Virginians for Energy Independence Discussions - RPVNetwork

Pols make a (Yucca) mountain out of a molehill

2009-04-05T20:52:10.190Z

From the Free Lance Star

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/042009/04042009/456003

THANK YOU for your March 26 editorial "Captain Atom he ain't," which did a great job of describing President Obama's inconsistency regarding "scientific integrity" as it clearly explained important aspects of nuclear power in the United States.

Even without reference to nuclear power, Obama's duplicity surfaced in his statement about stem-cell use. Ideology, he said, should not limit scientific exploration; then, in the next sentence, he forbade the use of stem cells for cloning. I do not condone cloning, but all he did was move the ideology-based barrier back a few notches.

In any case, your editorial's comparison between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is spot on. Few people recognize the superiority of U.S. nuclear design and regulation.

You note as the "downside" of nuclear power the question "What to do with the radioactive waste?" Dangerous stuff for sure, but we and many other countries have been living with it for about 60 years while achieving a great safety record. Not only is Yucca Mountain, the ill-fated disposal site for U.S. commercial nuclear fuel, a victim of politics rather than science, but there is another absurd non-scientific decision about nuclear power that is less well-known.

In our country we recycle many wastes; glass, aluminum, etc. But the recycling of nuclear waste is forbidden by an action of a former president, Jimmy Carter. Recycling releases plutonium and uranium from used fuel so that it can be used again in new reactor fuel. Carter worried that this very pure (bomb-grade) uranium and plutonium could be diverted to nefarious uses. He reasoned that if the U.S. banned nuclear-fuel recycling, other countries would follow us--thus eliminating a proliferation risk.

But no one else followed! France and Britain, among others, have been reprocessing nuclear fuel for decades under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Meanwhile, the U.S. still does not recycle commercial fuel.

Not only is this process a great example of recycling (more than 85 percent of the spent-fuel waste is returned to make new fuel), but also the process is a boon for waste disposal since it reduces the volume of the waste needing to be stored for centuries by 95 percent!

Yucca Mountain, if it ever escapes the political whims of Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid and President Obama, would serve the country for 20 times its current planned lifetime. This, in turn, would dispel the myth that there is "no solution" to radioactive-waste disposal.

Also: Virginians contribute more than $650 million each year to the federal government for nuclear-waste disposal. You should wonder where that money goes.

Thomas Crimmins, a consultant in the nuclear-power field, lives in Fredericksburg.

Energy Taxes

2009-03-01T14:12:03.913Z

From "Americans for Prosperity"
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/

The 2010 Obama budget reveals the major tax hike that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are counting on to fund the outrageous bailout and stimulus spending that is propelling federal spending to record levels. The tax hike is a broad-based energy tax that will wallop every American who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys any product that has to be grown, shipped, or manufactured.

Think Gas Prices are High Now?
Just wait and see what happens if Big Government get its way. The numbers to the right tell the story. Under a bill being debated by Congress, filling up your car and heating your home will cost a fortune!

Don’t let tax-and-spend politicians take more of your money. If they succeed in scaring us into global warming alarmism, your freedom will be threatened and energy costs will balloon to outrageous levels.

A recent study shows that if extremists have their way we’ll live in a future with:
• Gas prices over $8.00 per gallon - costing families nearly $7,000 more per year.
• Electricity bills will more than double - a 129% hike.
• Government will control your home thermostat remotely (a real proposal in California.)

American families and businesses will be on the hook to pay for feel-good regulations that do almost nothing. You’ll be forced to choose between heating your home or a family vacation. Between a full tank of gas or saving for your children’s education.

If you OPPOSE plans to raise energy costs and impose huge new taxes, register to attend a Hot Air Tour stop near you.

Sources:
American Council on Capital Formation: Economic Impact of Lieberman-Warner
American Automobile Association: Fuel Gauge Report

Federal Control of Power

2009-02-24T23:52:33.102Z

FEBRUARY 23, 2009, 6:41 P.M. ET

Reid to Seek Federal Role on Power Lines Article

WASHINGTON -- Democrats' eagerness to boost the use of green energy appears set to collide with one of Washington's oldest maxims -- that all politics are local.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that he plans to introduce legislation giving federal regulators greater power to approve the routes of transmission lines needed to convey electricity generated in remote rural areas to coastal population centers. The move raises the prospect of conflict between federal energy regulators and state and local authorities, which have typically wielded extensive influence over decisions on the construction and location of new transmission lines.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123542892215253283.html

Smart Electric Grid

2009-02-05T21:00:26.831Z

I was interested in learning more about this "Smart Grid" thingy I keep hearing about and fount my way to this USA Today article

The atticle contained the following about "Smart Meters."

"Smart meters. Today, most consumers pay the same price for electricity, day or night. Digital meters let utilities offer variable prices to reflect wholesale power costs, like cellphone plans. Rates are typically highest at midday, when electricity usage peaks, and lowest in the wee hours.

Smart meters already are in 5% of U.S. homes and businesses, up from 1% two years ago, though many don't offer variable pricing yet. The devices will be linked to 40% of homes in five years, a recent FERC report says.

Consumers that choose time-of-use pricing are prodded to cut air conditioning use on hot days when the grid is stressed and shift, say, their laundry to later in the evening. Utilities avoid building plants needed only at peak hours. Customers on variable pricing in southern Illinois save about 10% on their bills, says program coordinator CNT Energy.

Companies such as GE are developing appliances that run at low levels when prices are high or turn on only after prices drop. Trilliant's software will even let consumers program their home networks from their iPhones."

Smart meters are only one of the elements of the "Smart Electric Grid" according to what I've read. A big element of the plan is a new backbone of transmission lines and equipment to move electricity from as yet unbuilt windmill and solar farms to places where electricity is needed.

One of the questions I have about this is whether this will be as economical as buillding conventional generating plants closer to the places that need the power. I suspect it won't be and I suspect the costs will be spread borne by consumers whether they will get power from the new sources or not.

But, my suspicions are really aroused by the Smart Meter. Right now I pay a flat rate for electricity. With the smart meter, I'll pay more for electricity used during the day when I need it and less during off-peak hours when I don't need it. Ummm...

This may be smart for the grid but it ain't smart for the consumer. I think this is all about three things:

1. Finding excuses for not building coal and nuclear power plants.
2. Managing a planned shortage of energy.
3. Imposing more creative ways of taxing the use of electricity.

Where am I wrong?

Why are there catch 22's in every government energy focus?(or lack of it)

2009-01-17T17:31:37.274Z

The legislators are not keeping up with emerging science, and the rules regulating our energy policy look like archaic remnants from the last century (and not the 20th century, either).

The use of Solar (which is still somewhat expensive to install a complete system) is not encouraged by the State or Federal Government, because although the State has set up a fund to reimburse a portion of that expense, the fund was never, well, funded, It's merely a shell.

If the amount of solar radiation that strikes the earth EVERY 72 hour period contains enough energy to equal our entire petroleum, natural gas and all coal reserves combined, why have we not pursued this effort with more deliberate intent?
Politics.
The oil companies should be leading this exploration and bringing it about rapidly. They have another "dog in this hunt", however. They'd have a new product to harness, but they'd also have a product that they could no longer sell. So how hard are they really going to promote an alternative?

The State of Virginia will readily fine the crap out of anyone who is smart enough to get past the use of fossil fuels with renewable fuel sources. This is because they're CHAINED to the taxes on the petroleum products, and lack the will to advance tax structures and maintenance programs to encompass renewable fuels. You can legally burn reclaimed waste oil products, but ANYTHING further will garner you a heavy fine if you are caught, even if your alternative leaves no emissions. Their complaint is that you will not be paying for the road tax in maintaining the infrastructure. Yet they have not even begun to address where those funds will come from with the coming increase that will solidly drop petroleum sales.

How do we put forth candidates who are ready to change thinking and move away from the "old " technology and grasp (with serious intent) the bringing about of new thinking?

Harry Reid's Land Grab

2009-01-10T18:30:27.062Z

by Amanada Carpenter
Townhall.Com

It’s hard to pinpoint the worst part of the public lands legislation bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling up for an under-the-radar Sunday tomorrow.

The 1200-page, pork-laden, $10 billion proposal locks up millions of acres of energy-rich property by designating it an environmentalist-friendly “federal wilderness” area where not even as much as a bicycle would be permitted to travel across the land. Many of these areas recently became available when the ban on domestic drilling in Western states expired last fall and the liberal left couldn’t muster the courage to keep it in place due to rising energy prices.

One Republican House staffer put it this way: “Reid is going to make it federal land so no one can touch it. He’s locking up the equivalent of ANWR.”

The bill would cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as “federal wilderness” or “wild and scenic” riverways.

Now that the price of gasoline has dropped and attention has diverted to other areas, such as President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration, Leader Reid is making the land grab a priority and is calling members of the Senate back to Washington on Sunday to rush it through. And the bill, which is basically an omnibus compilation of pet projects, land seizures sponsored by individual House members and senators, has wide-ranging, bipartisan support since it helps many of them secure support from stakeholders in their home states and districts.

For example, one piece of the bill that has drawn the ire of the Wall Street Journal is a provision sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.). He’d like to make a robust, container shipping port located in his district’s Taunton River into a scenic tourist destination. This would have the liberally convenient side effect of killing a proposal to create a terminal to import liquefied natural gas.

Then, as to be expected in an omnibus bill, there’s the pork. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.) is requesting $461 million to legally settle a dispute over the San Joaquin River with the environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council. The money would be used for a water project that has the “minimum goal” of restoring 500 salmon to the river. (That’s nearly $1 million per fish.) Montana Sen. Jon Tester (D.) wants $5 million to fund a “Wolf Compensation and Prevention Program” to assist property owners use “non-lethal” measures to prohibit wolves from killing their livestock.

The lands bill chief opponent Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) argues it’s foolish to add acreage to the federal government’s responsibility when it can’t even properly manage treasured properties like the Statue of Liberty or National Mall appropriately. And, “we’re not exactly suffering from a shortage of wilderness,” his spokesman John Hart said in a conversation with Townhall.

Coburn has drafted 13 amendments to the bill, but Reid is not allowing him to offer a single one of them. One of them is a common-sense measure to just require that the current maintenance backlogs of government property be brought up to date.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) is urging his fellow Republicans to just skip the vote, as a means of opposing the bill and drawing attention to the fact it’s been more than 120 days since Reid allowed a GOP amendment to be accepted on the floor.

Several Republicans, however, have their own projects in the bill making it a difficult vote to skip. Republican Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming, who is typically a reliable conservative vote, has a provision tucked away in the bill to withdraw 1.2 million acres of state land from mineral leasing and energy exploration, where 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 331 million barrels of recoverable oil are estimated to exist.
--------------------------------

It's just not possible to keep up with these people much less stop the damage they do on any given day.

How could energy independence become even remotely possible with this kind of thing going on?

Virginia Energy Plan

2009-01-02T16:56:03.660Z

This is the most current energy plan for Virginia as of September 12, 2007.

Summary:
The Plan establishes four broad goals for energy:
- The first goal calls for increased energy independence through expanded conservation and efficiency, and increased in-state energy production. The conservation and efficiency actions could reduce the growth rate of energy use by 40 percent, resulting in a leveling of per-capita energy use over time. The Plan calls for increasing in-state energy production by 20 percent through expanded production of traditional, renewable, and biofuel sources.
- The Plan calls for expanded consumer education on energy use. Increased educational efforts will arm citizens with the information they need to make smart decisions about how they use energy.
- The Plan recognizes that energy policy and environmental policy have become closely intertwined, setting a target to reduce 2025 baseline greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent. The Plan also recommends the creation of a Climate Change Commission, which would assess the level of Virginia’s carbon emissions, assess what the consequences might be for Virginia if climate change is not addressed, and address what other actions Virginia should take to meet this goal.
- The Plan also sets a goal to capitalize on economic development opportunities and increase research and development in four strategic areas – nuclear technologies, alternate transportation fuels, coastal energy production, and carbon capture and storage.

Governor Timothy M. Kaine press release:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/mediarelations/NewsReleases/viewRelease.cfm?id=495

Virginia Energy Plan document
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/2007_VA_Energy_Plan-Full_Document.pdf

If you know of any changes or something related please let me know and I will update this discussions post. Any critiques of this plan would be much appreciated.

Governor's Energy Policy Advisory Council
The Advisory Council’s responsibilities shall include the following:
1. Review the recommendations set forth in the Virginia Energy Plan as well as other relevant reports and studies.
2. Evaluate strategies for implementing recommendations of the Virginia Energy Plan, including prioritization, approach, and timeline.
3. Monitor implementation of the Virginia Energy Plan.
4. Identify additional energy policy options for the Commonwealth to address energy issues.
5. Make other recommendations as may be appropriate.

http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/AdvisoryCouncil.shtml

List of Energy Policy Advisory Council Members - (PDF)
http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/AdvisoryCouncilMembers.pdf

TTD: look up background information of council members

Low Energy Costs Key To States' Success
BY GEORGE ALLEN
Posted 11/20/2008
Investors.com

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=312075488335550

More George Allen Energy sources - http://www.georgeallen.com/category/energy/

Obama Plan - New Energy for America

2009-01-02T16:26:05.851Z

Here is information concerning the Obama Plan called New Energy for America.
Does not appear to have been updated since the election from what I can tell.

Overview:
• Provide short‐term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined
• Put 1 million Plug‐In Hybrid cars – cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon – on the road by
2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025
• Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050

Homepage:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

Link to Energy Plan document:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

If you find interesting links of critiques or comparisons of this plan let me know and I will update them here. Thanks!

Clean Energy 2030 - Google's Proposal

2009-01-02T08:19:38.047Z

I wanted to add this to the discussion list as it received some press attention in the 2008 campaign. Considering the support Google gave to Mr. Obama it may merit some attention. I have not read it in its entirety but we should be aware of it.

This revised proposal was released on November 20, 2008

Google's Proposal for reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels:

http://knol.google.com/k/jeffery-greenblatt/clean-energy-2030/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#

If you know of other references or evaluations of the Google Energy Plan that maybe useful let me know and I will add then to this post for future reference.

There is no cure for it.

2008-12-31T22:13:47.776Z

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison

Congress takes our tax money and Democrats give it to every wing-nut voting block there is. In the case of energy, billions go to environmental groups. Those groups spend our tax money to propagandize the public, contribute to Democrat political campaigns and politicians and organize their members in support of Democrats. In exchange for the votes and the money, Democrats keep the tax money flowing to the environmentalists.

This is the corrupt system that perpetuates our energy dependence and every other problem we suffer from. I despair of ever seeing any improvement in our circumstances, in any area, for so long as this system is allowed to continue and I see no will on the part of the people to stop it. On the contrary, the people seem devoted only to getting their share of the spoils. It is a system based on looting that will persist until there is nothing left to loot.

How am I wrong?