Article Contributed on: 9/14/2009 10:06:21 AM
The all consuming and increasingly rancorous argument over health care "reform" is claiming another victim...the equally important so called "American Clean Energy and Security Act." The US Senate is currently considering its version of the legislation but virtually nothing is being done due to the health care debate. The inappropriately named, 1200 page House bill passed 219 to 212 (after a 3:00 am, 300 page list of amendments which were primarily "pork" for some undecided Democratic representatives) with no Republican votes and some Democratic opposition including Rep. John Salazar of Colorado. (Representative Salazar is now the target of some "attack ads" from union and "clean energy" activists that portray his vote as "anti-job".)
The House bill, which would be more aptly named "Let's Tax Base Load Energy Suppliers", contains the controversial "cap and trade" provisions . These provisions create a Byzantine labyrinth of regulations that, ostensibly, will reduce "green house gas emissions" (read CO2) by auctioning permits for specified amounts of emissions to power producers and other manufacturers and then allowing "under producers" to "trade" (sell) their underproduced quantities to over producers. The ultimate goal is an 80% reduction of 2005 level emissions by 2050. Intrinisic in the regulations are mandated amounts of power to be generated from "renewable" sources namely wind, solar and biofuels.
Little attention has been given to the fact that the sun doesn't shine at night, or everyday for that matter, and the wind doesn't always blow. Base load power has to be supplied by 24/7 sources since electrical power cannot be "stored." To add to the dilemma, the bill ignores nuclear power generation and, essentially, lumps clean burning and abundant natural gas with other fossil fuels and high carbon producing fuels like coal. Currently, nuclear energy supplies about 20% of the nation's electrical power. Total "renewables" supply about 11 to 12% but here is the kicker, the current popular favorites, wind and solar, account for about 1% and 0.13% respectively of the total. The overwhelming majority of renewable energy production (greater than 60%) is from hydropower which provides about 7% of the total. (Even hydropower is under attack by some ultra preservationists who advocate removing dams and hydroelectric plants from rivers.)
Converting coal fired plants to natural gas fired plants and building additional nuclear power generation facililties would easily meet the emissions goals prescribed in the House passed bill. These processes, combined with a massive overhaul of the nation's inefficient and wasteful power transmission grid, and conducted in a "private/public partnership" would also generate far more longterm, high paying jobs than the push for "clean energy or green energy jobs." Nuclear power generation and natural gas fired power plants are already cost competitive and would not require the massive federal (and state and local) subsidies (read "your tax dollars") on which the currently proposed "alternative energy sources" must depend.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/26/house.energy/index.html
RenewableEnergyWorld.com
http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010/neNP2010a.html
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html