frflyer

An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited

If you want to see a sensible energy policy, go to
www.setamericafree.org...
A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

And your worried about taxing the profits of oil companies?
Why? We are already giving oil companies $80 billion a year in tax credits and subsidies, making the oil industry just about the lowest taxed industry in the country at about 8%.
And then there are the other hidden costs of oil, largely paid for by tax dollars. we are talking hundreds of billions annually.
All told, about $800 billion annually including the subsidies.
What isn't paid for in taxes, is paid in the private sector, one way or another. And there's the over $300 billion that oil adds to the trade deficit, and you can see that oil already is ruining our economy.
www.setamericafree.org...

By comparison, congress is offering $6 billion for next year for solar, wind, geothermal etc combined.

And take a look at this proposal to achieve 69% solar powered electric grid, by 2050, spending less in public money than was spent on the high speed information highway, over about the same time period.

Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
www.sciam.com/article....

I would emphasize solar thermal plants more than the concentrating PV that this proposal does, but it shows what solar can do.

Solar thermal plants can store heat to generate power at night. Molten salt seems like the best storage medium, it holds 99% of it's heat for 24 hours.

Here's what one company says about their solar thermal power plants.

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

To see what's already happening with solar thermal, go to Green Wombat, where there are several articles.

blogs.business2.com/gr.../

Transportation- plug in hybrids. The average American driver would get 100 mpg overall, doing most of their commuting on battery power, and recharging for $1 at night. Energy experts say the grid can already handle the nighttime charging.

www.pluginpartners.org/

Nuclear may be appropriate in some locals, for lack of anything better, but overall, nuclear is a really bad idea.

It's dangerous

The Argonne National Lab says that an airplance crashing into a reactor could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised. Remember the twin towers?

Nuclear plants can cost $500 million each to dismantle when they're worn out.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."

Transporting waste from all over the country to Yucca Mtn. Nevada is not only potentially dangerous, but expensive.

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund." That's just one state

Nuclear power has no accountability for safety.

"The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

Nuclear plants are not only slow to get up and running, but are expensive to build.

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

Nuclear doesn't make us energy independent. We import 65% of our oil and 90% of our uranium.

www.cleanwisconsin.org...

"The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday…."

"The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free.
So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.
I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." " gristmill.grist.org/st...

Solar and wind are quicker to get up and running than both nuclear and coal.

And solar PV at the cutting edge is already cheaper than coal.

"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.
With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.
According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."
from www.grinzo.com/energy/.../

Americans are being fed a bunch of dis-information about the supposed limitations of solar and wind. Large industrial interests, who want nuclear, coal, more oil, etc are distorting the conversation.

We are told that solar and wind are too intermittent. That hasn't been a problem for Denmark, which has 20% wind power.

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind. From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet. Why? Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency. If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there. If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time. That can be your electricity `battery.'"

gristmill.grist.org/st...

And it isn't stopping Abu Dubai.

"Abu Dhabi is not content to just sell you the oil that fuels your SUV; now its going to sell you sunshine to keep your lights on and power your electric car when the internal combustion engine goes the way of the buggy whip. Masdar, the oil-rich emirate’s $15 billion renewable energy venture, and Spanish technology company Sener on Wednesday announced a joint venture called Torresol Energy to build large-scale solar power plants in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States."

They are eying the same American southwest, where the proposal in the SciAm article recommends that we Americans build solar power plants.

"The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while offering only tepid support for green technology. It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain." from Green Wombat

"The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan"
from the SciAm article above.