U. S. Energy Policy

Could it be the Democrats who blamed the policies of a Republican controlled Congress for helping fuel record high oil industry profits and energy prices back then, now control the House and Senate, making finger pointing more difficult and are now  themselves in a position to enjoy the trappings of the oil industry lobbyists? Why jeopardize perfectly viable revenue stream?  Americans are already accustomed to high gas prices and heating oil.

If Sweden, Brazil and Germany can be serious about alternative energy, why cant the US?
http://attachments.wetpaintserv.us/W00U5VYzNYJAI0v30Kt%24lA%3D%3D470077
http://www.energybulletin.net/5021.html
http://curtrosengren.typepad.com/alternative_energy/2005/03/germany_commits.html

Andy Weissman, publisher of the weekly Energy Business Watch, advocates a "moon challenge effort" to develop alternative energy resources. Instead, the House and Senate are light years apart on the passage of a respectable energy bill. In its place will in all likelihood will be the default standard of increasing reliance on imported foreign oil.

Its an outrage, and a 'decision' that will cripple alternative energy technologies for many years to come. Obviously President Bush's energy initiative was little more than a dog and pony show to placate a gullible public.

There is a question hidden in this vergage?

Vergage? Is there some sort of hidden meaning behind that term?

Surely if you cant even be bothered to read the question, it should be obvious you have no business commenting on it.

If you have nothing to say about the matter, please say nothing.

Thank you

I saw a TV documentary recently, translated from swedish the title was "Who Murdered the Electric Car", don't remember the original (english) title. Looks like oil industry interests have a lot to do with a stagnant development when it comes to alternative energy sources. Could it be that simple?
/RID

US oil interests are actually getting a subsidy according to www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00045&segmentID=3 and it seems the dropping of subsidies for alternative energy sources dates back to summer according to www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101026.html which says "Democrats accused Republicans of obstruction after a $32 billion package of energy tax cuts was blocked on a procedural vote." Now I'm assuming that package is the renewables subsidy referred to in the question.

I don't think your politicians have a hope in hell of reducing your dependence on imported oil by legislation but hopefully $100 per barrel will do the job anyway.

Who Killed the Electric Car.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Only if we were to allow it. It is unfortunate that the war, football and Britney Spears are the hot topics. Strangely, the Energy Bill was not the topic of any of the Sunday morning news shows and there seems to be little discussion elsewhere.

Perhaps, aburr, I could have been a bit more terse in my question here. I might have simply asked how you feel about Congress gutting the energy bill.

Regardless, it seems to be a forgone conclusion the bill will pass and Im not optimistic the President will exercise his veto power and force the two parties to come up with a sensible compromise - one in keeping with his promises to advance new energy technologies, although that remains to be seen. Still, its no moon mission.

What bothers me most is our apathetic approach. The United States could be taking the lead in the area of new energy technologies. Over the past two years, we have seen many new start up manufacturers and service industries come into existence, and existing companies have shifted focus to address some of these energy concerns, but now, with no government or public support, I fear these new jobs will be lost in favor of imported oil.

Its also frustrating because proven technological solutions already exist, and should be exploited. If there is a bright side, it would be that from an economic perspective, new energy technologies make sense. As soon as people discover they can be paying half of what we are paying now for heating and transportation, interest will surely peek.

There will be no electric car if the people dont demand it. But if there were sufficient public support, no individual, corporation, or government would be powerful enough to prevent it from happening.

>>I don't think your politicians have a hope in hell of reducing your dependence on imported oil by legislation but hopefully $100 per barrel will do the job anyway.

Exactly.

But it is not going to happen all by itself, and realistically, we do need to get the laws behind the efforts.

The proposed legislation is very confusing. The House and Senate energy bills contain significant differences. The House first passed HR 6 on January 18th. The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 on June 21st. The House then passed another bill, HR 3221, on August 4th. Typically, the House and Senate pass their own versions of the same bill and settle the differences in a conference. In this case, Republicans say, each chamber passed a significantly different, independent bill, making it unclear procedurally how to conference the versions. Republican staff says they will wait to meet with Democrats until the procedure becomes clear. The Senates version (HR6) is over 500 pages while the House bill (HR3221), is  more than 1,000 pages.

A spokesman for the committee's ranking Republican, Pete Domenici (R-NM), said, "We just want some clarification as to what we're conferencing, and who's going to be a part of it."

Significant policy differences between the bills' versions include tougher mandates for vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that appear only in the Senate bill, and a provision in the House bill that mandates utilities to generate more power from alternative fuels.

A Comparison of Major Energy Policy Provisions House-Passed H.R. 3221 and Senate-Passed H.R. 6
http://www.acore.org/renewableenergyinfo/includes/resource-files/k&l%20comparison%20of%20bills.pdf

Citizen.org said the 2005 Energy Bill was the best Energy Bill corporations could buy citing huge subsidies for oil, coal, and nuclear;
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980


The more people who let Congress know what's important, the more likely it is the final Energy Bill will contain at least some incentives for alternative energy.

To completely strip renewables out of the energy bill is completely unacceptable - especially compared to what other nations are striving to achieve;  


Germany has set a target to generate 30% of their energy from renewable resources by the year 2020 with the ultimate goal of reaching 100% from renewable energy

By 2020, the U.S. wants to improve energy efficiency 20%.

Sweden has declared to become an oil-free society by 2020.

United States energy legislation proposes spending $1 million a year to promote the use of bicycles.

Brazil has developed a cost-effective alternative to gasoline and expects to become energy independent this year.

The US has pushed back daylight saving one week.

What we need right now is fuel that is not imported, regardless of the type.  Therefore first we should further develop coal gassification and work on converting oil shale to useable energy.  The U.S. has vast deposits of both of those, and they can free us from Middle East concerns.  Then we can move on to cleaning them up more.

Naturally we should continue using *reasonable* alternatives where viable, but just saying that "we can get 100% of our energy needs from renewable sources" doesn't mean it's really true or that we should try to do it.

The problem is that USA is too big a block to have a single energy policy. To impose something like a 20% renewable target globally leaves some states that happen to have loads of hydro-electric capacity and no population with an enormous excess of 'green' energy and places where it never rains and the wind is gusty with an unreachable target.

We have the same problem in the UK; Scotland, Ireland and Wales  have low populations and vast open areas where hydro already exists so they appear very green as opposed to England where most of the Scots, Irish and Welsh live and burn coal in their fires to keep themselves warm.

BBC News reported today that London busses are going to poweres with hydrogen fuel cells. No word on how the hydrogen will be produxed though.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and US Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the organizations said that HR 3221 "professes to focus on energy independence, yet if enacted would adversely affect natural gas production and infrastructure development, thereby making the supply of this important energy resource even less secure"
The Natural Gas Supply Association, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, National Ocean Industries Association, American Exploration and Production Council, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, Process Gas Consumers Group, and US Oil and Gas Association also signed the letter.
http://penn-energy.com/article/display.html?id=309739

Will Congress Jettison Renewables From New Energy Bill?
http://www.aer-online.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1035

House energy bill would hurt small producers
http://www.mapsearch.com/news/display.html?id=309381

Farm bill to subsidize nuclear industry
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1108-16.htm

"The Farm bill is designed to address agricultural and food issues and it should not be used to hand out multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies to the already highly subsidized nuclear industry," said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth.

WASHINGTON - November 8 - Pointing to Senator Pete Domenicis decision on Tuesday to attach his fiscally irresponsible energy loan guarantee provision to the Senate Farm bill (H.R. 2419), environmental and public interest groups today criticized the move as a blatant attempt to exempt the nuclear industry from congressional oversight and saddle taxpayers with billions of dollars of potential liability. 

Nuclear industry to receive $50 billion in loan guarantees intended for new energy technologies
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48736351_energy_congress_should_cut_nuclear_energy_loan_guarantee_provisions_energy_bill_advocacy_gr


Energy Bill stifles state initiatives:

California AG Brown Urges Congress To Protect Californias Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Law
http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48736967_california_california_ag_brown_urges_congress_protect_california_s_motor_vehicle_greenhouse

Energy bill to guarantee Ohio's electricity rates will never drop and make it nearly impossible for producers of green power to gain a foothold in the state.
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071113/NEWS01/711130386


A vote on the Energy Bill (House and Senate versionsHR 3221 and HR 6) may take place next week.

>>Only if we were to allow it. It is unfortunate that the war, football and Britney Spears are the hot topics. Strangely, the Energy Bill was not the topic of any of the Sunday morning news shows and there seems to be little discussion elsewhere.

Interesting how it works out - every time the U.S. has something really bad going on (like the war and bad energy policy), the media attempts to divert our attention with pop culture fluff 'news' stories.  There are countless men and women dying and being maimed in Iraq every day over a war that never should have been started, yet we know more about Britney Spears than these brave men and women who are dying for no good reason whatsoever.

Lobbyists (to both parties, I might add - Republicans are not immune to corruption and stupidity) are the driving force behind keeping our energy policy back in the Stone Age.  

 

They didnt move on the bill before the Holiday. We'll see what happens when the return - provided there is some news coverage.

The big story right now of course is the seasonal shopping spree. President Bush himself has told us we should go shopping.
Yeah, Im sure that will solve everything.

Analog_Kid > Its an outrage, and a 'decision' that will cripple alternative energy technologies for many years to come. Obviously President Bush's energy initiative was little more than a dog and pony show to placate a gullible public.

Old news (some days or weeks) is that the (Bush hates) judges out west have tossed out his approach to the environmental impact of energy, saying that his administration did not properly justify why Americans should cause more pollution, and I think they added the part about encouraging technological development - as well as the existing technology.

> This is basically Congress delivering an early Christmas present to the American public and it's a lump of coal,

Politicians are real sinners, in a very non-partisan fashion

Analog_Kid > Who Killed the Electric Car.

Skipping the link, it was not me, and it was General Motors that effectively killed off the electric bus for cities, despite their losing several court battles in the process. I recently moved on from my trusty vehicle to electric. OK, not really electric, but hybrid, that counts, right? Too confused about how to get hydrogen or go solar effectively, tired of waiting.

Yeah, this hybrid craze is a real hoot.  So you use electricity instead of gas, eh?  Well, where do you think the electricity comes from?  Yep, from coal, more than 50%.  

Right now we ought to RAPIDLY develop *current* ways to become more energy independent, such as coal and oil shale.  We can continue to expand our use of alternative energy sources, but first we need to stop sending money to regimes that hate us.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_walter_b_071127_george_w__bush_s__co.htm
George W. Bush's 'Convenient' Truth
November 27, 2007 by Walter Brasch  

During the past seven years, George W. Bush spun a nation not only into a war that has destroyed the environment and natural resources of Iraq, but had also begun a war in America that is leading to a destruction of its environment and natural resources. President Bush consistently ignored the evidence of global warming, and suppressed the views of government scientists. He allowed Enron and other energy companies to direct the nation’s energy policy. With a cabinet that includes persons who either were employed by large oil and coal companies or were paid lobbyists against environmental protections, he reduced federal environmental rules. He believes that most of the 250 million acres under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management should be available so private industry can strip the resources for their own economic gain. He has allowed extensive off-shore drilling, increased the incursion by mining companies, and allowed logging companies to devastate federal lands. He is a leading advocate for allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, claiming it’s for “national security,” but completely oblivious to the reality that such intrusion would severely alter the balance of nature, while yielding little gas and oil for the American people. He has permitted gas-spewing recreational vehicles to tear up federal parks and permanently disturb the wildlife. He reversed himself on a campaign pledge to reduce acceptable levels of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and determined that higher levels of arsenic and other toxins in drinking water was acceptable. He reduced the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency, preferring companies to undergo “voluntary compliance,” and eliminated the tax upon the oil and chemical industries that paid for the clean up of SuperFund toxic waste sites; it’s now the taxpayers not polluters who are paying for clean-up operations.                        Within months of his first inaugural, Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol that called for global environmental protection by stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. With Australia about to sign the Protocol, 173 nations will have signed the agreement; the U.S. is now the only industrialized nation not to sign.                And now
-etc-

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2007/2007-11-16-02.asp
Court Throws Out Bush Fuel Economy Standards
SAN FRANCISCO, California, November 16, 2007 (ENS) - The Bush administration's fuel economy standards for many sport utility vehicles, minivans and pickup trucks have been rejected by a federal appeals court because they set a zero value on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide that cause global warming.

Thursday, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with 11 states and five environmental groups who argued federal regulators ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions when determining fuel economy standards for light trucks.

The court sent its decision back to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, for a full Environmental Review of the gas mileage standards.

The ruling, written by Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, found against the administration's decision to exempt SUVs and light trucks from fuel-economy standards.

"That class 2b trucks have never been regulated by NHTSA is not a reason for not regulating them now. We remand to NHTSA to revisit this issue and promulgate average fuel economy standards for these vehicles, or to provide a validly reasoned basis for continuing to exclude them from the regulation."

"This ruling is a big help in holding the Bush administration accountable for its refusal to accept the realities of global warming and forcing it to start taking responsible actions to implement the obvious solutions," said Kassie Siegel, who directs the Climate, Air, and Energy program for the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead plaintiff in the case..

"Raising fuel-economy standards is one of the most effective actions the government can take to quickly and significantly reduce greenhouse gas pollution. There's no reason SUVs and light trucks should be exempt from these standards," Siegel said.

The case, filed on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity by the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, is consolidated with similar challenges by California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, District of Columbia, the city of New York, and four other public interest groups, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, and Environmental Defense.

Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, adopted four decades ago in response to the Arab oil crisis, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations sets gas mileage standards for motor vehicles. The Bush administration, ordered a one mile per gallon increase, from 22 to 23 miles per gallon by 2010, and exempted SUVs and light trucks.

Plaintiffs argued that the administration violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by setting low fuel-economy standards of 22.5, 23.1, and 23.5 miles per gallon for upcoming model years 2008, 2009, and 2010 respectively.

Plaintiffs also argued that the Bush administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to consider greenhouse gas emissions and global warming before selecting the low mileage standards.

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. hailed the 9th Circuit's decision striking down national automobile mileage standards, calling it a "stunning rebuke" to the Bush administration's failed energy policies.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, AAM, an industry association representing the major automotive firms, commented, "Announced more than 19 months ago the MY 2008-2011 light truck fuel economy rule represented the largest fuel economy increase in the history of the CAFE [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] program. It has become the basis for product planning through 2011. Any further changes to the program would only delay the progress that manufacturers have made towards increasing fleet wide fuel economy."

"This ruling comes at a key moment in our efforts to avoid the worst impacts of global warming," said Doniger. "The president has ordered the EPA to propose global warming standards by the end of the year, but White House officials are busy trying to water them down. The court's decision is a clear signal that it's time to set serious standards to cut global warming pollution."

-etc-

ScottPletcher > Yeah, this hybrid craze is a real hoot.  So you use electricity instead of gas, eh?  Well, where do you think the electricity comes from?  Yep, from coal, more than 50%.  

OK, so we know you rant and that was more retorical, but having (now) first person experience, it is not coal, it is mostly same fuel, which gets used to charge the battery so you can drive around in a parking lot without the engine even being on, imagine that. It also charges up when using brake, and no fumigations during those stops, not that bad really. Not that good for economy (despite sales pitch of knowing what I wanted), you can do as well with so many others that are just simply well built. Going downhill can be a treat, getting near infinite MPGs. It is still strange to me to not have it 'cranking'. But if on the open road, needing to pass, hahaha, it has the punch (uneconomy).

>> you can drive around in a parking lot without the engine even being on, imagine that <<

I can't, because the laws of physics haven't been revoked.  *Some type* of engine was on or you would have quit moving.

Whether you like it or not, it is simply a fact that more than 50% of America's electricity is generated using coal.  Frankly, it ought to be more, at least until nuclear can be ramped up more, since coal is plentiful here and relatively cheap.


>> It also charges up when using brake <<

Yes, that's very cool.  But how much, really, does it charge, as a % of total battery reserves?  Probably not much.  Still, the technology will get better.  But it will take time, and we are dealing with savage terrorists NOW.

> I can't, because the laws of physics haven't been revoked

[ok, so I may not have mentioned the other 'engine'(s)]

> very cool.  But how much, really, does it charge

Correct. As I thought I said (or should have) it does not really save $$$ (overall energy etc) and I disputed salesperson suggetion that I cared about that (reason to buy) since it is not as perfect as one wnating that would desire.

> Still, the technology will get better.  But it will take time, and we are dealing

-and I did my part, each sale reduces cost and encourages development, and, no fumes when the fuel is not being used (re: coal remark). Where we each do a something, it'll all add up to benefit us all. Hopefully you know I do just 'fact' here, not taking brag rights, just passing info to any whomever. It is getting time to seek the source of petrol once again.

The petrol/electric hybrid is of course not a final solution, but it promotes a more efficient way to use fossil fuel. Definitely. E.g. the Toyota Prius has significantly lower fuel consumption than almost any car of that size and weight on long trips (which is efficient engine design and good aerodynamics at play) and amazingly much lower consuption in a start/stop type of driving (due to energy regeneration when braking). If someone could use that drive train in a lighter car and attach a bigger battery, I suppose that could be described as a big step towards lower CO2 emissions.

Storing energy efficiently and cheaply, even temporarily, seems to be the real challenge.
/RID

>> the Toyota Prius has significantly lower fuel consumption than almost any car of that size and weight on long trip <<

Less fuel consumption to actually run, of course.  But that is *not* the total fuel consumption required to make the vehicle run.  The car uses electricity, so you have to include the fuel consumed in producing the electricity, which everyone seems to forget.  

Since more than 50% of the U.S.'s electricity is produced by burning coal, it might be more accurate to say that such a car gets 40 miles per gallon of gas and ton of coal.

The Prius, in fact, has its own power plant; no external electrical power goes into the standard model. There seems to be a customized variety that has a bigger battery and is test run as a "plug-in" hybrid, but it's not production-line AFAIK.

I'm no good at this mgp stuff, but the standard Prius can make it on 5 litres per 100 km at long distance and down to 4.7 or less in commuter type service. Not bad at 1400 kg.

I'm not employes by Toyota.... :)
/RID

Scott, they achieve better mileage through more efficient conversion of fossil fuels (gasoline) to usable energy.  Hybrids do not plug in to recharge, so the overall fuel efficiency is the only number you have to look at.

5 litres per 100 km =~ 48 mpg.

er, care to revisit that? Back to drawing board time

> Storing energy efficiently and cheaply, even temporarily, seems to be the real challenge.

 The efficiency and temporary are improving, the economy cannot until the quantity and demand and interest kick in. How much did DVD cost 10, 20 years ago? And before that the CD. Not to mention the nature of writability.

> include the fuel consumed in producing the electricity, which everyone seems to forget.  

No I didn't. OK, I am not everyone. I'm just a little short of good solar cells at the moment, and of the improved batch of batteries. Why are windmills illegal? <sheesh>

> such a car gets 40 miles per gallon of gas and ton of coal.

I think you're addessing the type that you have to plug in to outlet such as demonstrated in theory (not for sale) by electric company. So some day you may get cheaper car that can go up to 25 miles per day, and plug in at work to get the cost reduction (well from your pocket anyway). Sorry, until they build better domed cities, I prefer to have a range

> There seems to be a customized variety that has a bigger battery

If not them, others have batteries, I think your reference is the model adaptation by electric companies for proof of concept. Maybe some college kids volunteered work to get the cost down to less than a lottery winner

> 5 litres per 100 km =~ 48 mpg.

as indicated, mine is not like that   :-((
I'll need time to prove it out, but the ads and stats I expect to be roguhly balanced between the two, and assuming it commonly available. Something like an mpg in mid twenties, city or highway or whatever, a fair balance.  As for mpg I actuallhave a readout, and it says 99.9 ................. (going downhill, at the stops, it reads 0.0)

The nicey again, is that there is lack of cranking, which used to be high burn time. This is smoothed in transitions, say goodbye to jerking around waste. I still am missing the best detection for whether or not it is properly 'on'

Oops, forgot part of notepad, a redo (sorry):
rid > in a lighter car and attach a bigger battery
er, care to revisit that? Back to drawing board time

Very condensed:
A lighter car >>  less energy consumption. Today, even smallish cars are built to withstand a collision with a SUV or similar, which makes for heavy construction. SUVs are not really a very good concept in a time when we're running out of oil and getting too much CO2.

A bigger battery >> makes for more regeneration energy storage and better reserves for acceleration with electric power. That would allow for an even smaller, more efficient petrol engine. If the battery is big enough, it coud be used for "filling up" with electricity between rides. Power-grid electricity is produced at a frairly high rate of efficiency, even if it's from coal, so it is even better than in-car produced electricity.
/RID

I tried to wait it out with optimism on hydrogen, but the old one was really good still but old, I mean I was getting down o using scotch tape to help keep it together, and did confess on the mpg.... an SUV, more like 25 than 50, but still not all that bad, right?

A friend at work said he's seen some great stuff with the batteries, new type superb but still massive and of course costly with the small number in production, I think cheapest at 50K. I thought we'd have the technology by now for vehicle using hydrogen, just wasn't sure how to refuel it, or where... but if it runs on water,,,, well,, maybe I could handle that. Talk about replenishment...

The Energy Bill is coming to a vote early
tomorrow morning (Thursday, 12/6) and the Senate
within the next 3-5 days.

Compromises have been made. If the current version passes intact, four titles will change the direction of US Energy Policy.

1) Passenger vehicles will be required to get higher mileage,

2) Utilities will be required to get some of their supplies from renewable sources.

3) Fuel suppliers will be required to incorporate renewable fuels into their products

4) The national alternative energy tax credits
for wind, solar and fuel cells WILL be increased and extended.

For homeowners, businesses, and especially for
the whole renewable energy industry, this revised
Energy Bill represents a series of important
gains. But, without passage in the House and a
minimum of 60 votes in the Senate it will be
vulnerable to veto by President Bush.

There are lobbyists working against this bill and they have a lot of money. What we have are votes.

Here's what we can do to help carry this Bill:

1. Visit http://www.Congress.org and click on "Congressional Directory" to find your Senators and Representative. This site gives
phone numbers to all relevant people with just your zip code in the upper right corner.

2. Call your Representative NOW - the House may vote on this Bill tonight or tomorrow.

3. Call BOTH of your state's Senators - the Senate will get the Bill as soon as the House is done with it. We need 60 Senatorial votes to make this veto-proof.

Tell them:

- vote YES on the Energy Bill

- The Clean Renewable Energy and
Conservation Tax Act of 2007 must remain INTACT with this Energy Bill.

- Clean energy technologies are VITAL to the future of this country.

What will happen if we lose any of the components of this bill? Investment in alternative energy will drop because investors dont like it when the still needed support for an industry is on a year-to-year basis, which is what the situation will be if the Clean Renewable Energy and Conservation title/section is not passed.

And to those who say they don't want an industry that has to be supported by government money, consider there is hardly a major industry in the world that wasn't jump started, or isn't STILL supported by government money - oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear power, airlines, transportation, farming, etc.

Time is of the essence. Please call your Congressional representatives and pass this information along. Its about our future.

Thanks!

The Energy Bill was amended over the weekend and the alternative
energy tax credits are back in with the cap raised from $2000 to
$4000. The bill also includes the higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, a Renewable Energy Standard and Renewable Fuel Standard.

Business solar, fuel cell, and microturbine investment tax credit:
The package extends the 30% investment tax credit for solar and fuel
cells, and the 10% credit for microturbines for eight years (through
December 31, 2016) and creates a new 10% investment tax credit for
combined heat and power property. The package also increases the cap on fuel cell credits from $500 per half kilowatt hour to $1,500. The
proposal is estimated to cost $602 million over 10 years.

Residential energy-efficient property: The package extends for six
years (through December 31, 2014) and modifies the personal tax
credit for residential solar electric, solar water heating, and fuel
cell property. The modification raises the cap on the credit for
solar electric property to $4,000. The proposal also adds a new 30%
personal credit for residential wind property capped at $4,000. The
proposal is estimated to cost $317 million over 10 years.

Good news regarding the Energy Bill. Erika Morgan said SEIA (Solar Energy Industries Association) confirmed this morning that it DOES include higher CAFE standards, a Renewable Energy Standard and Renewable Fuel Standard as well as an extension for the renewable tax incentives.

A veto is threatened, so the challenge now is to get out calls of support. The House vote is TONIGHT 12/05/07. The Senate vote later this week or early next week.

It's OK to call your reps a second time, if you have called already, because the bill changed several times, most recently over the weekend.

The basic message is simple: It's a good package now - Please support it.


http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200712061236DOWJONESDJONLINE001007_FORTUNE5.htm

The vote has not yet taken place, but it could happen as soon as today 12/06/07

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0649532120071206

Analog_Kid:
So I take it you get some benefit -- salary / dividends / capital appreciation, etc. -- from "clean energy" sources?  
And that the extra deaths on the highway from CAFE standards are worth it to you?

> 4) The national alternative energy tax credits for wind, solar and fuel cells WILL be increased and extended.

I've heard from others that the contry has effectively limited any real potential for windmills by restricting them too much in their zoning. I do not know, but if they have to be 100 miles away from any homes or schools, I would not be optimistic about getting much from that resource potential

My motivation is straight forward. I support the expansion of energy technologies that can help stabilize global climate change and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Coal oil and gas were created over hundreds of millions of years while we are depleting these resources over the period of a few hundred years with energy demands increasing at a rate of 2% every year.

You dont have to be a mathematician or geologist to realize if we are going to continue to have a high tech civilization, we will require a rapid, revolutionary transformation of the energy systems that run our planet, and without re-carbonizing our energy supplies that could render the earth uninhabitable.

Whats your benefit, ScottPletcher? Trying maintain the statuesque? How would the lost tax breaks afforded Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, or British Petroleum affect you? Or do you just naturally oppose everything?

You remind me of the fools who would require skyscrapers to be constructed to withstand the impact of jet planes. Why not require citizens to drive around in armored tanks if you are so concerned?

Has it ever occurred to you that highway deaths might be reduced if people were required to take and pass a defensive driving certification program before being issued a drivers license?

Perhaps you prefer to do nothing but complain and find fault with others. Or perhaps you are the one with ulterior motives. Either way, I could not care less about your opinions, as nothing you have ever said is persuasive in the slightest.  

>>I've heard from others that the contry has effectively limited any real potential for windmills by restricting them too much in their zoning.

Yes, that is true. There have been similar restrictions imposed on solar panels. Local ordinances can be accommodating or restrictive. The key is to allow some sort of alternatives to become productive. And that would happen at the local level.

incidentally, a solar panel manufacturer has just announced the ability to produce photovoltaic electricity several orders of magnitude less expensively than had been possible previously. Perhaps with the support of our government, promising technologies like this will begin to become more available.

>> How would the lost tax breaks afforded Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, or British Petroleum affect you? <<

They would increase their prices ... duh!  It affects **everyone**.  You leftists fools are all the same -- you never see any bad consequences from anything you do.

Although this is obvious to anyone who knows anything about economics, one more time just for you:

IF YOU RAISE TAXES ON A COMPANY, THAT COMPANY WILL RAISE ITS PRICES TO OFFSET THE TAXES.

** Companies don't really pay taxes ** -- they just collect them for gov't.  If companies need to have a 10% margin to stay in business, they will maintain that 10% margin, **regardless of the tax rate**.


>> You remind me of the fools who would require skyscrapers to be constructed to withstand the impact of jet planes. <<

Yes, interestingly enough, the World Trade Center might well still be standing if asbestos had been allowed as a flame retardant.  Another few thousand deaths leftists will never accept responsibility for, since asbestos could now have been safely used, but they shied away from it in the WTC solely because of its "bad reputation".


>> Why not require citizens to drive around in armored tanks if you are so concerned? <<

Wow, so you admit that more die from smaller cars, and that you just care more about "the planet".  That's unusual, most leftists won't even admit that lighter cars **do** mean more deaths on highways.
 
But, why ditz around if you want mileage: why not require every vehicle to get 100 mpg (~40km/liter)?  Or 200?  A line has to be drawn somewhere between what is practical and what is not.


>> I support the expansion of energy technologies that can help stabilize global climate change and reduce dependence on foreign oil. <<

So you have *no* financial ties of any kind to alternative fuels?

Actually the U.S. has vast reserves of coal and oil shale.  Those resources, properly developed, should give us at least a century.  We could also build a lot more nuclear power plants, like -- forgive me for saying this -- France.

What should be important right now is to break our dependence on foreign oil.  Then, aside from helping Israel, we can let the Arabs, and others, fight over their sands all they want to.  We could tell Chavez to stuff it as well.

It doesn't look like dwindling oil reserves are the problem anymore; in fact it would perhaps be better if they really were running out.... Failing that, other means of controlling the oil consumption are required, if, for no other reason, then at least for the effect it will have on the development of alternative energy systems. In a market, price is the instrument for that. It's a bit unlikely, though, that the ones reaping the profit will deliberately choke the cash flow, so it's in the hands of the government = taxes.
/RID

Analog_Kid > Perhaps with the support of our government, promising technologies like this will begin to become more available.

The military is being commended and then mandated to do so. Keyword from news was 'green'. Actual stuff being done I dunno, but they had a lame start with some good promisings to comply with your request. I did not read it all.

ScottPletcher > They would increase their prices ... duh!  It affects **everyone**.  

Sorry you missed that - this is histroy, they HAVE raised the prices, <duh> and you seem to not care.

> asbestos had been allowed as a flame retardant.

and there'd be less health problems with asbestos if there were less hasty removals of asbestos

>  more die from smaller cars

I sorry, not having no more bumper, I do miss that

rid > but about a functional or a almost non-functional planet in the long run.

;-) btw just read, (well, ok, not reading it all though)
If you care about planet, stay married to those you can't stand, not for the children, but for the planet. Idea is less planet surface used if you don't split up and go separate ways. In 15 years, households increased by 3.1 percent, while population rose by only 1.8 percent. 12 countries including US, which had additional 6 million households due to divorce. Consider the extra energy needed to operate the extra living spaces

Quick update:


The bill passed and the President said he will sign it.

No word regarding revisions or signing statements.

The mandate for ethanol has caused corn prices to rise so much that much more corn is being planted.  Corn requires relatively large amounts of nitrogen, which flows down the Mississippi and causes a "dead zone" at the river mouth, which has now increased in size.

Ethanol is a much less efficient fuel than petroleum-based fuels and requires different types of transportation.  And, btw, every gallon of ethanol requires 1700 gallons of water to produce (including watering the corn, processing the plant into ethanol, etc.).

So what does Congress do?  *Increase* the mandate for ethanol.  They sure know how to pander to big farming concerns and farming voters, no matter the ultimate damage to the country.

Congress has *never* quite grasped the principle of unintended consequences.  They continue to do stupid things while proclaiming that it shows how much they care.

How about Congress, instead of interfering in things they don't understand and will screw up, just pass a budget on time for once, like they are constitutionally required to do!!  Is that really too much to ask??

Done? OK,
> Ethanol is a much less efficient

How about methane..... another form of recyling and not necessarily dependent upon fossils

> How about Congress, instead of interfering

I think recent survey placed them ahead of IRS in being most despised and unliked in a non-partisan way, and now FAA is besting IRS in terms of being unliked with their inconsisent abuse of airline passengers, where postal carriers (of unsolicited mail) are the most likeable among *.gov agencies. That should say a mouthful about 'popularity' of those getting elected.

>>Done?

No, but I got an email asking me to close my open questions. No matter - we can still talk as time permits. I have been a bit short as of late. Sorry bout that...

That's ok, other Q's to do or to begin (and also for me to close out as well)