, it is that simple.

Now many of you would like to couch this as a green, environmental issue, but it isn't. This is about national survival. It may seem dry and boring, but we can't conserve or bicycle or mass transit our way out of this one. No new research is needed.

Plug in hybrids exist now. They make sense financially, but only if folks take the long view. Government can help with that, but not with piddling $3000 giveaway subsidies. No- if government simply provided financing to erase the up front barrier that the cost of the battery presents, then customers would flock to a car that delivered for them the equivalent of $2.20 per gallon of gas.

There are a variety of ways of implementing this. In my state, our democratic party passed a resolution to execute exactly such a program. I have discussed it on my blog here and on democrats.org, and I have placed the text of it along with discussion on the Policypedia wiki here.

McCain right on corn ethanol, wrong on political solution.

Robert Michael Foster, MA — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:21:16 EDT

The New York Times reviewed the canidates ethanol policy. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

McCain is right on dropping the Brazil tax on ethanol and dropping subsidized corn ethanol. The real problem is that when McCain thinks he is right, it becomes a crusade, and farmers and ADM be dammed. If McCain gets his ways and things are done all at once, destruction will be every where. A wiser policy is to let change happen over time with with Obama's carbon rights auctions. Sugar cane ethanol will have far more carbon offsets to sell, while corn ethanol will at best, get a little. That will give Obama time to have a gradual predictable phase out of the Brazil tax and corn ethanol subsidies, so our farmers and corporations can more easily shift to sugar cane ethanol. I know an engineer that saw sugar cane growing in Ohio when he was a kid and our planet was colder. So, even Ohio could play in the sugar cane ethanol game, until we have something better. Very Respectfully, Michael @ http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com

Peak Oil Media Guide

Allen Hussein from Visalia CA — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:24:37 EDT

From the oildrum.com, an outstanding energy blogsite.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4291#more

This is a short summary of important concepts about peak oil and world oil production, prepared for the benefit of the media. Last revised: July 9, 2008

1. It’s not the size of the tank which matters, but the size of the tap.

Peak oil is not about “running out of oil,” it’s about the peak rate of oil production. It’s not the size of the tank which matters, but the size of the tap.

When the production rate of oil reaches its geological limit and begins to decline, the world’s economies will be forced to live within a shrinking, not expanding, energy budget. The economic impact of peaking oil production is what concerns us, not the amount of oil yet to produce, because all economies depend on continuous growth. We won’t “run out of oil” for another 100 years or more, but it will be produced at ever-declining rates.

This is an essential concept. Talking only about the number of barrels of oil that might exist somewhere, without also talking about the rate at which that oil can be produced, and when, entirely misses the target.

Oil production rates generally follow an irregular bell-curve shape. It is simply the nature of petroleum extraction that it gradually ramps up, reaches a peak or short plateau (sometimes with a secondary peak) when roughly half of the recoverable oil has been produced, and then declines.. This observation has been made in thousands of oil fields (and oil producing nations) worldwide, and is named “Hubbert’s Peak” in honor of the geologist who first described it, Dr. M. King Hubbert.

Announcing Obama's Key Cabinet Picks Early is More Important than VP Selection

Mett — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:58:01 EDT

Conventional wisdom dictates that cabinet positions are selected between the November election and inauguration, while VPs are selected before the convention. But with Barack Obama's unique challenge to persuade voters that he has sufficient experience to be president on day one (thanks to Hillary) and concerns about his ability to protect America (also thanks to Hillary), perhaps this conventional wisdom should be challenged.

Obama's weakest poll numbers concern his "lack of experience" and "ability to keep America safe". But he shouldn't waste a VP pick in an attempt to shore up these weak poll numbers, he should use his VP pick to increase turn-out of a key demographic group and/or win a red state or red region. Picking his proposed cabinet early would give him the political leeway to do this.

If Obama announced his proposed key cabinet position choices at the same time as his VP pick, he could put John McCain on the defensive by presenting a team of such overwhelming experience and depth that it would make McCain look "inexperienced" and not ready to govern on day one.

Here would be my picks:

Secretary of Energy – Al Gore: there is no one with greater depth and credibility on climate change and alternative energy than this Nobel Prize winner, champion, and chief advocate for the sustainability of our planet.

Secretary of Defense – Wesley Clark: despite media generated controversy concerning his comments about military service not being a qualification to be president, no one would doubt General Clark's ability to command the armed forces.

Secretary of State – Bill Richardson: as a former ambassador to the United Nations and successful negotiator in the North Korean nuclear crises, Richardson has diplomat written all over him and would be a great chief diplomat as Secretary of State.

Secretary of HHS – Hillary Clinton: as a tireless advocate for children and universal healthcare, HHS would be a perfect fit and position for Hillary to continue to make contributions in this area.

Secretary of Homeland Security – Chuck Hagel: despite being a Republican, Hagel has stood up to the Administration on timetables for withdrawing from Iraq, domestic spying, and the surge. He also sided with Ted Kennedy on comprehensive immigration reform, and immigration is now part of homeland security.

Secretary of Treasury – Laura Tyson: as one of the architects of the economic prosperity in the Clinton Administration, Tyson has tremendous credibility in economic affairs, and the economy will be the key issue in this campaign.

The remainder of the cabinet should be chosen at the normal time between November and inauguration, as Obama doesn't gain much politically by announcing those positions early and they could provide too much fodder for the media to scrutinize, especially for picks that have not been fully vetted.

After announcing the key cabinet positions above, no one would question Obama's readiness to govern on day one, his experience, or his commitment to keeping America safe. He would therefore be able to pick a VP like Kathleen Sebelius, who like Hillary, would energize women to turn out in record numbers, and creates the prospect of bringing in more red states that border Kansas, like Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska.

Although early announcement of key cabinet positions is not conventional, the political dividends in Obama's case would be immense with no real downside because all of these picks have already been vetted on the national stage.

-Metteyya Brahmana

Senator Obama, Can We Believe in You?

Bryan K. Long — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:57:39 EDT

Senator Obama, I have been a supporter of yours since before you became a candidate for the Democratic nomination. I read your book, and believed in you when you described how hard it was to vote for anything in the Senate because every bill had good and bad things in it, but that you tried to put principle ahead of politics. I sacrificed my income to donate to your campaign. I believed in you when you said you would take on the energy companies who want to keep us enslaved to fossil fuels, and lead us to a new energy future. I believed in your commitment to stop global warming. But then, I also believed in you when you took a stand on FISA, and told us you would filibuster any FISA bill that provided retroactive immunity for lawbreakers. Today you changed your mind and bowed to corporate power and corrupt politics. I do not believe in you today. You are not a change in government. You are not even among the principled elite, those 28 Senators such as Sen. Boxer (D) and Sen. Spector (R) who put principle and law ahead of politics and voted against the FISA bill passed today. You are the presumptive leader of the Democratic party. You signalled to the Senate community that you were going to vote for the bill, and that gave permission to your collegues that they also could, in pursuit of ongoing corporate support, vote for a bill which erodes our freedoms and eats away at the heart of the Constitution. You may still be better for our country than Senator McCain, but you are better only in a small way. You have met your enemy, and it is yourself, and you have lost. Shame on you.

Obama FISA Flip-flop a Betrayal of Principles and the People

Bryan K. Long — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:20:23 EDT

Obama promised us he would filibuster a FISA bill that provided immunity for the telecom companies who illegally established wiretaps on the American people. He changed his mind, and today voted for a bill which gives the government essentially a blanket ability to listen in on Americans communicating with anyone in a foreign country, without a warrant. The bill guts the original FISA bill, and gives retroactive immunity to telecom companies who broke the law based on President George Bush's say-so. The message is clear: if you break the law based on a request from a government executive, you will not be held liable.

Few Democrats held to principle and voted against this bad bill today. Hillary Clinton was one of them. Obama was not. Perhaps I made a mistake supporting Obama. If he betrays us on this, how can I trust him on promises about energy and the environment, or health care? Obviously, he and the Democratic congressional leadership are listening to "higher voices", and our government is in the control of powers larger than "we the people". "Trust us", they say, "we need to take away your rights in order to keep you safe". Sure.

Certainly I will not be renewing my financial support for Obama for the general election. I'm not sure I can even vote for him.

Shame on you, Sen. Obama.

We need to PLANT, PLANT instead of DRILL, DRILL.

Robert Michael Foster, MA — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:20:58 EDT

Some Republicans are crying DRILL, DRILL, DRILL and thereby forgetting about our future generations. How conservativ is that? Ignorance come from arrogance. An ignorant public is starting to fall for the DRILL, DRILL, DRILL line. See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/energy_poll "Gas Prices Change Views on Energy"

Our party needs to be telling the public that yes we can PLANT, PLANT, PLANT. That will get gas prices down because the speculators will see we will have a real alternative in the near future on 20 Jan 2009. Gas prices will stay and go down as we deliver a lot of Biodiesel. See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html "We Can Lower Oil Prices Now"

One Biodiesel alternative, that will do very well in most south western states is planting vast areas with Jatropha along with windmills. This Biodiesel will be ready far before any Alaska or offshore oul could be. See:

http://www.jatrophabiodiesel.org/index.php About Growing A BioDiesel Fuel Plant

As we supply all our diesel, heating oil and jet fuel needs with Biodiesel, we will be well on our way to transforming to our sustainable future. Most of our military, one of our largest users, can run on Biodiesel at great savings. Lower Biodiesel prices will help drive our economy's recovery. Our gas supply will be expanded, because the part of oil now going to diesel, will be cracked, to make more gasoline. This will keep gasoline prices down, until we get to other practical here and now alternatives, like sugar cane ethanol. Sugar cane is far more cost and energy efficient since it supplies the energy to distill the ethanol with some left over for electric power. I know an engineer that saw sugar cane growing in OHIO when he was a kid, before we warmed OHIO up some.

On a personal note, I have already bought 100% Biodiesel locally for my 2006 VW Jetta TDI at a Shell station, for a lower price than other local Shell stations sell diesel. This is in spite of our declining dollar, that is helping Europe buy more of our Biodiesel to meet their mandatory percentages; and with all the land soybeans has lost to subsidized corn ethanol.

There is still our audacity of hope, to overcome their arrogance of ignorance.

I am a UCLA engineer with a Masters in Applied Psychology, and if you want to verify my work experiences, see: http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com/resume.htm.

Very Respectfully,

Robert Michael Foster, MA
Energy@RecoveryByDiscovery.com