Energy Bill Abandons Renewables

It's hard to imagine the United States moving even further away from energy independence at a time when so many of the issues impacting the nation are tied up in oil politics. Nevertheless, GOP members of the House managed to do exactly that on the energy bill, according to the New York Times.

Working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad energy legislation, Congressional negotiators on Monday killed two major provisions aimed at curbing consumption of traditional fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal.

House members rejected an effort to incorporate a plan passed by the Senate to require utilities to use more renewable energy like wind and solar power to generate electricity. They also defeated a bid to direct the president to find ways to cut the nation's appetite for oil by one million barrels a day.

...

The energy bill has come under criticism from some lawmakers and conservation groups for doing too little to cut into the nation's dependence on foreign oil while increasing oil and gas production. The two provisions dropped Monday were seen by the environmental community as among the few bright spots in the energy bill.

These were really simple, common sense, and bipartisan proposals the hard-line, oil-loving GOP House members stripped out of the energy bill.  As the fantastic cover article in the latest issue of National Geographic points out, renewables like wind and solar are not the pipe dreams they once may have been. Solar power has become so efficient that all of the United States' electricity needs could be taken care of by installing solar panels on "less than a quarter of the roof and pavement space in cities and suburbs." And wind power now accounts for 35,000 megawatts of electricity production in Europe, as compared to a mere 7,000 megawatts in North America, which holds "huge potential for wind energy."

Unfortunately, there's obviously no compromising with the GOP oil lobby. To them, any suggestion of alternative sources of renewable energy is outrageous. Might it have something to do with the nearly $5.3 million in campaign contributions the energy industry has given these Republicans in the past four years? One wonders...



Display:


In fairness (none / 0)

Oil is the short and medium term choice, at least for transportation.

Any alternative is going to have to make do with the existing infrastructure.  

THat means that the only viable alternative is the one that is already coming on: gasoline-electric hybrid.

Given that there are many states with not a single station for ethanol or hydrogen.

Also, I'm in the camp that says there should be utterly no hand-holding.  We don't need to get into the business of subsidizing uneconomical enterprises.  America doesn't need an energy giant version of Amtrak.

The only thing that needs to be done is to tweak a few laws so it's a little harder for folks to block the building of wind turbines and solar farms.

Aside from that, the market forces should take of the rest.

But, like anything, getting the installed base into place to make it happen is the biggie.  Encouraging half-assed business ventures won't help, though.

Give it time.

The advantages of wind and solar are beginning to far outstrip their downside.

Remember, the oil industry took from the 1860s to the 1920s to really mature.

These industries are following a similar curve.  Hopefully, that curve will be a bit tighter thanks to modern ingenuity.  

by jcjcjc on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:45:19 AM EST

The gov't can (none / 0)

initiate and fund R&D to make alternative energy commercially viable. We already have the NIH out there developing drugs which pharmacorps then pick up and sell, and the Internet was innovated by the military. So why shouldn't tax money do the heavy lifting to help move us away from fossil fuels?
Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:56:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What I was addressing (none / 0)

is the propensity for alternative energy businesses to be babysat into uselessness.

Most forms of alternative energy no longer require any extensive research, yet are being subsidized well after their merits are known.

Look at ethanol.  30 years of research, and what have learned is that is takes about 10 gallons of gasoline to manufacture 7 or 8 gallons of ethanol.

Yet, a whole army of Senators and Reps from the Midwest keep this bullshit alt energy going with subsidies which fall nothing short of vote buying.

Research can largely and effectively be done through major educational institutions and other structures.

The truth, the Energy Department needs to invest in something similar to DoD's DARPA program.

But, I would be a tad worried about putting too much money into alt energy businesses themselves, given the previous failures.

Currently, at least half of the alt energy business is a tax shelter doing utterly nothing.

That's a horrific business model that is holding back alt energy, by encouraging business to place money into simple, delineated models of business intended to reap tax rewards and nothing else.

Take away the tax incentives, build up a DARPA-like program, and watch alt energy grow.

Right now, the business model is shit.  There is no incentive for any alt energy investment to get better or bigger.

Once they hit their optimum for tax incentives, there is no upside.

It's like when you have a kid who refuses to learn how to swim in deep water.  You can't keep them in the shallow end.  You have to toss the little bastards in the deep end and make them swim to save their damned lives.

Alt energy needs to learn how to swim in deep water on its own.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 11:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What I was addressing (none / 0)

I am not a business person, so i am not commenting on that part of your post.  Instead i have something to say about this line:

"Research can largely and effectively be done through major educational institutions and other structures."

The only thing that i dont think you understand is  where educational institutions, and many government research groups get their money from.  The answer to that is the NIH and NSF.  I work at a National Labs now and worked for several years at my university, and both places write proposals for grants from the government.  So when the NIH and NSF dont have money for this research, and they dont ask for propsals, significantly less research gets done.

Thanks though for making a reasonable argument.

by phemfrog on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ugh . . . maybe I forgot to fill out the form (none / 0)

"The only thing that i dont think you understand is  where educational institutions, and many government research groups get their money from. "

Why is this inherently viewed as anti-government?

That wasn't what I meant!

It isn't hard to understand, given that a DARPA-like program would pour a lot of money into these instititutions.

My main point is that subsidies of the businesses themselves should end.

The reason I favor something like DARPA rather than just block grants is that DARPA provides a competetive model for offering grants.

Look at DoD's autonomous scout vehicle program from what I consider the ideal approach.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No gasoline at all needed for ethanol (none / 0)

I get so sick of refuting this. Do you think that corn wasn't grown before petroleum was discovered?
No one drank whiskey because they couldn't make ethanol without gasoline or fuel oil?

Farmers use petroleum products because they are cheaper than alternatives, not because they have too.

by antiHyde on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No gasoline at all needed for ethanol (none / 0)

The process for creating ethanol yeilds significantly less usable material than it requires to make.

No source of energy can be useful if it take more energy to make it than it yields.

Ethanol is a classic pork program.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No gasoline at all needed for ethanol (none / 0)

The energy comes from the Sun. ALL processes take more energy than they yield. It's called the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Brazil and South Africa successfully used alcohol for vehicle fuel. Brazil because of foreign exchange problems, South Africa because of the boycott.

Both abandoned alcohol, not because they ran out or "it took more energy to make than it yielded"(also true of wood), but because they managed to get cheaper petroleum. Brazil straightened out its financial house and the South African government was replaced by a true democracy, so the boycott was lifted.

Alcohol is probably not the best solution, but it is a solution and better one than military occupation of the Middle East. Or soviet style Hillary cars.

by antiHyde on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 03:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Boy, oh boy . . . fairy tale science! (none / 0)

You have to . . . pro-cess eth-a-nol.

BTW -- think before you patronize.  "ALL processes take more energy than they yield. It's called the second Law of Thermodynamics."

I said that it takes significantly more.  That's a big difference.

Also, there is the law of conservation of energy.  Come to think of it, isn't that what supposedly causes global warming?  All that supposedly lost energy goes somewhere, doesn't it?

It's only a loss because we want it all.  Efficiency, ya know.

Ethanol is laughably inefficient.

For example, ethanol requires gigantic amounts of grain to create.  Does anyone here know how the world makes enough food to feed its exploding population?

If you said fossil fuels and mined resources, you might be right!

Chemical fertilization is the cornerstone of modern agriculture.  Jeepers!  Where do those chemicals come from, professor?

Well, Billy, those chemicals that make entire states grow full of corn come from the mining and drilling industries.

Wow!

That's right, Billy.  Wow, indeed.  

The sun alone doesn't make anything grow, judging by the abundant plant life on Mercury.

by jcjcjc on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 12:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Market forces (none / 0)

While you are correct in saying that the advantages of wind and solar are beginning to far outstrip their downside, there is a major problem with relying on market forces to solve our problems energy security and health issues.

A market-based approach to clean, independent energy is based on the fact that fossil fuel is limited.  All we have to do is wait until the supply becomes so limited that alternative becomes a cheaper alternative.

However, there are a couple of disadvantages to this  approach.

First, even if there were a truly level playing field between different types of energy, we would have to wait for the price of fossil fuels to go up.  While we are waiting, we will face continued poisoning of the air and water supplies.

Second, this approach ignores the vast amount of vested interest in maintaining the current system. As long as those unwilling to innovate control the political system, there will be no fair market competition, and those who profit from fossil fuels will have an incentive to go to war over control of a shrinking supply.

To address this, there are only two policy options: increase the price of fossil fuels through taxes (not likely), or foster the innovation necessary for reducing the price of alternative fuels.

The Apollo Alliance has some great ideas on how to accomplish this   http://www.apolloalliance.org/

In addition, we need research on more effective energy movement and storage.  The advantage of fossil fuels is that you can move them to where you need them; other forms of energy require power lines or batteries to get to the point of use, and both of these technologies are inefficient. I would love to see an effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project to create a room-temperature superconductor or a high-capacity battery; this would instantly make any form of alternative energy cheap no matter where it was used.

by Mudshark on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 11:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In fairness (none / 0)

The government shouldn't subsidize promising research into renewables, yet handing out billions of tax dollars to subsidize the existing oil industry is somehow acceptable?

Insanity like this will really come into perspective when oil passes $100/barrel and average gas exceeds $3.00/gal in the next 1-2 years.

Most believable estimates put global Peak Oil between 2005-2012.  It's all downhill after that.  The permanent end of cheap oil will change everything, politics included.  We're talking oil at $200+ and gas at $5.00+ in the next decade.  All viable alternatives take decades, not years, to deploy.  A lot of rude awakenings are coming.

by Johnny66 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dammit, read (none / 0)

"The government shouldn't subsidize promising research into renewables"

Subsidies and research are separate things!!!!

Why is this hard to understand?

Does anyone on this goddamned website even know what DARPA is?!?!?!

Jesus H. Christ.  If you're posting on the internet, you're using the fruit of DARPA's labors.

DARPA is one of the most successful government R&D programs ever.  It is responsible for a myriad of technologies, including the internet, some of the op-code for later generation processor, GPS, kevlar, and a host of other exceedingly useful things.

I am not arguing for an end to R&D.  I just think it should be put into a competetive system, like DARPA uses, where there is a huge trial where different corps and colleges and eve high schools drop their best stuff into a big fight to win.

On the other hand, I am arguing for an end to subsidies, like the pile of wasted cash that goes into giving corps tax breaks for ethanol, the biggest pork program to never drop a bomb on a brown person.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Alternative energy (none / 0)

The problem with wind is that many communities have proven unwilling to "mar" their landscapes with square miles of windmill farms or their scenic beachfront oceanviews with the same.

As for solar, what did the republicans cut out? I have some neighbors who installed solar panels into their roofs and gained complete electrical independence. Any citizen can go solar, it's just very expensive. Did the republicans cut out solar power subsidies or something?

Personally, I prefer more nuclear reactors in the short-term while pushing far more resources into fusion which has progressed greatly in the last 15 years and promises unlimited clear energy for the entire world. I remember back in the 1980s fusion was talked about in theory without a certainty it was even possible. Now its been accomplished on a miniscule level and they still have to make it efficient on increasingly larger scales. The economic powers of the world recently agreed on building the world's first fusion reactor test site in France.

I also support Hillary's initiative for a 40 mpg automobile standard by 2012 that would cut our petroleum consumption in half, reducing our dependency on the mideast while we're trying to make fusion viable.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:05:04 AM EST

Re: Alternative energy (none / 0)

Yet another reason to not vote for Hillary. That type of old Left "nanny knows best" politics is done. While giving lip service to the free market, she wishes to restrict market choices to what SHE wants to see for sale.
by antiHyde on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there any candidate, (none / 0)

Dem or Reep, of whom this could not be said? All major figures in both parties believe in restricting market choices, only in different ways.
Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 01:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is there any candidate, (none / 0)

I prefer ways that don't involve the government making my purchase decisions.
by antiHyde on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 03:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're dodging the question. (none / 0)

Who in the Swamp stands for that? Ron Paul, maybe?

I'm talking reality, not rhetoric. Everybody says they believe in letting people make their own decisions. And then they turn around and quietly take away your right to do so.

Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 05:17:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What I want to know is.... (none / 0)

Why the hell are Democrats "working furiously to try to strike a deal on broad energy legislation" when it's obviously a GOP bill crafted by Cheney and energy execs in secret?

What we've got here is a rerun of NAFTA, NCLB, Patriot Act, Iraq Resolution, Bankruptcy Law, Corporate Tax Breaks, etc. -- Democrats selling out their party's values, platform, and voters just so they can say they helped the GOP pass something while serving corporate puppeteers in reality.

What this country needs right now more than anything is an opposition party.

by Guy on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 02:45:40 AM EST

Re: What I want to know is.... (none / 0)

"Congressional negotiators" is uncertain and probably means Republicans in the Senate and ultra "conservative" Republicans.

As to market forces, as long ago as the mid to late 70s the Saudis were spending a bunch of money here in the States to have our econometric forecasters tell them how high they could jack up oil prices before alternate energy was feasible.  Now they have that plus the lobbyists.

by David Kowalski on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 12:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All about 'pork for contributions' (none / 0)

When it comes down to it, there is not red or blue in Congress, only green.

The Senate version of the bill passed 92-4: with MTBE gone, I'm certain that the conference report will do just as well.

Campaign contributions produce the highest profit margin of any activity in the US (except narcotics, perhaps). You pay $1,000, you get $1 million in corporate welfare.

It helps to have circuses going like Rove and Roberts to distract the easily distracted, of course...

by johnsmith0903 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 04:40:58 AM EST

Not pork: bacon (none / 0)

Campaign contributions and pork are not the same thing: Campaign contributions go to election efforts, pork (if it's not yours) or bacon (if it is) goes to constituents in a legislator's district or state.

All Members of Congress are expected to bring home the bacon for their districts and states; it's a reasonable request from their constituents.  

This expectation can be used in favor of the environment and energy independence as well as against it.  There are plenty of Congressional districts that have no fossil fuels to exploit but would still like federal funding to increase employment.  We need to make a credible case in a bipartisan block of key Congressional districts that grants for  alternative energy project will bring create jobs.  Legislators get something to brag about, and environmentalism and energy independence are promoted at the same time.

The Apollo Alliance has some interesting ideas on this: http://www.apolloalliance.org/

by Mudshark on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not pork: bacon (none / 0)

All Members of Congress are expected to bring home the bacon for their districts and states; it's a reasonable request from their constituents.

It's the driver of billions of dollars of excessive and low quality expenditure every year. Inescapable, no doubt, but hardly cause for satisfaction.

So the increased ethanol content rules will no doubt entice farm state members to support Tom DeLay's Gulf of Mexico ultra-deep drilling handouts. (And oil industry beneficiaries will be expressing their gratitude in the usual way to DeLay some time very soon.)

It's the way of the world - but pardon me for not cheering.

And it's thoroughly bipartisan: the Senators from MBNA, Biden and Carper, really brought home the bacon with the bankruptcy bill - leaving many thousands unable to afford bacon thanks to their handiwork!

by johnsmith0903 on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 03:59:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All about 'pork for contributions' (none / 0)

Rove is a major major part in all of this because Rove is paid to keep the focus off the national
debate and destroy the fabric of America. Roves friends in Texas were friends of the Bin Ladens and their business started up on Bin Laden oil money. And SOMEONE in the white house made sure after 911 that the Bin Ladens got out of the country on a WHITE HOUSE JET as fast as they could, without even an INTERVIEW BY THE FBI.

Think oil money doesn't have anyting to do with it?\
Who do you think produced the map divvying up the persian gulf amongst texas oil companies  in 2000,
a year and a half before the invasion? Son, I tell you what - that Karl Rove is in something like this up to his eyeballs.

Its not a busload of traitors, those texas oil boys are just trying to make a buck - its one big, fat, dangerous traitor that has put our country up for sale. One traitor that has done all of this.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 11:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All about 'pork for contributions' (none / 0)

Almost forgot to say - yes, folks that map was drawn up during the last months of the 2000 election season, just as sure as hollywood money came straight into Gore's camp when he contested
the election. Ten bucks says that map made
the "economic summit" rounds in Texas right about
November. Anyone want to look at Rove's travel schedule and figure it out, you send me a free
t-shirt and we'll call it even.

Oh yeah and on the T-shirt, nothing fancy.
Just an american flag.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 11:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see a future wedge issue (none / 0)

Lets turn this to our advantage.  The Wingnuts are in control of the Congress, they want you to pay more at the pump, fool.

Everyone I know is lamenting and getting angry with oil prices. I see this as just another issue to pry away the increasingly disillusioned moderates who voted for those crooks.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna throw that alternative energy figure of the EU is installing over five times the amount of capacity per year than the US.  

by NvDem on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 08:29:36 AM EST

Re: I see a future wedge issue (none / 0)

Son - listen. If you do not fix this issue,
there will be no future..

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/07/26/heat.wave.ap/index.html

None whatsoever.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 11:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what? (none / 0)

You actually believed Bush when he said he was in favor of renewable energy...

you did?

oh..yeah...me too..hey....want to buy a bridge??

Trillin
http://www.mnleftyliberal.blogspot.com

by trillin on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 09:00:35 AM EST

Since now even the Major Oil companies are (none / 0)

taking out two page ads saying that the next 100 billlion barrells of oil will be used in the next 30 years rather than the last 100 years when is some one going to form a 527 PAC to push the Appollo Alliance Agenda?

Go to these companies, all of them, for about 5 million a year in contributions for 20 years. The fallacy in logic is that Oil Companies will oppose new energy resources that we can't even imagine today.

No. They will spend billion commericalizing the pure research spent by the government funding created by the projects spawned by The Apollo Alliance and create new industries and move slowly to them.

An oil free society, or nearly so, is possible in our lifetimes. Let Chine rely on oil. Let's not.

Who's going to form the 527?

...just a red meat eatin' Democratic Dawg at PolCampaign
by BigDog on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:33:31 AM EST

The TBS position on this issue (none / 0)

First, we are, as a country supporting a huge and extremely - no, crippling lobbyist industry
that makes bills like these, 10,000 page behemoths
that many representatives dont. even. read. if you
can believe it.

More provisions. More cash. That simple.  Monster 10,000 page bill. Presto. Its like that vanity "blast your message into outer space" radio dish operating out of someone's backyard in minnesota that for 20.00 bucks a line you can send a message to pluto. More lines, more money - but the policy becomes as incoherent as that message just outside mars orbit and the benefit completely dissappears two light seconds later.

The TBS Position on the ISSUE is - let at least ONE party  embrace the cheapest,
most practical alternative - take the issue
directly to the people - incorporate the blogosphere into the national political mechanism. If we can vote out here, in 10 seconds - why can't we vote on simple energy propositions in 10 seconds especially when we're footing the bill in  three different ways?

Now, if this bill were taken to the people -
we would have cheap, renewable energy as
hot a seller as the toyota prius.

And let me tell you what - if you bought one of
those babies you're crying all the way to the bank. Even my staunch conservative pop traded in his benz for a honda v-6 hybrid.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 10:55:38 AM EST

"We cant afford it" is baloney! (none / 0)

We cant afford a clean environment, but we can afford endless war? If we just bellied-up to the bar and built the windfarms, solar farms, etc. then we wouldn't have to talk anymore about the cost: it'd already be built. But no! "We can't afford it", "it's too expensive". So what! Just spend the money. Hell, we could probably do it for the amount of money we spend on on years worth of interest on the debt.

PS It can be done better at the state level, so don't get depressed about the lack of federal money.

by Paul Goodman on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 04:26:44 PM EST

Oil isn't really used for energy generation (none / 0)

It's used for transportation (and things like plastics).

Now, natural gas and coal are, of course, but these two issues should be more seperated than they usually are, IMHO.

by Geotpf on Tue Jul 26, 2005 at 06:01:00 PM EST

SDF (none / 0)

机票联盟网服务电话:机票 884;订:010-89590599 酒店预订:010-89597840 国内机票:010-89590599 国际机票:010-89595606 机票联盟网服务承诺:为您 3D0;供打折机票机票价格查询、特价机票机票查询、 8DE;机票预订服务, 全力打造优质机票服务。


机票联盟网 是专门提供给网友的机票预订电话的机票导航网。通过机 968;联盟网,能够很轻松的找到 当地很有优势的机票代理商 F0C;他们的价格低廉,服务优质 。我们力争寻找当地特价机票提供商,为您的出行节约资 1D1;。如果您在打折机票联盟网中查到的民航售票处所提供的飞机票价格,不是最低的。我们将 ACB;即更换该机票代理。同时, 诚邀各地优秀的特价机票国际机票代理人,加入我们。北京机票预订:010-89590599 010-89595606上海机票预订:021-52385605 021-52385606


by llalx on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 10:39:24 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.