All Posts Tagged With: "energy"

Hypocrisy of obstructionist minority, egotists and “nimbyism” harming everyone else.

Fifty-one percent of Californians support drilling off its coast bringing to 49 states that do support it. Some want to pursue only alternatives and most say do it all.

The Electric Power Research Institute estimates enough wave power can be extracted from coastal waters to account for about 15 percent of California’s electricity production. Wind could provide up to 110 percent, according to a Stanford University study published last year. Wind and Wave generated electricity could replace 125% of California’s electricity.

Offshore wind and wave technologies are promising, but untried. But, current wave technology is mature enough for demonstration testing.

Even before there are concrete plans to do either obstructionist are swarming all over the idea. Speculating about potential damage to the coast’s prized vistas and fish industry.

Northern California’s biggest utility company, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., would connect such wind and wave produced electricity to the power grid.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is skeptical. concerned wave power may interfere with fisheries as the buoys bob up and down in the waves. Their biggest complaint right now, however, is that local fishermen and residents have had no say in the planning. Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics, or FISH is battling for a role in the planning.

Both group frittered for months and missed a federal deadline has passed for gaining an official voice in the legal planning for the wave projects, alongside PG&E and federal energy regulators.

“A fool with a plan is better than a genius with no plan, and we have no plan,”

said T. Boone Pickens Tuesday on ABC’s GMA speaking of his recommendation to produce a quarter of U. S. electricity with wind power and his proposal to build the biggest wind farm in American in Texas. He predicted $6-$8 a gallon for gasoline within a year. Pickens traced the current crisis back to President Nixon in the 1970s blaming every President since for the current crisis.

Critics have said wind energy is part of a solution but have environmental risks, and need to be part of a comprehensive solution. Others are suspicious that his proposal is profit motivated and too simplistic lacking comprehension.

Regardless of what you might think - Pickens has a plan.

Remember when George Bush went on national television to tell us that we were hopelessly addicted to oil and he was going to do something about it? He did. He started an illegal and immoral war in Iraq for oil so that we can continue to feed the addiction. As the war rages on and people die on a daily basis, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, BP and Chevron (along with a host of smaller U.S. companies) are in the final stages of negotiating a no-bid contract with the Iraq Oil Ministry to service Iraq’s largest oil fields. American companies will be back in Iraq after losing their contracts 36 years ago to nationalization of Iraq’s oil industry under Saddam Hussein. Does anybody really still believe that we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people?

Of course, this little fact of the war has gone unreported in the mainstream media. That’s pretty much par for the course these days. Also unreported is the fact that no-bid contracts are very rare in this industry. In this case, the United States has managed to squeeze out of contention offers made by more than 40 other companies including those in Russia, China and India. While these contracts are small at the outset, it gives the participating companies a foothold in the development of new fields, which will provide longer-term deals and lucrative profits. Put all of the little pieces together and the reason we are in Iraq becomes very clear.

George Bush is so intent on feeding the addiction that he is calling for the lifting of a 27-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling to help make us less dependent on foreign oil. He wants us to be energy independent. His mirror image, John McCain, believes that lifting the ban “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” That’s funny because Bush’s own Energy Information Administration has stated that there will be no effect on U.S. production or prices until at least 2030. That’s 22 years from now. The real kick is that the U.S. offshore oil amounts are so small that it wouldn’t have any effect on prices anyway. * The U.S. controls less than 3% of the global oil and gas deposits, but accounts for 25% of the global oil consumption.

‘Alternative’ energy sources

Both talk about ‘alternative’ energy sources. If wind and solar immediately come to mind, think again. For Bush and McCain, ‘alternative’ means nuclear and coal. The present crisis has created a call by our fearless leader and his water boy for a renewed commitment to nuclear energy. George Bush called for this back in 2006 and it will comfort Americans to no end that John McCain envisions a nuclear future. McCain is calling for a ‘crash’ program to construct 45 new reactors by 2030. Of course, neither Bush nor McCain mentioned that the entire country gets only 20% of its electricity today from 104 operating nuke plants across the country. They also failed to mention that many of these plants are nearing the end of their licensing period. Sound like a solution to you?

Then there’s the little matter of safely dumping nuclear waste. In a major policy speech, McCain never talked about this aspect of nuclear power. Bush, however, has proposed that we ship thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country to the still-to-be-built nuclear storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This deadly cargo would pass through as many as 44 states. As it passes thorough the District of Columbia, it would pass within half a mile of 50 million people. **

By the way, industry experts point out that construction on new nuclear plants could not begin for at least five years because of the requirements necessary to ensure safety. This would involve a complex licensing process, emergency response planning, operator training and radiation protection. There is also the little matter of coming up with a $5 to $10 billion dollar investment per facility.

While the Bush administration has stopped talking about the so-called ‘clean’ coal project McCain, in the same policy speech he made on nuclear technology, has committed to providing $2 billion per year to support clean coal technology. While it is America’s most abundant resource, burning coal is also a major contributor to global warming.

Indulging in outright deception

McCain’s new energy ad blatantly seeks to deceive the American people. The ad claims that McCain has bucked his own party when it comes to supporting action on climate change. That much about the ad is true. However, the images shown in the ad are of windmills and solar panels. The fact is that McCain does not support subsidies for either of these technologies. He does, on the other hand, support subsidies for nuclear power facilities. No nuclear facilities are shown in the ad, perhaps because he understands the emotional response this topic inspires given the memories of Three Mile Island here in America and Chernobyl in Russia. Nevertheless, the ad is deceptive and should be pulled immediately. Apparently, the Republicans believe that the ends justify the means and it is acceptable to lie to the American people.

Throwing billions against the wall and hoping something sticks

The plan advanced by our present imperial president and his potential successor amounts to throwing billions against the wall in the hope that something will stick. It will take billions of dollars to open up offshore drilling. It will take billions to revitalize the nuclear industry. It will take billions to develop ‘clean’ coal technology (another of those oxymorons). The American people would be better served if all of this money was invested in true ‘alternative’ energy sources, like wind and solar, rather than being spent on the same old technologies that have gotten us into this mess to begin with. Once the technical obstacles are overcome, the energy source is clean and doesn’t require disposing of waste. While we may never be completely free of the need for oil, at least we may be able to bring our need down to manageable levels.

*The same holds true for the oil and gas we would recover from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another brilliant idea.

**There are a great many myths about the Yucca facility that have been perpetrated by the Bush administration. I have a fact sheet about this facility in PDF format. If anyone would like a copy, please send an email to me at permanent.vacation@yahoo.com

American Independence.

Ironic, how we won that a couple of centuries ago and today our economic independence is at risk, and other freedoms and aspects of independence are exposed. Political, physical and economic security, in todays global economy beyond our control, pushed on by increasing amounts of freedom in previously closed and more backward economies, empowered by one of the greatest change agents ever, the internet.

Many good things have happened in terms of freedoms. I think the US deserves credit for much of that, despite the poor use of power we have at times exhibited throughout history. On balance, we have been an agent for positive progress which we want all peoples in the world to enjoy. I believe that.

We are at risk because of becoming dependent on foreign sources of oil and our externally financed national debt.

They are related.

Half of our budget deficit, which needs foreign financing currently, is due to oil imports.

Much of our huge defense budget has always been, in my opinion, spent in order to attempt to insure the world that oil will continue to flow from the producers to world markets without interruption. We have provided confidence to world markets and to countries all across the world that they can count of being able to buy what they need to fuel their economies and serve their populations.

Oil is important to almost every one in the world. If it were cut off for any reason, the question would not be what is the outrageous cost for a barrel of oil, it would be how do we keep hundreds of millions of people from starving or freezing.

Not just in the United States. Everywhere.

So now we have helped unleash the innovation of billions of people in Asia, we now need to unleash our capabilities to maintain and serve our growing population and ensure we remain free of the yoke of someone else who has oil in the ground and is wiling to use it as a political tool

What is needed? Competition. Increased supplies, additional new sources and supplies of energy produced inside of this country.

We need to pursue all new energy sources and with due consideration for the environment, we need to tap the vast supplies of oil, gas and coal that we own and which can replace foreign sources.

energy source that is controlled significantly by foreign sources and which the growing world economies is competing for