The Energy Thread

(well, we have two existing nuke plants - but no one wants to build any new ones was my point)

also have you seen what the insane start-up/insurance costs are for nuke plants, nobody has the money to cover that kind of capital outlay - which is why the industry is clamoring for subsidies and relaxed restrictions, etc.

Yep, nuclear's economic viability is heavily dependent on subsidies.

Don't worry guys, this awesome offshore drilling plan will save us 3 cents a gallon on gasoline by 2030!

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

Hm. I'd better look into this issue. I've just been running around thinking that everybody was cpool with nukes. Thanks for a jumping-off point.

the irony here is obvious - right-wing pro-nuke guys demanding a gov't handout. Free market would've killed off nuclear power in this country a generation ago.

haven't even touched on the waste problem, which is gigantic and my one real gripe with the pro-nuke crowd. get back to me when you have a viable solution for getting the waste off of the earth and into the sun or something. cuz there's no way to store it down here.

Since the licensing was withdrawn from Yucca Mountain, there's no plan for nuclear waste disposal either. (xpost)

I was never sold on the Yucca Mtn plan to begin with - stuff would've easily contaminated the water table for future generations

Okay. This is the first I've heard about delicensing Yucca Mountain. What are we going to do with our giant hole in the ground???

bury Harry Reid in it

Drill it for oil

We should also make sure to blow the top of it for coal while we're at it. I <3 this dang country, go USA

Since all the work at Hanford was done specifically to meet the requirements at Yucca Mountain, it looks like everything done for containment over the past 10 years (including the vitrification plant which is hugely over-run on budget) will have to be completely reworked. In the meantime, there's like 7 million gallons of nuclear and chemical crap in leaking rusty 60 year old underground tanks buried at the edge of the Columbia river. And the plan is to just leave it there until things get settled.

and then the CHUDs come after us

Stuff like this (http://www.powermag.com) "NJ uses millions of climate fund $$ for budget deficit" is really starting to get to me. I hated the creation of a new commodity initially, and now the money isn't being used for its stated purpose. All these giant backward steps in energy and environmental policy. Just sucks.

I can't post the full url for that article btw, probably because it has hyphens in it and ILXcode chokes. It's in the news section, from March 24 or so.

http://www.350.org/dont-drill

Take 30 seconds to sign it for pete's sake

done

for all the good it'll do btw. this party knows it has its constituents by the hair - what're you gonna do, not vote for them? you'll vote for them. I'll vote for them. it doesn't matter what they do. they get the vote anyway. they do not care about how anybody thinks about this stuff imo.

Yep, I know it's pointless. Last night my gf was laboring over a revision in one of the paragraphs in that 350 petition, I suppose in the hopes that Obama or one of our senators would actually read the thing. We'd be lucky if they even notice that tens of thousands of people in their base are vehemently opposed.

In my weaker moments I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be part of a party with leadership that pander to the base as much as the GOP does.

i am pining right along with you guys but pandering to the base has gotten the GOP into the smallest minority any party has had in decades

One of the great conservative leaders on energy issues, according to Newt, Sarah Palin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSxz4mTzSI0

PALIN: We should create a competitive climate for investment in renewables and alternatives … none of this snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff that came down where there was revelation that these scientists, some of these scientists were playing some political games. I sued the Feds over this, I sued the Feds over this as Governor for some bogus listing on the ESA, just about got run out of town, of course, by the environmentalists. But now we feel a little bit vindicated because we’re realizing through Gore-gate that there was some snake oil science involved in the data collection there.… We invented the Internet, unless that was just another Gore-gate thing too.

"that alternative, when it's discovered, it will be here, and it will be Americans who find it, America will invent this next source."

If only there were viable alternatives that were available NOW! Oh well, I guess we'll just have to continue to burn coal until we find it, whoopdeedoodah yay!

http://i39.tinypic.com/212tgrn.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/2rc26ut.jpg

Solar? CSP what the doodle?

http://i41.tinypic.com/o0nej5.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/qqagxk.jpg

Air that moves? What the heck I don't get it

http://i44.tinypic.com/2hnyh4n.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/5oz32v.jpg

Geothermal? I tell you this, America - no energy can come from deep in the earth, because that's where the devil lives

http://i39.tinypic.com/muehzl.jpg
http://i40.tinypic.com/adhhdu.gif

Energy efficiency? The "smart grid"? If it was so smart why would I be telling you to continue to concentrate on drilling oil and to forget about finally moving a coherent energy policy reform until Americans "invent" some new alternative? Well?

http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png
http://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.pnghttp://i41.tinypic.com/al3q8l.png

yeah but yr biologically wrong

Graham Says Energy Bill Is ‘Impossible’ for Now

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the chief sponsors of a nascent plan to address energy and climate change in the Senate, said Friday that the proposal had no chance of passage in the near term and called for a “pause” in consideration of the issue.

Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had heightened concern about expanded offshore drilling, which he considers a central component of any energy legislation. Mr. Graham also said that Democratic insistence on taking up immigration policy before energy had chilled his enthusiasm for any global warming measure.

How unfortunate that the ONLY Republican senator willing to work across the aisle on energy/climate is also an illogical madman. "Let us wait until everyone starts to forget about the horrific consequences of offshore drilling, so that we can ensure that offshore drilling will be included in the legislation, yaywoo!"

yeah this is pretty disgusting

exhibit A in how not to learn lesson from biggest oil spill disaster in history

*off the US coast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

ah of course the Gulf War dwarfs all

As far as the political implications of the BP disaster, only in today's U.S. political climate would an environmental disaster of this magnitude have ambiguous consequences for energy/climate legislation. In the wake of numerous environmental disasters of the 1960s and early 70s, we had the first Earth Day, the establishment of EPA, the Clean Air and Water acts, etc. Exxon Valdez in 1989 killed the political momentum for drilling in ANWR.

And today? It's not like we were lacking for reasons to pass the climate bill, or FINALLY pass some good energy legislation. - We're still overwhelmingly dependent on 19th Century energy sources, and we've been warned repeatedly for 20+ years that our backwards "energy policy" is dangerous. So you'd think this would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. But no, instead we get more waffling, and zero leadership. We get politicans in both parties defending Big Oil.

goddammit

In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, the benefits of clean sources of energy are clearer than ever. What's so infuriating about the Washington response so far is that there's no indication the disaster has prompted Obama or anyone else to reconsider his position. In the past, major disasters shifted the terms of debate. This time, nobody is budging. But the support for offshore drilling that the White House was willing to trade for reductions in carbon emissions -- the crucial achievement in any climate bill -- is no longer feasible. As Florida Senator Bill Nelson put it, any bill that includes drilling is "dead on arrival.''

Perversely, the Gulf disaster has had the short-term effect of weakening the already tepid support for a Senate climate bill. That may change as Louisiana's coastline is subsumed by oil. Washington eventually responds to public outrage. (Just ask Goldman Sachs.) But for now, energy can join the long list of issues on which Washington leadership has vanished.

Kerry and Droopy moving introduce bill anyway

Senate once again fucking up things the House got (more or less) right a year ago

And like health care, their proposed legislation is already compromised, watered down and aimed at attracting GOP support that will never be there anyway.

Well, I take that back, I suppose it will probably have at least some GOP support. At least, it looked that way a month ago. I'm just in a tizzy due to the insanity of being forced to compromise on an issue that is so important.

Fuck Lindsey Graham. I don't know what else to say. Jesus fucking Christ, that guy, and to think that he stood out as the one republican who was potentially not batshit insane.

Wow, weird, virtually zero mention in the press about how NASA's data shows that this is by far the hottest spring on record, man, so surprising, jeez

fukkin scientists

Obama's Climate Complacency: Blame Rahm?

Great article (actually an excerpt from Eric Pooley's new book, which I plan on reading soon) with lots of insidery details about ignored memos, and it sounds like Axelrod has had a large (non)role too.

When corporate and environmental leaders from the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) went to the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing for a late spring 2009 meeting with Emanuel, they could see that he didn't much care about climate change. What he cared about was winning—acquiring and maintaining presidential power over an eight-year arc. Climate and energy were agenda items to him, pieces on a legislative chessboard; he was only willing to play them in ways that enhanced Obama's larger objectives. He saw no point in squandering capital on a lost cause. The White House could claim victory if Congress passed a beefy energy bill without a cap—never mind that doing so could torpedo Copenhagen and delay serious green house gas reductions, perhaps for many years. At the USCAP meeting, Emanuel made his views clear: "We want to do this climate bill, but success breeds success," he said. "We need to put points on the board. We only want to do things that are going to be successful. If the climate bill bogs down, we move on. We've got health care"

Ezra Klein OTM in his criticism of Obama's speech:

To expand a bit on a point I made on Rachel Maddow’s show, I’m just not sure how you do a response to climate change if you can’t really say the words “climate change.”...

...Rachel said that no one wants to hear about climate change. The operative emotion here has to be inspiration, not fear. And she’s right about that. The polling certainly backs her up. But that strikes me as depressing evidence of how unlikely we are to succeed. I simply don’t believe you could’ve passed health care if you couldn’t have talked about covering the uninsured, and I don’t think stimulus would’ve worked without the spur of the unemployed. It’s not that people wanted to hear about either subject all day, but they got both problems on a visceral enough level that the action being taken at least made a sort of sense.

Whale poo helps offset carbon footprint

Each whale releases about 50 tonnes of iron a year, their natural fertilization stimulating the process of photosynthesis.

was a little o_O, but then read that an average sperm whale weighs 62 tons

Judging by some things swirling around work, electric utilities are starting to get that they can make lots of money by changing the grid in ways that don't impact the consumer but do have a big impact on the Carbon intensity of the power coming out of the socket. I'm pretty bullish that even with no, or weak sauce climate legislation some pretty big actors have sat up and seen dollar signs. I can see crappy legislation benefitting the first movers as well because supply of the sorts of technologies required to do this is going to be tight for at least the next 5 years.

If only Tesla's free wireless power plant technology had come to pass...

The claim that there's "no consensus" on climate change has always been ridiculous, but tough to debunk in a soundbyte (which, unfortunately, is the modus operandi for most skeptics). A new study from the National Academy of Sciences, the first of its kind, offers a fantastic, concise conclusion:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 1) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 2) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

MIT's just released report on natural gas:

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/naturalgas.html

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., June 25, 2010 -- Natural gas will play a leading role in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions over the next several decades, largely by replacing older, inefficient coal plants with highly efficient combined-cycle gas generation. That’s the conclusion reached by a comprehensive study of the future of natural gas conducted by an MIT study group comprised of 30 MIT faculty members, researchers, and graduate students. The findings, summarized in an 83-page report, were presented to lawmakers and senior administration officials this week in Washington.

electric utilities are starting to get that they can make lots of money by changing the grid in ways that don't impact the consumer but do have a big impact on the Carbon intensity of the power coming out of the socket

David Roberts from Grist says Senate Dems may actually grow a pair and do something! God, I haven't had any hope on this for a long time, I hope this is even a tiny bit accurate:

On Thursday, the Senate Democratic caucus held a meeting and everyone emerged giddy as schoolchildren. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it "one of the most motivating, energized, and even inspirational caucuses that I've been a part of." Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) called it "absolutely thrilling." Said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), "It was really very, very powerful. It was inspirational, quite frankly."

This is, to say the very (very) least, uncharacteristic. Are these Senate Democrats we're talking about? What happened at this meeting?...

...the climate bill has been proceeding along the same well-worn rut, with Kerry and Lieberman ladling on offshore drilling, natural gas, nuclear, and coal subsidies to lure corporate and, it was hoped, Republican support. Yet the only Republican support that ever materialized, Lindsey Graham (S.C.), flaked out at the first sign of danger. Now even the few remaining "moderates" on the Republican side are digging in their heels, right on cue.

There are no more compromises to make and no one left to compromise with. The traditional approach can only lead to failure now.

The other approach is what pushed financial reform over the top: Take a strong bill to the floor without 60 votes, beat the sh*t out of Republicans for obstructionism, use public opinion in your favor, compromise where you're forced, and pry off enough votes to get it done. It's the go-big-or-go-home strategy. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) argued, and it looks like the caucus generally agreed, it's time to go that route on climate.

And from ClimateWire (via NYT):

According to a staff-written summary of yesterday's closed-door caucus meeting obtained by E&E, senators discussed a legislative strategy "more akin to the financial regulatory legislation than of health care, with Democrats bringing to the floor an impenetrable package that Republicans could not roadblock."

Democratic senators declined to discuss the exact details of their strategy after emerging from the hourlong talks. But its basic thrust appears to be a plan to anchor the climate and energy effort to widely popular legislation that would overhaul offshore drilling regulations in the wake of the Gulf spill, and then dare Republicans to vote against it.

LONDON — Alcohol-induced behavior has produced many unintended consequences, but pushing up the global price of oil and losing $10 million must rank among the most novel.

Britain’s financial regulator disclosed on Tuesday that Steven Noel Perkins, a former oil futures broker, single-handedly engineered a jump in the price of oil a year ago and cost his firm millions of dollars with a string of unauthorized trades after a weekend of heavy drinking.

Mr. Perkins had just returned from a liquor-soaked golf weekend with colleagues in June of last year when he sat down in front of his laptop at his home east of London and started to place bets on Brent crude futures, according to a report by the Financial Services Authority. He continued to drink and place bets through the night, and by the morning of June 30, Mr. Perkins had placed more than $520 million worth of trades, at one point pushing the price of oil to $73.05, an eight-month high. The trades by Mr. Perkins were the main reason the price gained about $1.65 a barrel in just over two hours in the middle of the night, according to the report.

“Mr. Perkins’s explanation for his trading on 29 and 30 June is that he was drunk,” the F.S.A. said. “He claims to have limited recollection of events on Monday and claims to have been in an alcohol-induced blackout at the time he traded.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

thorium: energy pros, tell me about it

bump