Posted on 06/20/2009 9:25:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Senate energy bill was voted out of committee yesterday, but not before losing the support of two Democrats and a dozen leading environmental organizations.
The measure would be the third energy bill in four years -- not counting the huge energy provisions in this year's economic stimulus bill. Like the others, it is rife with controversy over new offshore drilling plans near Florida, the sharing of federal offshore oil and gas royalties, and a mandate for renewable energy that alternative-energy executives and environmentalists say is too weak. It would require 15 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2021, but would allow exemptions that diminish that target.
The proposed bill would also create a new "clean energy" financing agency that would extend subsidized loans and loan guarantees to a variety of projects, including nuclear plants. While it would set tough energy-efficiency standards for new buildings, it would also ease restrictions on the federal government's use of petroleum from Canadian tar sands, whose energy-intensive production generates more greenhouse gases than conventional oil. The bill would also create 30 billion-barrel strategic reserve for refined petroleum products; the current reserve contains only crude oil.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman said the bill would "help shift our country to cleaner sources of energy, and more secure sources as well." He won the support of the committee's ranking Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski , who said she would press for additional nuclear-energy provisions on the Senate floor.
But a dozen environmental groups yesterday said they opposed it. In joint letter to the committee, they called renewable-electricity standard too lax because it allows noncompliance fees to go back to companies, exempts new nuclear plants and certain new coal plants from baseline calculations, and allows energy-efficiency savings to substitute renewable energy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-----------------------------------------------------------
New nuclear plants are likely to get a boost long before the bill becomes law. The Energy Department is negotiating with four utilities over the details of an $18.5 billion award in loan guarantees provided by earlier legislation for the construction of new nuclear plants, government and industry sources said. The companies include UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRG Energy, Scana and Southern Co.
Nuclear-power advocates hope the loan guarantees will help launch a wave of nuclear plants with a new generation of technology; like all nuclear plants, they would not emit greenhouse gases. But foes of nuclear power argue that the power plants remain too expensive to build without federal assistance and that energy efficiency and renewable-energy resources offer better alternatives. New plants could cost anywhere from $6 billion to $12 billion, industry executives say.
All four companies plan to place new units at existing nuclear facilities, which should make regulatory approval and sitting approval easier. Two of the firms are power suppliers that sell electricity at unregulated prices; two are utilities that will be subject to regulation and will seek to recover costs from local ratepayers.
As long as cold fusion is one of the technologies getting the boost, I’m all for it.
The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 76 replies · 1,100+ views
Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 | http://www.suppressedscience.net/
The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,382+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al
This is funny, the nuttiest, most liberal Congress ever and and they won’t make the greens happy?
The Energy Department is negotiating,hide your money.
The Clinch River Breeder Reactor was one hell of a sinkhole of money 30 years ago. They better damn well finish whatever they start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinch_River_Breeder_Reactor_Project
Well, remember Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant was a completed $6 billion General Electric nuclear boiling water reactor located adjacent to the Wading River in East Shoreham, Long Island, New York that was closed by protests in 1989 without generating any commercial electrical power.
I suspect the same thing will happen when new Nuclear Plants are built. The difference is this — with the enviros even stronger now than they were then, construction would not even start...
Pakistan wins
“But foes of nuclear power argue that the power plants remain too expensive to build without federal assistance and that energy efficiency and renewable-energy resources offer better alternatives.”
They are only expensive because of those idiots who continue to fight against nuclear power.
The could be built for about 15% of what they now cost without all the legal wrangling.
I do know that our Senators are pushing for 100 plants. The coal lobby will be fighting this tooth and nail. The greens will not be a factor IMHO.
Does anyone have any data on how much nuclear plants cost in other countries, versus here?
The French have 70% nuclear, start there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.