Comments on: Time To Step Up the Power Shift: Legislative Shenanigans Underway on Congressional Energy Bill

By: Janine

Janine — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:44:08 +0000

I have to add my 2 cents here. For anyone to assume the rest of the world is right about nuclear being our only chance of turning the tide, needs to go back to science 101. The powers that be have collectivly gone on a campaign to propagandize who ever they can. I hope they don’t get away with it, if one hears it’s supported by enviornmentalist they need to check thoses sources and thier affilliations to the industry or motive. We don’t have a place to store the waste that we already have , other countries ship thier spent fuels to us to hold onto, and other countries do what they will to thier own enviornments and cover ups, ect. When Chernobal happened our government quickly came out with a statement that we didn’t have any such plants like that in the U.S. We certainly did , Hanford was soon closed down and now has toxic waste in the gound water! I know folks would like to think our government has more integrity then playing games with peoples minds. They have figured us out for the most part and feel confident that they can do what they want in the end, just lie and when the lie is revealed the harm is already done.Get educated on the subject before you declare that we need to include nuclear, you will be outraged by what you discover! Go To NukeFee.org, is a good place to start. Peace

By: Mike Ewall

Mike Ewall — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:32:06 +0000

Please do NOT support the energy bill if it includes any of the following…

* the $50 billion in nuclear power loan guarantees

* the Renewable Fuels Standard. This is NOT clean energy. It would extend the ethanol mandate from 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 (which already already meeting 4 years ahead of schedule) up to 36 billion gallons/year by 2022. Many of these ethanol plants would be coal-fired and even if not, they’re driving up corn costs and causing all sorts of other damage. See http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.pdf for more info.

* trash incinerators being defined as renewable in the renewable electricity standard that people are trying to get back into the bill… thankfully, this was not in the version that passed so far, but Congressmen Platts (R-PA), Pascrell (D-NJ), Rothman (D-NJ) and Sires (D-NJ) are trying to get it included. It’s bad enough that landfills and other “biomass” incineration technologies will be included… let’s not allow trash incinerators in there… they’re more polluting and worse for global climate change than coal power plants!

By: Will Renewable Energy survive political compromising? « Energy Smart

Will Renewable Energy survive political compromising? « Energy Smart — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:31:11 +0000

[...] this, as well, see It’s Getting Hot in Here: Time to Step Up the Power Shift: Legislative Shenanigans Underway on Congressional Energy Bill has a lot of good information and analysis. And, well, concludes that As Democrat and Republican [...]

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:54:23 +0000

I was talking about recovery plan. It seems like all sides keep saying the world is going to end if we don’t go solar, or don’t go nuclear, or don’t sequester carbon, etc. IPCC said that we will need a wide spectrum of technologies to solve this and it would be easier to build a coalition if the spectrum was embraced instead of everyone (whether they are Senator Domenici or Congressman Markey) trying to solve the problem with too tight of an agenda.

As for a rider on the Ag bill, riders are a classic technique in Congress. If a “clean” bill is desired, a wide coalition will be required to advocate it.

By: jessejenkins

jessejenkins — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 17:22:16 +0000

While that may be acceptable for some compromise-minded folks R. Margolis, that’s not what Domenici is up to. He wants to strip his favorite provisions out of the Energy Bill and attach them to the Ag Bill instead so that he can scuttle the Energy Bill completely. The current Energy Bill does have both loan guarantees for nukes and tax incentives for renewables. I’d love to see the nuke provision stripped out (let the private sector finance nukes if they’re so great) but if it has to stay in to get the rest passed, that’s one thing. Stripping it out and attaching nuclear subsidies to an agriculture bill is just plain bullsh!t Washington D.C. politics. What do nukes have to do with agriculture?!

By: R Margolis

R Margolis — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:05:11 +0000

Maybe I am just too old and too practical, but why not have loan guarantees for both renewables and nuclear as a way to get the renewables supported. Maybe even link it to something like a permanent or longer tax credit for renewables (i.e., the 1.8 cents per kwh currently in place for wind). Yes it means there may be a few more nuclear plants, but such a deal might break an impasse and allow a larger and faster expansion of low carbon technologies instead of years of political fighting.