Bush Disaster #316: Defunding alternative energy but MORE money for clean coal

[BaliBabyDoc]

yahoo

"The Department of Energy has not requested funds for geothermal research in our fiscal-year 2008 budget," said Christina Kielich, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy. "Geothermal is a mature technology. Our focus is on breakthrough energy research and development."

The administration of George W. Bush has made renewable energy a priority as it seeks to wean the United States off foreign oil, but it emphasizes use of biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel for vehicles and nuclear research for electricity.

Bush supporters help me out . . . why is there always ONE solution for every problem?

1) Iraq - invade
2) need for oil - drill . . . everywhere
3) poor transit infrastructure - build more roads
4) abortion - abstinence
5) need for electricity - nuclear plants . . . everywhere

This administration appears to be the most intellectually and imagination challenged in history. About the only time they have more than one answer for an issue is when you catch them lying.

New geothermal power projects by 2050 could provide 100,000 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power about 80 million U.S. homes, or as much as U.S. nuclear power plants make today, the MIT study said.

But U.S. geothermal development will need $300 million to $400 million over 15 years to make this type of power competitive versus other forms of power generation, the study said.

But I guess it's far better to give billions to coal and natural gas interests?

"It's far from a mature technology," said Mink, who is now working on a geothermal project in Idaho. "There's a lot to do. For starters, we need to develop drill bits that last longer. It's a hostile environment down there."

While its industry is largely undeveloped, the United States is still the largest producer of geothermal electricity in the world. U.S. geothermal power generation in 2005 was 0.36 percent of national power generation and geothermal capacity is rated at 2,828 megawatts, with almost all in California, according to the Geothermal Energy Association.

Is it really surprising that CA is leading the way?

I want to believe it's possible for the Bush administration to do something . . . anything . . . right. But it's hard to have such faith when their arguments aren't even INTERNALLY consistent. Dump geothermal R&D because it's mature?!!

"In spite of its enormous potential, the geothermal option for the United States has been largely ignored," a recent study led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said.

Last year, the DOE requested no funding for geothermal for the 2007 fiscal year, after funding averaged about $26 million over the previous six years, but Congress restored $5 million. This year, the DOE's $24.3 billion budget request includes a 38 percent federal spending increase for nuclear power, but nothing for geothermal.

I doubt that research increase is going into fusion . . .

 

[Genx87]

When you require govt subsidies to make something competitive, then it isnt a good investment. What makes more sense? Invest into technologies that people use today and will use in the near future? Or invest into technologies on a mass scale that require help from taxpayers to appear cheap enough to use in the market?

Oh btw while we invest in this technology the coal plants burn away spewing lots of crap into the atmosphere.

Imaginations are what give us a 2.7 trillion dollar federal budget and probably double that when you include state budgets.

 

[Strk]

Geothermal technology is quite nice. I know I'd like to have a geothermal heating unit in my house one day.

As for government funding, I don't think it's really necessary. However, I also don't think we should be dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into clean coal either.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87
When you require govt subsidies to make something competitive, then it isnt a good investment. What makes more sense? Invest into technologies that people use today and will use in the near future? Or invest into technologies on a mass scale that require help from taxpayers to appear cheap enough to use in the market?

Oh btw while we invest in this technology the coal plants burn away spewing lots of crap into the atmosphere.

Imaginations are what give us a 2.7 trillion dollar federal budget and probably double that when you include state budgets.

Uh . . . what country are you from? Do you have no clue that the Bush Regime sprinkles tens of billions each year in R&D (biased towards private industries) and tens of billions more in direct subsidies (biased towards private industries)?

Did you bother to read the article? You invest in the PRESENT, if you want to LEAD in the FUTURE.

Further, the primary problem is that MORONS are picking a particular technology and saying . . . 'federal dollars will support nuke, less dirty coal, and natural gas'. That's just plain dumb. A lack of intelligence, a lack of imagination, and a lack of humility . . . the unholy trinity of the Bush Reign of Ridiculousness.

Lack of imagination explains the HUGE budget in the absence of correlative achievements. At least states have the prudence to 'typically' avoid large deficits, yet still serve the current and future interests of their citizens. But maybe you are right . . . it takes a lot of imagination to put BILLIONS of dollars in cash on a plane and send it into a war zone.:roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
When you require govt subsidies to make something competitive, then it isnt a good investment. What makes more sense? Invest into technologies that people use today and will use in the near future? Or invest into technologies on a mass scale that require help from taxpayers to appear cheap enough to use in the market?

Oh btw while we invest in this technology the coal plants burn away spewing lots of crap into the atmosphere.

Imaginations are what give us a 2.7 trillion dollar federal budget and probably double that when you include state budgets.

Uh . . . what country are you from? Do you have no clue that the Bush Regime sprinkles tens of billions each year in R&D (biased towards private industries) and tens of billions more in direct subsidies (biased towards private industries)?

Did you bother to read the article? You invest in the PRESENT, if you want to LEAD in the FUTURE.

Further, the primary problem is that MORONS are picking a particular technology and saying . . . 'federal dollars will support nuke, less dirty coal, and natural gas'. That's just plain dumb. A lack of intelligence, a lack of imagination, and a lack of humility . . . the unholy trinity of the Bush Reign of Ridiculousness.

Lack of imagination explains the HUGE budget in the absence of correlative achievements. At least states have the prudence to 'typically' avoid large deficits, yet still serve the current and future interests of their citizens. But maybe you are right . . . it takes a lot of imagination to put BILLIONS of dollars in cash on a plane and send it into a war zone.:roll:

Maybe you missed my response about federal subsidies supporting any industry. If it isnt upto par to make it in the market, then it isnt a good enough technology to begin with.

That wont stop fools from trying however. In MN we just passed one of the biggest increase in green use in the country. 25% of our power generation by 2025 has to be from "green" sources. The state will subsidize a portion of the 30 square miles of wind turbines in SW MN. The rest will be subsidized through increased rates for energy for the avg joe. A bill that would have lowered the requirement if our electricity bills were raised by more than 30% was shot down. That gives you an idea of what kind of increase in cost we will be seeing from this wise investment of public dollars. All that money for an inefficient technology that still requires a backup coal plant in case the wind isnt blowing. Not to mention the footprint of such a plan is obnoxious. For the power generated they could build a nuke plant with a foot print of about 10 square miles and not raise everybody's electricty bills by 30+% while doing it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Uh, maybe you missed the point that federal subsidies make sense in the context of fostering the DEVELOPMENT of an industry . . . not a welfare handout.

But I'm sure we can come to an accommodation, repealing all federal subsidies for 'mature' industries . . . corn, soybeans, sugar, oil, coal, and natural gas should be worth tens of billions each year. Then take 10% of the savings and actually INVEST in the development of agricultural and energy technology. Concepts with a future will 'eventually' attract private investment. Bad ideas (corn-based ethanol) will quickly wither . . . unless Corn-belt Congress members get in the act.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Uh, maybe you missed the point that federal subsidies make sense in the context of fostering the DEVELOPMENT of an industry . . . not a welfare handout.

But I'm sure we can come to an accommodation, repealing all federal subsidies for 'mature' industries . . . corn, soybeans, sugar, oil, coal, and natural gas should be worth tens of billions each year. Then take 10% of the savings and actually INVEST in the development of agricultural and energy technology. Concepts with a future will 'eventually' attract private investment. Bad ideas (corn-based ethanol) will quickly wither . . . unless Corn-belt Congress members get in the act.

Heh how does a govt develop an industry the market doesnt want anyways? So far it has utterly failed for corn based ethanol. Drop the subsidies for these mature industries and give the money back to the people. Then we can stop the sham of making that bill look lower while hiding the true costs through taxes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
....... why is there always ONE solution for every problem?

.......I doubt that research increase is going into fusion . . .

edited for space by Fern

While I don't support Bush's energy plan (I'll explain below), to say he offers only ONE solution is incorrect. I see 3 ethanol, biodeisel & nuclear.

I would guess the money for nuclear has to do with reactors using a "new" cheaper fuel. I used qotations marks around "new" because it was the first type of fuel for nuclear power but was long ago dropped because it couldn't be weaponized like plutonium.

Also, I see nothing about clean coal? We do have many many coal plants. Making them clean seems a good idea. I suppose you are referring to nuclear as "clean coal" Why?
----------------

Originally posted by: Genx87
When you require govt subsidies to make something competitive, then it isnt a good investment. What makes more sense? Invest into technologies that people use today and will use in the near future? Or invest into technologies on a mass scale that require help from taxpayers to appear cheap enough to use in the market?

.

Government subsidies CAN make sense. I am not saying the current policy of our government subsidies does, just that it can. I'll explain..

Subsidies used in developing technology which make such tech cheaper is a great idea. If the subsidy provide a breakthrough in technology making something cheaper makes a lot of sense. This is to be contrasted with a subsidy that only props up an otherwise non-economical industry. It merely "hides" the true costs to consumers, as opposed to actually decreasing it.

Geothermal & solar are two areas where this applies. Geothermal is in a sense "free". No one charges us for our use of the earth's heat. If government subsidies into developing technologies allows us to extract that "free" heat/energy more economically, well that's a "gift that keeps on giving". Nothing is really depleted/consumed in extracting geothermal energy. And I believe the importance of this is overlooked, and cannot be overstated.

Solar. Basically the panels are made from "beach sand". This sand must be freed of it's oxygen molecules, thus purified and made into solar panels. There are a number of highly repurable/distinguished scientist working on several new methods of purifying silica into polysilicon. If gov subsidies result in a cheaper easier purification methodology we all benefit immensly. Solar panels also are not "consumed", no one knows how long they really last since many of the originals are still functioning.

Converting "garbage" into energy. There are many promising looking technologies for this. Gov subsidies to further develope this would be a good idea. Wasts disposal is already a long standing problem, turn it into energy instead and solve two problems at once. And we at present have an unlimited suply of "free" garbage.

Biofuels, I don't really support this because it's a consumable. Create it and then consume and it's "gone". While the crops can be regrown, it's problematic. Example, Brazil is now experiencing problem of rainforest deforestation from additional plantings for sugar cane. So, as reliance upon biofuels increase, other problems manifest themselves. What would happen in the instance of a major drought? Oopps, no fuel, etc.

Once you tap into geothermal. or create a solar panel, it just keeps on producing..... It's not like they're "consumed" and you gotta go out and get more of it (unlike biofuels)

So, I think the current (Bush) policy is going in the wrong direction.

Fern

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bushistas usually have 'serial' single solutions. They usually hype ONE message at a time.

Transportation
1) no problem . . . drive as many gas-hog SUVs as you can muster . . . keep America rolling
2) drill more domestic oil
3) hydrogen
4) ethanol

The Bush administration has NOT been a strong proponent of biodiesel and it's not like the soybean barons haven't taken notice.

Electricity
1) build more nuke plants

Environment
1) R&D into less dirty coal

While its true that 'less dirty coal' is better than current coal, the primary problem is Bush's policies are the primary reason the industry isn't CLEANER right now. If coal plants that had been grandfathered in the Clean Air Act had died natural deaths (as intended by the legislation), then overall air quality would improve. The reason is that replacement coal plants MUST use best available technology.

Instead the Bush Junta created regulatory loopholes (Clear Skies, et al) to allow the upgrading of dirty coal facilities without significant emission mitigation. By extending the lifespan of dirty plants, Bush CREATED a greater need for mitigation than would be the case if he treated air emissions like Israel-Palestine . . . paid no mind.

 

[piasabird]

Actually electricity generated from wind and other sources from nature makes more sense.

When energy is created from wind or water, you do get the energy which is desirable. However, you get other savings which are not seen. Since you are not polluting the air, you get a net savings that would have been spent monitoring nuclear plants, finding a place to dump nuclear waste, monitoring smoke and emmissions from burning coal and fossil fuels. Monitoring the refinery and the coal industry to procure the coal and refine the fossil fuels, and transportation costs for transporting the fossil fuels and coal.

We need to start looking at the big picture.

 

[boredhokie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Uh, maybe you missed the point that federal subsidies make sense in the context of fostering the DEVELOPMENT of an industry . . . not a welfare handout.

But I'm sure we can come to an accommodation, repealing all federal subsidies for 'mature' industries . . . corn, soybeans, sugar, oil, coal, and natural gas should be worth tens of billions each year. Then take 10% of the savings and actually INVEST in the development of agricultural and energy technology. Concepts with a future will 'eventually' attract private investment. Bad ideas (corn-based ethanol) will quickly wither . . . unless Corn-belt Congress members get in the act.

Heh how does a govt develop an industry the market doesnt want anyways? So far it has utterly failed for corn based ethanol. Drop the subsidies for these mature industries and give the money back to the people. Then we can stop the sham of making that bill look lower while hiding the true costs through taxes.

Companies act in their own self interests. People act in their own self interests. Governments also act in their own self interest - does that make sense?

So, what is in the self interest of a government? Future stability is likely in our interests as a nation.

Geothermal is a valid technology, as noted in the article. It currently doesn't have the best rate of return - but it might in the future if it was more mature. Who makes it more mature? Since corps and people only act in their self interest, then it's the government's (read: all of us) role and responsibility to invest in promising technology.

If this investment helps our economy (viable industry) and our stability (less reliance on mideast scumbags, better environment) then the government will realize a positive rate of return on it's investment.

Ayn Rand and her libertarian movement don't understand this - they put themselves over American stability. If you want to pay less taxes then hire a better accountant.

 

[Kntx]

Maybe you missed my response about federal subsidies supporting any industry. If it isnt upto par to make it in the market, then it isnt a good enough technology to begin with.

The market doesn't care about negative externalities. The people (through government) need to pool their resources to achieve progress.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Instead the Bush Junta created regulatory loopholes (Clear Skies, et al) to allow the upgrading of dirty coal facilities without significant emission mitigation. By extending the lifespan of dirty plants, Bush CREATED a greater need for mitigation than would be the case if he treated air emissions like Israel-Palestine . . . paid no mind.

Yeah he has done such great creating more emissions that scrubbers cost are actually going up to shortages in the construction of these things. Pollution trading works and it working now, as the evidence shows there is a alot of scrubbers going in all over the country.

Do nothing, would have done nothing as those coal plants would not have been retired and would have continued to pollute while they were grandfathered.

One day you are going to realize that this was the right course of action. And that time is probably sooner than later, as these multiyear engineering projects to retrofit scrubbers are going into production now.

 

[charrison]

If you want a geothermal heat pump, go out and buy one. They are commercially available to the consumer. This is not a product that needs subsidy.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Instead the Bush Junta created regulatory loopholes (Clear Skies, et al) to allow the upgrading of dirty coal facilities without significant emission mitigation. By extending the lifespan of dirty plants, Bush CREATED a greater need for mitigation than would be the case if he treated air emissions like Israel-Palestine . . . paid no mind.

Yeah he has done such great creating more emissions that scrubbers cost are actually going up to shortages in the construction of these things. Pollution trading works and it working now, as the evidence shows there is a alot of scrubbers going in all over the country.

Do nothing, would have done nothing as those coal plants would not have been retired and would have continued to pollute while they were grandfathered.

One day you are going to realize that this was the right course of action. And that time is probably sooner than later, as these multiyear engineering projects to retrofit scrubbers are going into production now.

A quick tip . . . cause versus correlation . . . look it up. It will help you better understand the world around you.

If Bush had done NOTHING, many of the worst polluting coal-fired plants in the nation would go offline between 2000 and 2020. Why? Because most of them were built DECADES ago. The only way they can continue operating is with substantial maintenance. The Clean Air Act mandated that new facilities use best technologies, egregious polluters (often industrial) cleanup their act, and ANY substantial upgrade at facilities should include the installation of pollution mitigation technology.

Naturally, industry ignored many of the rules until the Clinton EPA started bringing down the law. Curiously, many of those cases got mothballed when the polluter's favorite tart got (s)elected President. In fact, Bush's EPA LEGALIZED what were previously VIOLATIONS of the Clean Air Act. Even creating permanent exemptions from rules that are explicitly part of the Act (not just the regs generated from the law).

New Source Review made it clear that top technology MUST be installed when expansion took place at older polluting facilities which was almost certainly going to take place within two decades at most of the worst offenders. If a company chose not to install such devices, the facility would die. Either way, the air gets cleaner. Unfortunately, the greedy, dirty ogres that run such facilities figured it made more sense to do whatever they like instead of comply with the law.

Per norm, when the Bush Regime came along, they decided to do whatever they could to keep their donors happy. Curiously, industry proposals from Cheney's Energy Task Force look strikingly similar to the changes in NSR that eventually came out of EPA. Probably not surprising since one of the nation's largest energy producers gave $2.4mil to the GOP or candidates between 1999 and 2002. Southern also sent a memo to the task force saying, "EPA's extreme use of NSR threatens the safe, reliable, and efficient operation of energy production facilities across the country.

How bad was lapdog Whitman's new NSR rules:
1) A plant could use their two WORST polluting years of the past decade as a baseline for future emissions. In essence, the crappiest facilities merely have to avoid a NEW record of depravity. An internal EPA memo suggested that change alone would allow 50% of all the nation's industrial plants to expand without being forced to cleanup.
2) If there's a 'hiccup' at a facility which leads to a release of toxic chemicals . . . don't worry. Just get your legal team to work on the new loophole that gives a corporate pass for such episodes.
3) The Bush administration has filed ZERO new complaints for NSR violations since Bush took office.

The take home is that Bush (and his sycophants) are extremely myopic. It's almost a corporate boardroom kind of perspective . . . 'how to meet (or exceed) expectations for the next quarter'. But that's a terrible way to run a business (look at Bush's record) and an even worse way to run the world's greatest nation's energy (or environmental) policy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Instead the Bush Junta created regulatory loopholes (Clear Skies, et al) to allow the upgrading of dirty coal facilities without significant emission mitigation. By extending the lifespan of dirty plants, Bush CREATED a greater need for mitigation than would be the case if he treated air emissions like Israel-Palestine . . . paid no mind.

Yeah he has done such great creating more emissions that scrubbers cost are actually going up to shortages in the construction of these things. Pollution trading works and it working now, as the evidence shows there is a alot of scrubbers going in all over the country.

Do nothing, would have done nothing as those coal plants would not have been retired and would have continued to pollute while they were grandfathered.

One day you are going to realize that this was the right course of action. And that time is probably sooner than later, as these multiyear engineering projects to retrofit scrubbers are going into production now.

A quick tip . . . cause versus correlation . . . look it up. It will help you better understand the world around you.

A quick tip. You have no proof there is no correlation, however there are plenty of press releases stating scrubber installs are due to rising cost of nox/sox credits due to clear skies. But I guess you will just say industry is putting on the good face for the current admin.

Your entire argument relies on the oldest plants closing, but that just was not happening. Grandfathered plants simply were doing nothing. We got litigation rather than scrubbers being installed. Now they are reasonably free to modernize plants, but if they pollute more, they have to buy more credits. Conversely if they pollute less they can sell pollution credits. TIme and time again this is shown to be an effective means to lower pollution, even kyoto with all of its flaws is smart enough to recognize that such trading is a good thing.


The facts about the current activity with scrubber installs simply do not fit your jaded political view of this administration. The truth is clear skies is working better than the previous rules and it effectively remove the benefit of doing nothing to plants that were grandfathered. These oldest dirtiest plants that had to do nothing before, now have to do something or it will cost the owners big time when they must buy pollution credits.

This is solid legislation and in a few years when a massive number of scrubbers come online, including ones on the oldest and dirtiest that you despise so much, it will obvious even to the most partisan that this was right way to do things.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: charrison
If you want a geothermal heat pump, go out and buy one. They are commercially available to the consumer. This is not a product that needs subsidy.

Geothermal heat pumps were made viable by research done at my university through DOE grants. Without that DOE grant money, geothermal heat pumps still would be overly expensive in intial and life cycle costs.

It is the SOP of the DOE to change its funding interests over time. They try to drive a technology to the point that it can be taken over by industry. DOE funding of geothermal heat pumps dried up a few years back, and now the industry provides our research money on them.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Fantasy tripe from blind, deaf Bush fans aside . . . the Clean Air Act is arguably one of the most potent environmental regulations EVER!

If the typical Bush supporter (the remaining 35%) had their way . . . there never would have been a Clean Air Act!

They certainly have a general lack of common sense not to realize that appointing industry lobbyists, CEOs, and lawyers to regulatory agencies leads to less regulation and what regulations remain are weakened to the point of being less effective.


one example among many

The air quality in the Beaumont/Port Arthur area of Texas has been officially downgraded to a "serious" nonattainment of federal standards, but only after a legal and regulatory tug-of-war that has lasted for years.
---
On December 11, 2002, the Appeals Court ruled that the EPA was in violation of the Clean Air Act when it delayed implementation of a cleanup plan for the area's smoggy air. The court reversed the portion of EPA's approval that extended Beaumont/Port Arthur's attainment date to 2007.

Hmm, Bush's EPA being weak on enforcement . . . go figure.


Over 100 active cases against dirty industries were underway BEFORE Bush was anointed. Multiple cases were in settlement talks . . . several of which were scuttled by the Bush Regime. As for 'scrubbers', there's a limit to just how much of a law you can eviscerate before legal challenges create roadblocks. Not by EPA mind you . . . but primarily states, cities, Sierra Club, and other groups suing the government for NOT doing the job they are legally required to perform.

"Emissions rollbacks are being handed out to industries like candy," says Eric Schaeffer, former director of regulatory enforcement for the EPA. Schaeffer resigned in February to protest the administration?s backsliding on clean air; he was followed in July by Sylvia Lowrance, a senior deputy in the EPA?s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance who was involved in previous efforts to prosecute new-source review violations.

In summary, Bush asked industry, "what can I do for you?" Their answer, "fewer regulations, less oversight . . . put EPA in a straightjacket."

Bush?s proposal also allows plants that want to exceed their allotments to buy pollution credits from those that aren?t polluting as much as the new caps allow. This provision would allow a coal-burning plant in Ohio, say, to buy polluting credits from a downsizing plant in Florida. The marketplace does its magic, and kids in Ohio still get asthma. This provision is especially bad for the mostly low-income and minority people who live near power producers that could buy credits, as Schaeffer puts it, "to pollute as much as they want."

Some people either have no real concept of LOCAL environmental impact or they don't really care that 'polluting credits' kill people. The cap-and-trade is a farce. It manufactures 'reduced emissions' that are FAR less than the emissions reductions that would take place if the Clean Air Act was being applied as intended by the law. Remember, Bush's EPA changed the attainment ceiling to be the WORST two years in the past decade. How hard can it be to meet the standard of doing better than your worst? Plus anything better than your worst can be sold to other facilities that are looking to hit new levels of profligacy.

Increasing evidence in recent years has tied air pollution to asthma and other respiratory ailments, particularly among children. In 1997, the EPA set new standards for soot and smog, and started keeping track of cities that exceed those levels.

Since then, however, the EPA has neither implemented the standards nor informed citizens in more than 140 polluted communities that their air is hazardous to breathe. So the Sierra Club is doing the job for them: Find out if your city is on the list at www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/epa_list.

You have to love the miracle of the free market. Legalized private profit at the expense of the public. Sadly, some people appear to be proud of such 'achievements.'

 

[charrison]

So you want me to beleive that Bush has given the indsutry a blank check to pollute by weaking rules and then not enforcing them. But the reality situation is taht scrubber are being added so fast that costs on these projects are rising due to shortages of resources to get these projects completed.

I think you are confused.