Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Democrats Are Blowing Our Best Chance for Clean Energy

By Kelpie Wilson, AlterNet. Posted June 30, 2008.


How the Dems sacked one of the most important opportunities to turn around our energy future.
Advertisement

Take some of Big Oil's obscene profits and invest the money in developing clean renewable energy for the future. This is the Democrats' big idea on energy and it's a good one, but right now Democrats are botching it badly.

Last month, Congress failed for the tenth time this year to pass an extension of the renewable energy tax credits that have nurtured the infant wind and solar power industries in the US but are set to expire at the end of 2008. The tax credit extension should have been included in the big renewable energy bill that Congress passed at the end of 2007, but Republicans blocked the provision because they didn't like closing oil tax loopholes to pay for it.

Some Democrats, like Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, got it, and shifted the approach. Cantwell drafted a bipartisan bill, cosponsored by Nevada Republican John Ensign, to renew the tax credits without requiring a budget offset that would draw a Republican filibuster or a Bush veto.

The problem is that a contingent of House Democrats has continued to insist that no renewable energy tax credit extension be passed unless it can be paid for by cutting some other budget item or by adding revenue -- like increasing taxes on Big Oil. These "pay-go" rules are supposed to establish Democrats as the anti-deficit party and the House leadership has been unmovable on the principle when it applies to renewable energy.

But Democrats seem to have a double standard, turning into bendable Barbies when it comes to bailing out bankers or funding the Iraq war. Solar energy industry lobbyist Scot Sklar said that Congress has all sorts of "creative bookkeeping" techniques it can use to justify new spending, they just don't want to do it for renewable energy. The question is, why?

I spoke with S. David Freeman, author of Winning Our Energy Independence: An Energy Insider Shows How, about the situation. Freeman is a bona fide "energy guru," having worked on federal energy policy since the Kennedy administration, and he was spitting mad. He called the pay-go principle a "bureaucratic rule" and said Democrats could bypass it if they would "get their act together."

"They are using two different rules," he said. "They can go to war on credit, but they can't save the planet on credit. If Congress applied the pay-go rule to the war we would have no war in Iraq."

Freeman said that Congress is not getting the urgency of our energy and climate crisis. "We are in a fight for our lives and Congress acts like it's a Fourth of July picnic ... the Democrats won't do anything until the issue gets to a fever pitch."

NASA climate scientist James Hansen hammered on the urgency of the "fight for our lives" to congressional staffers at a briefing on June 24th. He said "we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb...a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year."

For the renewable energy industry, it is already too late to avoid disruptions caused by letting the tax credit expire. The uncertainty around the tax credit is slowing investment now. Michael Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) said, "This is outrageous and intolerable. The time to act is overdue. We're not calling for next week. It's months ago that this should have been done."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy, renewable energy, coal, congress, global warming, climate change, clean energy

Kelpie Wilson is a freelance writer covering energy and environmental issues. She is a contributing editor for Yoga Plus magazine and author of Primal Tears, a novel. An archive of her past articles is on her website.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is clearly a failure, once again, of leadership
Posted by: PaulC on Jun 30, 2008 4:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does this sound so familiar?

No surprise the Blue Dog Dems are at it again - they are like some kind of nightmare that keeps on giving. But Reid needs to start acting like a real leader when necessary, and it just isn't in him. He is a weak, irrelevant figurehead. Exact same criticism applies to Pelosi. It is a crying shame that we are reduced to this.

Hanson was not exaggerating when he said the wriggle room is all used up. Recent studies suggest it may already be too late to avoid a "tipping point" that could break the back of human civilization itself. And yet these hopeless stooges fiddle while we all burn.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind power is inadequate.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 19, 2008 8:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There ARE places where the wind blows steadily.
But those places don't happen to be everywhere.
And they don't happen to be in convenient places.
And the wind doesn't blow hard enough for the power required
HERE. [I'm not in Texas.]
Some places may not have as many people who object to any
change, like Senator Kennedy. So just because it works in some
other place that happens to be a special case is no indication that it
will work here. But don't believe me. Go invest YOUR OWN
money in a wind power project and go broke. If you get rich
instead, fine. If T.B. Pickens wants to waste a billion dollars on
wind power, that is fine with me. Put your money where your
mouth is. If you expect other people to invest their money, the
numbers have to work first. Remember that climate has an
impact on whether wind energy will work in a given place.
There just isn't enough wind power in the world and it is too
intermittent to be useable for base load. If you capture all of the
wind power, you will have changed the climate.
The impracticality of wind power may have something to do with
Congress's unwillingness to subsidize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dangers of wind turbines
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 19, 2008 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture.

I watched the 3 YouTube films, "Voices of Tug Hill", and
it's appalling. Greed has no boundaries, no conscience, no
morals, no standards"

No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind power requires technology we don't have.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 19, 2008 10:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted
over enormous areas [more than one continent] to provide
continuous power because wind varies from minute to minute.
Direct current is required because the voltage and frequency of
AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. Long
distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC
just doesn't go far otherwise.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the
statement that the "high temperature" superconductor will be
cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen or liquid helium is the Achilles heal
of this scheme. It isn't really a "room" temperature
superconductor. Any accidental warming brings the grid to a
halt. Energy is required to make liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen
must be cooled to 77 degrees Kelvin to make it a liquid. [Zero
degrees Kelvin is absolute zero, -273.15 degrees Centigrade.]
Liquid helium is at 4 degrees Kelvin or colder. Superconduction
usually means a requirement for liquid helium. Liquid Helium is
very expensive. The cable has to be thermally insulated and
cooled its entire length. The cable also must be physically
separated into "out" and "return" wires, and the force between the
2 wires will be large. As stated in the article I gave you the URL
of, it won't be cheap.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much
magnetic field will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that
point. The cable will instantly melt, creating an electric arc. All
of the energy that was flowing through that spot will instead be
dumped there, creating an explosion. The power grid will be
disabled for some time since repairing a superconducting cable is
not as easy as splicing a wire. Is this the kind of electric service
you really want? We really don't have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? Check the
efficiency, the availability of leak proof caverns, etc. Storing
wind energy as compressed air is a pie in the sky. What about
storing wind energy in batteries? We can't make that many
batteries. Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors. There are special locations and circumstances
where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot replace coal and
nuclear any time soon. Nuclear power is the only kind that can
actually take coal fired power plants off line. If allowed to
compete, nuclear power would already have replaced coal fired
power because nuclear is 30% cheaper and 24000 American lives
per year safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spinning reserve
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 19, 2008 10:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors or super batteries. There are special locations
and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot
replace coal and nuclear any time soon.
Those windmills are just nuisances that electric companies are
forced to put up with. They aren't really reducing the need for
coal because the wind is too variable. The coal fire has to be kept
burning to maintain a "spinning reserve." There is one and only
one practical way to replace coal fired power plants at the present
time. That one way is nuclear power. Nuclear power works for
base load and nuclear power is clean and safe. Nuclear fuel is
recyclable. There is no such thing as nuclear waste.
We don't have batteries that are good enough and cheap enough to
solve the problem of wind variability yet. We need research into
energy storage and room temperature superconductors. The
research will take an unknown amount of time. We don't have
that time. Batteries and room temperature superconductors
have been under research for a very long time already, so don't
expect any breakthroughs next week.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cost of solar power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 19, 2008 11:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://science-community.sciam.com/
blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422

The Cost of Solar Power   From Dan M.'s Blog  
by Dan M.
"One source that seems good is solarbuzz.com(1)(2). From the
name, it sounds like a pro solar energy source, but the data seem
to be realistic.
From the first referenced page at this site, we see that residential
costs have dropped 6% to 37.59 cents/kwH, while
commercial/wholesale costs have dropped 0.6% between July
2000 and November 2007 to 21.37 cents/kwH. "
"For comparison purposes, the wholesale price of electricity was
0.06 cents/kwH. "

Dividing the solar cost by the wholesale grid price, we see that
solar power costs 356.2 to 626.5 times as much as electricity from
the wholesale grid. That is during the daytime. At night, the
cost of solar power is much higher because you have to add the
cost of energy storage, the cost of converting the energy to store
it, the cost of converting the energy back, and all of the
inefficiencies. You would be lucky to get 5% efficiency overall
for stored energy, so multiply by at least 20 purely because of
inefficiency. Double or multiply by some larger number the
capital cost to cover the cost of storage. Solar power is
unaffordable at night.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]