Republicans Offer Alternative Energy Bill Heavy on Nuclear, Oil Drilling

By Jeff St. John

Well, you can't say they didn't try.

House Republicans on Wednesday offered up their own energy bill, one that focuses on building 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years and opening oil and gas drilling in offshore regions and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Associated Press reports.

The American Energy Act, as the bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., is called, does give support for renewable energy with tax credits and funding to be paid through leases from all the proposed oil and gas drilling.

But, unlike the energy and climate bill from Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., which includes a controversial cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the Republicans' offering says nothing about combating climate change (see House Energy Bill Draft: Cap-and-Trade Included).

As an alternative to the Democrat-sponsored bill now being debated in the House, the Republican alternative stands little chance, of course, given the GOP's lack of votes in Congress.

Republican efforts to make nuclear power plants eligible for energy bill incentives by putting them in the same "low-emissions" class as wind and solar power have been repeatedly blocked in Congress, for example (see Former EPA Chief: Building 100 More Nuclear Reactors is Doable).

The Democratic bill, on the other hand, has been in the works for two months and has the support of President Barack Obama. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to bring it to a full House vote in July.

But the proposed cap-and-trade system has faced a spirited backlash from industry and business groups that say it will increase energy costs and harm the economy, which has led to some compromises weakening its original provisions (see Come Get 'Em: Gov't Plans to Give Freebies Under Cap-and-Trade).

And expanding offshore drilling isn't just for Republicans. A Senate committee voted Tuesday to add to the energy and climate bill an amendment, proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., that would shrink the buffer zones around Florida's coastline where drilling is prohibited, the Miami Herald reported.

At the same time, however, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee did reject a proposal from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, to open the arctic wildlife refuge to drilling.

Comments

[huangjin:]

The Republican bill at least provides a way to produce energy. The Democrat bill cuts demand and forces people into inefficient technology, and even the other Dems are not on board.

Jun 11 08:10 AM

[john s. gordon:]

the pence proposal is unreal.
100 new nukes in 20 yrs requires a massive expansion of our ability to build large pressure vessels and other equipment needed to resuscitate a nuclear industry. this capability has withered drastically in the last 30 yrs.
> jack

Jun 11 08:25 AM

[dick streich:]

You are right in proposing more nuclear. The democrats are wrong.
If they pass their bill, everything is going to cost alot more

Jun 11 08:31 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Cap-and-trade is nonsense. How many times do I have to say that before the movers and shakers get the message. More nuclear is also the way to go, but the suggestion of 100 new reactors in 20 years needs some thought - unless those reactors are going to be constructed in plants instead of putting them together at the reactor site the way that they are doing in Finland. The important thing here however is to speed up the development of Generation 4 reactors.

As for drilling for oil and gas in the arctic, what's the point?

Jun 11 10:01 AM

[wheels14:]

Can you build nuclear in California that can withstand earthquakes?

Jun 11 10:36 AM

[SteveB/Colo...:]

I agree with John Gordon. Nuclear should be part of our energy future, but building 100 plants in 20 years?? That isn't realistic. The proposal also overlooks that the US still hasn't solved the problem of nuclear waste disposal.

More drilling could be an answer. But how to get the energy companies to drill what they already have is a barrier. As of one year ago, companies had over 67 million acres of undeveloped oil & gas leases; on-shore, mostly in the West, and off-shore (source: Republicans for Environmental Protection). That was before companies began to cap wells & idle rigs due to the recession. More leasing is not an answer.

Jun 11 10:46 AM

[jack kreg:]

"proposed cap-and-trade system has faced a spirited backlash from industry and business groups",

You forgot to ask the American family, who will get soaked with high energy taxes, beginning at a few $1000/yr.

Of course, the initial few $1000 won't be enough, as we have found in CA, where increased tax revenue is never enough for BIG government, so you can expect, no exactly predict that the few $1000/yr in new energy taxes, will quickly become MANY $1000/yr.
Cap/Trade is bad for America.

Jun 11 11:36 AM

[jack kreg:]

"Republicans' offering says nothing about combating climate change",
Why should the Rep's say something about nothing, eg climate change?

Jun 11 11:38 AM

[Trane250:]

There is much to commend in Pence's bill including a provision for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. However, with deregulation, there aren't too many utility companies that can afford to spend $12 billion or more to build a nuclear plant. Also, as someone has already pointed out, we've lost the ability to produce key components for the plants. And how many universities still have nuclear engineering departments?

Jun 11 11:49 AM

[QUINCE:]

Who’s going to build nuclear? Who’s going to own and sell the energy? How fair will the competition nuclear-solar-geo-wind be? Is the government going to subsidize some and leave the others in the dust? I do agree that nuclear should be part of the solution. California should join all other states in a new National Energy Regulation and equal benefits, so earthquakes are not an issue.

Jun 11 12:13 PM

[DONE_SONZ:]

If it uses more energy than it produces,it isn't worth it.Energy dense oil is still the answer.Drill.

Jun 11 12:32 PM

[Valley Boy:]

State law forbids any more nuclear power plants until such time as the nuclear waste disposal issues are settled. California still has two active nuclear power plants situated on the coast. There was some controversy about building a new nuclear power plant some miles south of Fresno next to that city's wastewater treatment plant. The site is situated on a thick layer of alluvial soil away from the earthquake faults. California utilities still import nuclear energy from other states.


On Jun 11 10:36 AM wheels14 wrote:

> Can you build nuclear in California that can withstand earthquakes?

Jun 11 12:34 PM

[Will Deliver:]

Democrats Waxman & Markey have introduced good legislation!
Although the details of Cap & Trade aren't spelled out, the bill does provide the Cap & Trade option for the biggest carbon producers to mitigate their emissions with cash.
Distributed, renewable energy production will create jobs, reduce our dependance on foreign oil, and reduce the amount of investment needed to upgrade our antiquated, national power grid. Energy efficiency measures will further reduce the need to produce more power and will create jobs, saving money two ways.
I'm all for solar & geothermal incentives. I'm all against Nuclear in any form. Additional nuclear power plants in America only gives the Petro Terrorists additional targets to hurt us with. We already have too many threats and too few solutions to our nuclear situation(s). Will

Jun 11 12:53 PM

[bbowen7:]

There will be no nuclear power plants builtin the United States until the Sierra Club realizes that nuclear energy does not mean bombs.

Jun 11 02:06 PM

[lancekoz:]

Increased drilling should not be allowed without increased CAFE standards and a fuel tax that creates a steady price for gas to consumers in the 4 to 5 dollar range. Finally, we have half of that requirement in place.

Jun 11 02:28 PM

[Steve in Gr...:]

"...San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) provides nearly 20 percent of the power to more than 15 million people in Southern California..."

www.sce.com/PowerandEn...


On Jun 11 10:36 AM wheels14 wrote:

> Can you build nuclear in California that can withstand earthquakes?

Jun 11 02:56 PM

[Alan von Al...:]

On Jun 11 02:28 PM lancekoz wrote:
> Increased drilling should not be allowed without increased CAFE standards
> and a fuel tax that creates a steady price for gas to consumers in
> the 4 to 5 dollar range.

Who the hell gave you permission to block domestic oil production, destroy the auto industry, and triple-tax consumers? Don't make eco-blather look worse than it already is.

Jun 11 02:57 PM

[Steve in Gr...:]

I don't know the answer to Trane's question about university nuclear engineering department, but I'm not sure it matters. The United States Navy has a wonderful nuclear program. They could supply all the operators and engineers we need.

100 nukes in 20 years is easily achievable.

On Jun 11 11:49 AM Trane250 wrote:

> ... And how many universities still have nuclear engineering
> departments?

Jun 11 03:02 PM

[Fred Linn:]

Republican thought processes seem to be firmly rooted in the last half of the 19th Century.

Slaughter the buffalo and bring back the robber barrons.

Jun 11 03:44 PM

[Edik:]

"STUPIDITY" have NO LIMITS, and an incompetent person have NO RIGHT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, we call it "PUBLIC ENEMY".
How naive are we, to get screwed not Once, but our entire life, not even in the dark, but day-light.
Yes, "WE PAY YOU TO SCREW THE PUBLIC NOT ONCE BUT RATHER 4 FOLD" in the name of the LAW.
The problem is that, this TIME they have to "DRILL WHERE THE MOON DON'T SHINE.

Jun 11 03:46 PM

[Graybeard44:]

If this country ever gets serious about achieving energy independence, we will build nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors, which not only create energy, but can reprocess our existing nuclear waste into new fuel.

Jun 11 03:47 PM

[Fred Linn:]

------"Who the hell gave you permission to block domestic oil production, destroy the auto industry, and triple-tax consumers? Don't make eco-blather look worse than it already is."---------

My, my, testy aren't we? The auto industry is self destructing anyway. High oil prices are triple taxing us anyway. The domestic oil production robs resources and destroys public lands and waters that you have no right of private ownership to. Why should I allow coporate interests access to property that I share ownership of to destroy for profit? At my expense.

If the oil companies wish to stay in business and make a profit---let them produce biofuels. Biofuels can do anything that petroleum can. Better. And they can use all the existing infrastructure to do it. It's not my fault if the oil companies are too short sighted and greedy to see beyond the end of their noses.

Jun 11 03:57 PM

[Jimbo:]

I am surprised, that, with all the pro and con about nuclear energy, no one has mentioned thorium reactors. I understand this is new technology. This kind of reactor produces much less radioactive waste. The Canadians are building "package" reactors that can be trucked to those nasty, dirty oil sands sites to provide heat to extract oil from the underground without "mining" the tar sands. Maybe we can import Canadian skills for our nuclear revival? I recommend we send the Sierra Club to France so they can see how socialist France produces more than 80% of their electricity. We are going to need some credible form of liquid transportation fuel for years to come. Perhaps we can extract urine from Democrats and convert it to fuel.

Jun 11 04:48 PM

[Jimbo:]

BTW...I was an early contributor to both Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. But I read their material and realized they were NUTS!

Jun 11 04:49 PM

[Trane250:]

On Jun 11 04:48 PM Jimbo wrote:

> I am surprised, that, with all the pro and con about nuclear energy,
> no one has mentioned thorium reactors. I understand this is new technology.
> This kind of reactor produces much less radioactive waste.

In order to become fuel for nuclear reactors, thorium must be subjected to neuton bombardment. This will change thorium into uranium 233 which is fissionable. The old fast breeder reactor was supposed to do this. I'm not familiar with any new concepts.

Thorium is abundant in nature. It is found in rock like granite. I read an estimate a while back that thorium reserves could supply unlimited power for millions of years.

Jun 11 06:03 PM

[devassocx:]

If a little is good(4-5$) then why not get more and make it great...how about $20, $40 or $50? That should really get your
objective!

You are one of the group that doesn't understand that access
to ample, low cost energy is what makes an advanced, prosperous society.



On Jun 11 02:28 PM lancekoz wrote:

> Increased drilling should not be allowed without increased CAFE standards
> and a fuel tax that creates a steady price for gas to consumers in
> the 4 to 5 dollar range. Finally, we have half of that requirement
> in place.

Jun 11 06:17 PM

[yellowhoard:]

Who needs nuclear and oil?

We've got hope.

Hope those windmills can crank out enough power to keep us from becoming a third world nation.

Jun 11 06:40 PM

[Alan von Al...:]

On Jun 11 03:57 PM Fred Linn wrote:
> If the oil companies wish to stay in business and make a profit---let
> them produce biofuels. Biofuels can do anything that petroleum can.
> Better. And they can use all the existing infrastructure to do it.

5 acres of bluegreen algae produce one (1) barrel of oil per day at a capex cost of $500 per barrel. Okay, forget the cost. Never be able to meet a meanginful fraction of demand for transportation fuel, even if you covered the entire Southwest with biofuel reactors.

If you meant corn or sugar biofuel, the cost is $200 per boe, and it takes food out of production. Biomass (garbage) and used cooking oil are only in pilot stage of development. Probably no cheaper than ethanol -- and stinky car exhaust.

Fitz and Pickens like compressed natgas as a transport fuel, which Europeans adopted long ago, but it needs a huge retail distribution infrastructure and a couple million car/truck conversion kits.

I think you need to run the numbers again. seekingalpha.com/artic...

Jun 11 06:43 PM

[optionsgirl:]

check out thoriumpower.com/ for a thorium innovator.
check out www.syntroleum.com for a synthetic fuels innovator.

Build a new reactor, and I'll be the first person to buy the house next door!


On Jun 11 06:03 PM Trane250 wrote:

>

Jun 11 07:44 PM

[john s. gordon:]

syntroleum - F/T hs been around since the 1920's and is a rather inefficient way to make a lot of wax + some liquid transportation fuels, plus a lot of excess CO2 @ the same time.
> jack

Jun 11 07:53 PM

[john s. gordon:]

thorium - AECL has been building D2O-moderated reactors capable of running on Th or on natural uranium for over 40 years now.
> jack

Jun 11 07:55 PM

[john s. gordon:]

steve B. -

oil companies control lots of leased real estate, and want to gain control of more, but are not drilling on what they have because the outlook is that it would not generate a profit if they did drill & produce the oil, if it is found.
> jack

Jun 11 08:05 PM

[Universal H...:]

"Biofuels can do anything that petroleum can."
-Fred Linn

Really? I think you need to turn off your MSNBC and Air America, and try to explain to the rest of us how biofuels can replace crude in manufacturing the broad field of plastics, including polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PVC, polyesters, nylons, and others. These synthetic polymer "commodities" are as much a part of our lives as wood, metal and glass. They are processed into films, fibers, paints, adhesives, composites (e.g., glass fiber reinforced polyesters) and the extraordinary range of plastic goods found in modern society, including the computer (or mobile device) that you are all reading this on. Without "evil oil", this forum and this debate about America's energy future wouldn't even be possible.

Jun 11 08:43 PM

[The Geoffster:]

Does the Sierra Club have a chapter in Iran?

Jun 11 09:15 PM

[BuddhaHead:]

So far major alternate/renewable energy implies wind, solar, and hydro. All have implied weaknesses like costs higher than coal, not enough for baseline energy needs to replace coal, require huge (land) footprints, are not continuous, and so far require huge subsidies to implement. Why do you think we, the Chinese, and others continue to build coal power plants? Cheap! Comments re Thorium using Gen IV reactors built in a factory are right on! These reactors are low pressure, safer, cheaper, can destroy current nuclear plant/weapons waste, significantly reduce proliferation risks, and not only produces less waste, but waste that has a much shorter half life (in hundreds of years instead of thousands, doesn't require a huge waste storage facility). Keep in mind we have a huge Uranium nuclear waste problem because we outlaw recycling, the French do not--they recycle. The French produce 80% of their electricity via nuclear and export excess electricity to it's neighbors. We had a Thorium reactor running in parallel with our Uranium reactor efforts but shut it down because it did not produce fissionable materials for weapons. We have 3200 tons of Thorium buried in the Nevada desert. And last but not least, Thorium reactors can achieve electrical costs less than coal powered plants---That's should be our goal, replace our coal powered power plants with the technology that China, India, Japan, and some European countries see as the ideal replacement for coal. Japan is already peddling a small reactor they call a 'nuclear battery'(that can use Thorium) because it is small enough to be transportable, doesn't require a containment facility (completely self contained), and doesn't need to be connected to the grid. Without cheap electricity, electric cars are a pipe dream. Here's an opportunity for America to continue it's technology lead with an 'high value' export product. We have already lost the gasoline car race and about to lose the electric car race. BTW looks like the Navy is looking into this for ships, China is now processing Thorium from it's Rare Earth mines, India is looking at Thorium to reduce dependence on imported Uranium, and we don't seem to have a will or plan!

Jun 11 09:34 PM

[Fred Linn:]

From Alan von Altondorf----------"5 acres of bluegreen algae produce one (1) barrel of oil per day at a capex cost of $500 per barrel. Okay, forget the cost. Never be able to meet a meanginful fraction of demand for transportation fuel, even if you covered the entire Southwest with biofuel reactors."------------...

www.youtube.com/watchv...

PetroSun is right now producing 4.4 million gal/yr on 1180 acres of ponds in Rio Hondo, TX. That is an average of 3,729 gallons per acre. NREL achieved production levels of 30,000 to 50,000 gal. per acre under controled test conditions. Production of 100,000 gal/acre are theoretically possible. The secret is, not the amount of flat land or water surface---but the amount of surface area exposed to light. This can be vastly magnified, placing a huge surface area in a small space by working in three dimensions instead of two. This is one of the keys to the Valcent approach---the other being a closed loop modular system, which allows complete control of all variables involved in the culture system. Basically, it is a fish tank, optomized to grow algae instead of fish. Compare that to the most productive oil production from other oil crops, palm oil----635 gal/yr---more than 5 times as productive. And closed loop systems can be situated anywhere---environment is not a factor.

-------" If you meant corn or sugar biofuel, the cost is $200 per boe, and it takes food out of production."----------

The final product of ethanol production from corn is DDG[dried distillers grain]---high protein animal feed, which is what the corn was grown for in the first place. The ethanol has to be removed or you will have herds of drunk cattle or pigs on your hands. About twice the amount of corn grown each year goes to produce high fructose corn syrup---the main ingredient of soda pop and sweet snacks. In a country where 2/3 of the population fits the medical description of overweight, and slightly over 1/4 are morbidly obsese, diverting sugar to other uses might not be a bad thing. DDG is used to produce meat, eggs, dairy products and baked goods----it is also the raw ingredient for most vitamin and protein supplements.

Jun 11 11:48 PM

[Fred Linn:]

from john s. gordon---------"syntro... - F/T hs been around since the 1920's and is a rather inefficient way to make a lot of wax + some liquid transportation fuels, plus a lot of excess CO2 @ the same time.
> jack"-----------------

Fischer-Tropsch process was used in Germany to produce synthetic and biofuels from coal and wood. Output can be adjusted by controling temperature, pressure and catalyst beds to produce any length of carbon chain molecules from single carbon methanol to long carbon chain diesel fuels. Germany produced all of its fuel needs---they produced fuel for everything from submarines, to panzer tanks, to V1 and V2 rockets, including the Me-262 Swallow, the world's first operational jet fighter. South Africa has used F-T since 1980 to produce jet and diesel fuel.
Range Fuels is just now completing construction of a facility with a final production capacity of 100 million gal/yr of ethanol from wood waste from logging and milling operations. This plant will be using Fischer-Tropsch process.
F-T is not the only process for producing ethanol from wood. Ethanol was being produced in commercial quantities for logging and millwork waste over 100 years ago. This used the Scholler process---it is still an intergral part of pulp and paper making. Chemrec, a Swedish company, specializes in helping wood product companies convert existing wood processes to produce biofuels.

universal huckleberry-------"Rea... I think you need to turn off your MSNBC and Air America, and try to explain to the rest of us how biofuels can replace crude in manufacturing the broad field of plastics, including polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PVC, polyesters, nylons, and others. "-------------

Anything that can be produced from petroleum, can be produced from other organic sources. During transesterification in producing biodiesel fuel, glycerol is removed. Glycerol is the base raw material for thousands products from lipstick to dynamite. Algae oil is where petroleum came from in the first place. Algae died,sank to the bottom of ancient oceans, were covered with sediments and fossilized into petroleum.
The US used ethanol and "black liquor" produced from wood to produce a wide range of products from butadeine(artificial rubber) to make tires to rayon and nylon for parachutes.
There is a wide range of plastics being made right now. Including biodegradable plastics.
There are differences and trade offs involved, but for the most part the differences are minor or managable---the consumer would notice little or no difference in products produced from petroleum, and those produced from other sources.
Polyethelene for instance, uses ethanol as raw material, it doesn't matter where the ethanol came from. The polyethelene produced is exactly the same chemically either way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Jun 12 01:29 AM

[Alan von Al...:]

Fred, please. Barrels, not gallons (1 bbl = 42 gal). Per day.

Taking your blue sky at face value 30,000 gal/yr = 2 bbl/day
... except that it's gross, not net. You have to centrifuge the whole pond to extract the oil. Give it up, Fred. It's a tinker toy on Federal money, can't possibly supply a meaningful fraction of demand.

You're okay on the chemistry, and obviously you've kept up with bets practices around the globe. Well done. Perfectly correct about algae as the organic source of petrohydrocarbons. Not a hope in hell of replacing conventional crude. We need 75 million barrels a day at present, 80 million if the world economy recovers in 2010.

Jun 14 07:09 PM

[Fred Linn:]

Remember too, that is surface area, not land area. Algae farms need not be located on farmland---algae are not terrestrial plants. They are the fastest growing plants in the world, and some species double their biomass in as little as 24 hours. Heat and high sunlight make a desert environment a perfect setting for growing algae----which maximizes growth potential far beyond that of conditions that would be present in their natural environment.

Not only that----once the oil is removed, you still have the biomass remaining. Algae makes excellent feed for animals and has been used for that purpose for centuries, as well as feed for domesticated fish and shrimp. The PetroSun plant makes use of an abandoned shrimp farm.

www.valcent.net/s/Ecot...

www.petrosuninc.com/al...

www.rangefuels.com/ran...
(another way that remaining biomass after oil extraction can be used to produce fuel)
The remaining ash after pyrolysis can be used to make high grade fertilizer----it has been done for centuries. It is called potash, and it is the basis of production of many valuable chemicals and products as well as fertilizer. Look on a fertilizer bag---the nurient quality of a fertilizer is rated by comparison to its equivalent in potash.

The truth is, we can replace the need for petroleum, from a number of differing sources and cost effectively. Petroleum is a finite resource---it WILL run out one day. If we don't replace it now, we will have to later. We might as well do it now---delaying will only cause more damage which we are seeing right now from petroleum use. War in the middle east, environmental damage and economic damage we are seeing right now from petroleum depedence will only get worse the longer we delay. And using a number of differing sources is good for us----it insulates our supply from disasterous results of an unstable supply for our energy needs, the main cause of our present problems. Relying too much on fossil fuel coal and oil to supply our needs.

Jun 16 12:54 PM

[Lymon:]

I do't htink you can build anything anywhere that can withstand natural disasters. We never know the strength that could be mild to catastrophic. Another thing is the amount of time it takes to find, develop, and prepare the land; clearing,xrays, soil sample checking,red tape from beauracrats,B.S. from the "green people"..
Same with drilling, funny other countries are drilling off our coasts, but we are not allowed because of a shell fish, that is usless, might be moved down stream a few feet. Coal to gas, Henry Ford devoloped a way to get gas from coal, but gasoline was so cheap it was not feasible. Now things have changed, we are the "King of Coal" I have contacted some power cos. and asked them to consider building C-t-G plants near mines to keep transportation costs down. To give it a shot to help our nation become energy dependent; no takers..


On Jun 11 10:36 AM wheels14 wrote:

> Can you build nuclear in California that can withstand earthquakes?

Aug 02 12:18 PM