Monday, January 30, 2006
Democrats Job Plan For Energy Independence
Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Howard Dean, was on the Fox Sunday show with Chris Wallace. He said something interesting right from the start: The Democrats have put forward a jobs plan that has to do with energy independence.
I have been on alert looking for any sign of a plan from the Democrats (which the Democrat leadership last year promised to unveil about now) and I was dismayed that I had missed such an important unveiling. I searched the internet for the plan. This is all I could find, the December 12, 2005 plan on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's website: "Energy Independence 2020".
After I read it, I realized why it had passed under my less than phased array quality radar, it's a mess--a mixture of wishes and platitudes, and, I have to believe, a little prevarication. Let me explain.
Although the Democrats admit that: "High energy prices hurt our economy," what they propose can only raise energy prices, not lower them. Here are the proposals:
- Establish a national electricity standard that requires greater use of renewable energy
- Enhance incentives for energy production from solar, wind, and geothermal
- Increase dramatically the production of domestically grown biofuels
- Increase environmentally friendly extraction of oil and gas from existing domestic sources
- Encourage construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline
- Support the development of a hydrogen economy
- Promote deployment of advanced clean coal technology with carbon capture and storage
Solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels are not as cheap as oil and natural gas. If they were, they wouldn't need "incentives" to spur their development; people would be flocking to energy production from these sources because it is a good way to make money. So the Democrats are hawking more expensive sources of energy to cut high energy prices. Impossible.
The Democrats say they want to increase extraction of oil and natural gas from existing domestic sources but they vote for just the opposite. They block production of oil and gas in the west, off the coast and in a tiny part of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The weasel words "environmentally friendly" also mean increased costs of production which are not conducive to lower energy prices.
Hydrogen is the fall back. When we run out of fossil fuels, there still will be plenty of water we can split with electricity (from solar, wind or geothermal) into oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen uniquely burns without producing CO2 so widespread hydrogen use will stop the rising CO2 level worldwide in its tracks--kind of a win, win situation. The trouble is, hydrogen is very expensive while natural gas and oil are still relatively cheap. So again, good idea, but if the goal is to cut energy costs, the exact wrong way to go.
No wonder the Energy Independence 2020 plan sank without a trace.
I have been on alert looking for any sign of a plan from the Democrats (which the Democrat leadership last year promised to unveil about now) and I was dismayed that I had missed such an important unveiling. I searched the internet for the plan. This is all I could find, the December 12, 2005 plan on Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's website: "Energy Independence 2020".
After I read it, I realized why it had passed under my less than phased array quality radar, it's a mess--a mixture of wishes and platitudes, and, I have to believe, a little prevarication. Let me explain.
Although the Democrats admit that: "High energy prices hurt our economy," what they propose can only raise energy prices, not lower them. Here are the proposals:
- Establish a national electricity standard that requires greater use of renewable energy
- Enhance incentives for energy production from solar, wind, and geothermal
- Increase dramatically the production of domestically grown biofuels
- Increase environmentally friendly extraction of oil and gas from existing domestic sources
- Encourage construction of the Alaskan natural gas pipeline
- Support the development of a hydrogen economy
- Promote deployment of advanced clean coal technology with carbon capture and storage
Solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels are not as cheap as oil and natural gas. If they were, they wouldn't need "incentives" to spur their development; people would be flocking to energy production from these sources because it is a good way to make money. So the Democrats are hawking more expensive sources of energy to cut high energy prices. Impossible.
The Democrats say they want to increase extraction of oil and natural gas from existing domestic sources but they vote for just the opposite. They block production of oil and gas in the west, off the coast and in a tiny part of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The weasel words "environmentally friendly" also mean increased costs of production which are not conducive to lower energy prices.
Hydrogen is the fall back. When we run out of fossil fuels, there still will be plenty of water we can split with electricity (from solar, wind or geothermal) into oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen uniquely burns without producing CO2 so widespread hydrogen use will stop the rising CO2 level worldwide in its tracks--kind of a win, win situation. The trouble is, hydrogen is very expensive while natural gas and oil are still relatively cheap. So again, good idea, but if the goal is to cut energy costs, the exact wrong way to go.
No wonder the Energy Independence 2020 plan sank without a trace.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:22 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
While I doubt the Democrats proposed it, nuclear power plants produce hydrogen as a “waste” material; neutrons break up the water molecule. It now has to be recombined at the plants with oxygen to make water since hydrogen is explosive. One unintended consequence of a hydrogen car, with the present exhaust systems, is water on the highway in the winter. The technology for a hydrogen car has been around for many years. The problem with any change is the infrastructure; we are talking big money and the oil companies have no incentive to change what they now do; who wants to invest in a “what if.” An intermediate source would be alcohol from Coors’ new economically viable process. With all of our corn, and billions in price supports, alcohol would work. With 60% of oil being used is imported, 10% less imported oil would make my day. All cars can operate on 10% alcohol. In Georgia in the 1980’s, ethanol was the same price as regular gas utilizing less economic production processes. Brazil now uses a federally mandated 25-26% mixture in modified American engines. They started using alcohol as a fuel for cars in 1979. I’ve often wondered how many Americans have ever heard of their efforts with alcohol. We might actually learn from them. There are solutions and with oil at >$68 per barrel most alternative sources are now viable economically. Unfortunately, the price you now see may be the bottom price from now on and in the future. Neither Democrats nor Republicans can change that economic reality. The atom didn’t get us free electricity as was promised in the 50’s, so beware of rosy predictions on energy from either side of the aisle.
# posted by 
: 10:44 PM
: 10:44 PM
Thanks for the comment and for reminding me that nuclear is conspicuously absent from the plan. The trouble with corn to fuel is that it takes a lot of work (and fuel--for the tractors, harvesters and stills) to get it to alcohol. There is a sort of oil in the shale nearby and plenty in sands in Alberta. The Germans learned how to make coal into fuel. I'm not too rosy, all these things will cost, but we will have them for a long time to come.
Yesterday, the BBC was reporting on a UK Government report on global warming.
It`s message was very blatant. The UK should start preparing for oncoming disaster, rather than sit around trying to talk the US and Chaina into the realities of Global warming.
The Greenland ice-pack is melting a little faster than we thought.
From the BBC.
In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
From the Observer..
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Zep.....they say that sea levels will rise by 23 ft if the Greenland ice cap melts. Not all at once, but nonetheless. This could affect the gulf stream.
This will be disasterous for the UK, hence the news yesterday.
But, it affaects us all, as the Pentagon are obviously saying.
Surely there has to be a wake-up call......?
It`s message was very blatant. The UK should start preparing for oncoming disaster, rather than sit around trying to talk the US and Chaina into the realities of Global warming.
The Greenland ice-pack is melting a little faster than we thought.
From the BBC.
In the report's foreword, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair writes that "it is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases... is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
From the Observer..
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer
Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Zep.....they say that sea levels will rise by 23 ft if the Greenland ice cap melts. Not all at once, but nonetheless. This could affect the gulf stream.
This will be disasterous for the UK, hence the news yesterday.
But, it affaects us all, as the Pentagon are obviously saying.
Surely there has to be a wake-up call......?
I never could figure out why conservatives have their head buried in the sand on this one. It stands to reason that if you pump all the oil out of the ground and burn it, and cut down most the trees and burn them, SOMETHING is going to happen. Maybe even global cooling, but to say that all our activity is having no effect on the climate is just plain ignorant.
Don't be sorry for length. I'm not sure the President's or the Republican position is that Global Warming is a hoax. I'm not sure that there is an official Republican position. I tend to think, like Dennis Miller, that a one degree increase in the global mean temperature over 150 years is remarkably stable. I also can do the math and see that global level of CO2 going from 290 ppb in 1850 to 360 ppb now is merely a 20% increase. Over the same period of time the world population went from 1 billion to 6.5 billion, a 650% increase. I think there is a climat change going on (there always is--the little optimum from 850 to 1200 was followed by the little ice age from 1450 to 1800) it's incredibly difficult to say how much of the recent rising temperatures is due to the 20% increase in CO2 levels worldwide. So that last, I think, may be the Republican position. It may well be getting warmer, but we don't know how much, if any, is due to human activity, and what do you want us to do? Stop driving to work, stop heating our homes. etc.? I don't know what we can do. Eventually, we will be using hydrogen because that's what we will have left and we can always build big CO2 scrubbers if CO2 turns out to be the problem. Oh, and 80% of the rise in sea level when it gets warmer is due to expansion of warm seas and the rest is ice melt water, mainly in the past from Antarctica (where 95% of the fresh water is) but except for the Antarctic Peninsula, the ice sheets on the main part of the continent are growing not melting, go figure. So I see a problem but not a catestrophic one and one we can fix (even if it turns out to be the Sun getting slightly hotter--which is a very real possibility). Thanks for caring.
Post a Comment
<< Home
