2wolves

In June of 2001, Bush opposed and the congressional GOP voted down legislation to provide $350 million worth of loans to modernize the nation's power grid because of known weaknesses in reliability and capacity. Supporters of the amendment pointed to studies by the Energy Department showing that the grid was in desperate need of upgrades as proof that their legislation sponsored by U.S. Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) should pass.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration lobbied against it and the Republicans voted it down three separate times: First, on a straight party line in the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, then on a straight party line the U.S. House Rules Committee, and finally on a party line on the floor of the full House [Roll Call Vote #169, 6/20/01].

The studies being done under the previous administration were considered tainted.


2Wolves

j8ear

This is probably the only reasonable portion of that entire posting.

Energy has a been a BIG PROBLEM in this country for a long time. EPA and other federal buearacracies, as usual, have made acomplete mess of the just about every single one of our public utilities.

Policies inacted, and enforced which made it profitable to keep old, inefficient, heavily polluting, production centers on line with specific disincentives to upgrade are what comes from our federal government.

Bush talked about energy (oil, electr, and nat gas) quite a bit during his ellection campaign but seems to have been somewhat side tracked with the oil part of it. ALSO IN CRISIS mind you.

This 'issue' is not a dem/rep issue it is an ever growing, out of control, special interest controlled, unaccountable, bottomless check book having, pandering government problem. And it's all ours.

IT WILL NOT GET BETTER IF THE STATUS QUO REMAINS. Both the republicans and the democrats are the status quo. They are garbage and disgusting. We need change.

Why aren't we harnessing solar power. Imagine a roof covered in solar panels which could drive fans, heat water, store light for use at night. It seems so simple, but largely under researched. It seems so logical?

You can try and blame this on any "Admininstration" and you will fail.

-bear

You know I just re-read that posting above....and who gives a crap what the rebuplican legislator defeated, or the current administration opposed.

Shitty, special interest-laden, pork barrell funding legislation gets shot down all the time. Once in a while it works as it should

Are you somehow asserting that passage of this legislation would have prevented last weeks occurance? To think so is ABSURD....completely absurd.

Superbelt

Deregulation is the biggest problem to our energy security and strength of our grid.

Our energy are now in the hands of private companies who only worry about the bottom line. They want profits. So they save billions of dollars when they allow the grid system to deterioriate. None of them want to assume any responsibility over something they think the federal government will step in and fix after things get bad enough.

Fully government owned, regulated energy will be cheaper for everyone and the security of the grid will be assured since the only two objectives are to provide power to everyone and to make sure it keeps on running. Profit is not involved.

Kadath

Dude. Ease OFF. The poster made no assertions or statements of opinion whatsoever. What you choose to infer and subsequently go off about is all on you. You've been better lately. Don't go all nuts again.

__________________
it's quiet in here

j8ear

noted ;-)


Do you think it was a reasonable inferrance?

Kadath

No comment.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Shagg

I'm totally in favor of nationalizing water and power. It needs to be run on the same basis as the US Postal Service. I.e. responsible for its own operating costs.

California actually offers a ton of incentives for solar power and if I ever get to the point where I can buy a house I will probably go solar. I like the idea that if you are not using all your capacity you get paid for what you add to the energy grid.

omnigod

Actually, Bush has been trying to update the grid for 2 years but the "Enviromentalist Wackos and liberals" have been stopping him at every turn... According to Rush Limbaughs Radio Talk Show... so i dont know how true it is

Willy

The government certainly doesn't have a record of running anything efficiently. What needs to happen is a large number of competing power generation companies. Competition is what causes innovation and drives people to provide better service for less money. Government bureaucracy is not the answer. Trust me I work for the government, and my officemate has a $5000 computer monitor just because he wants to have the biggest one in the department. If you want something done in twice the time for 10x the price, let the government do it.

We also need to start building power plants. This is a fact. Solar panels are great, but they are very expensive, and don't put out very much power. We aren't going to solve the energy crisis by telling people to put solar panels on their roof. We need power plants. California hasn't built a power plant of any kind in 10 years, but uses 25% more power than we did 5 years ago.

Thanks to organizations like Greenpeace and "not in my back yard" protesters, it is virtually impossible to build a power plant these days. These people are shooting themselves in the foot, but logic isn't an issue with your average urban SUV drivers that want their air conditioner on all day, want it to be cheap, and don't want the power plant (or even a power line) anywhere close to their house. This is a serious problem now, and is going to get worse. Power plants don't get built over night. The US needs to pull their head out of the sand, and Greenpeace needs to pull it's head out of it's ass, or we're going to go from a bad problem to an all-out disaster. If you think some incentives to buy solar panels is going to fix this problem, you are not in touch with reality.

j8ear

First off...solar and wind powers ARE exactly what needs further exploration. No question...to think the only solution is more power plants is absurd.

It is so much more then the sum of it's parts though.

Concur 100% on Environmental Wackos (like green peace OR the EPA) and 'not in my backyard protesters.' They are a thorn in the side of progress and improvement. They are also a threat to the health and growth of our human family.

I would agree that a mix of alternative energy sources (wind and solar) AND additional production capacity of traditional sources (nuclear, coal fired, and natural gas burning) is what is needed.

We need more efficient ways to make it, to deliver it AND to consume it. All three must be met or nothing will improve.

Willy

I'm all for reasearch. I'm not too optimistic about wind or solar power being a significant part of our national power production in the forseeable future. If they can then that's great, but it will take some major technological advances to make it even remotely practical. In the mean time, we need more power now, and by the time new power plants can be built, even without interference from protesters and local government, we will need it even worse. I absolutely agree that we need to be spending some cash on alternative energy, especially for fossil fuels in cars and coal-fired power plants. Alternative energy isn't going to be ready in the near future though, which is why we need to put up some new power plants asap, as well as improving the national electrical grid.

BigGov

For the record, for over a decade there have been many organizations saying we've needed a whole electrical overhaul and that if we didn't do so, we'd have a blackout. So Bush is hardly the cause of it.

The problem with the "alternative" energy is that right now all of it is extremely unreliable and not very efficient compared to nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.

Solar has come a long way, but it is not enough right now.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

smooth

Actually, solar power is extremely viable currently. Run some searches on the "green" buildings being built in Southern California right now. There is absolutely no reason pv cells can't be placed in every window and rooftop right now. You don't think they will produce much energy? I'm not going to belabor the point, the technology is here, viable, and being implemented right down the road from my house--but concerns still do not create an excuse not to implement the technology we do have.

EDIT:some links regarding current designs and implementations:
http://www.consol.ws/content.asp?sid=29&ssid=27

http://www.consol.ws/content.asp?sid=29&ssid=29

http://oikos.com/news/2003/07.html#Anchor-3800

http://www.ccities.doe.gov/whats_new.shtml

there was actually an excellent article recently explaining the actual construction but I can't find it right now.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

j8ear

It's gone no where. As has production?

It must be both. Must be. If we only build production centers, and do not reign in consumption, or re-engineer the systems...nothing will be solved.

HVAC has two parts. Air movement/rotating fans and Compression/cooling or resitance/heating. All run on electricity. Compression/resistance will always need electricity, but air movement is very efficiently off loaded to solar or wind power.

It's a whole new breed of thinking needed. It's not more power...it's some more power, some smarter use of the power and some re-allocation of the energy source for efficiently off-loaded requirements.

Just my two cents...

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Shagg

Well there are actually a number of gas fired plants being built around Bakersfield. California had the production capacity during our power problems, but because of deregulation our market was manipulated. Among other things, several of our plants were closed down early for scheduled overhauls,. On top of that, locally generated power was being sold out of state. Serveral cities in California had no rate hikes, because the cities actually owned the powerplants they drew power from.

Nationalized power could very easily run at a profit. The postal service is responsible for its own operating costs, and it is pretty damn effective. The first few years would probably be rough, and the federal government would have to subsidize the initial startup costs, but it would work. If this were to happen, California would most likely end up helping to pay for upgrades in other states. Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, because in all likelyhood our rates would still drop.

I really want to see us get back to building nuclear powerplants. Granted we need to take care of the Diablo Canyon mess first. Fucking morons built the plant on a fault line. But that aside, we have the ability to build very safe nuclear powerplants now. But... Greenpeace would rather have us continue with coal fired plants.

Zeld2.0

All I can say is.. its one of those issues which evey politican talks about and ignores right after until the shit happens.

We DO need research into advancing technology and efficiency in power - using fossil fuels as we currently do for a large part of our power is not going to last for another 100 years - it can easily run out in 50 to 75 years if estimates are correct.

Nuclear - despit what many people think, it is actually very safe and clean IF (and i stress it) proper procedures are always conducted. It is also very efficient and can last long - but there is always the stigma against it.

The future? Who knows - hydroelectric is pretty good and is serving many many parts of America already. Solar and wind can work - right now in California they are experimenting with it and so far it seems to be working.

Future technology may bring about the ever-elusive fusion power and what not - the issue I see is.. what to do during the time between now and the time when we can generate energy much more efficiently? Fuels don't last forever, and we can already see its going to be an issue.

JamesS

Amen, Superbelt - you hit the nail on the head.

The simple fact is that with the advent of deregulation, it has been more profitable for private companies to increase output (to meet a massively increased demand) without similiarly providing for upgrades of the substructure.

The most stark example of this would be the 2001 energy crisis in California. Companies would try to route several times the maximum recommended kilowatts along grid lines - rolling blackouts being the obvious result.

One of the main reasons behind this lack of investment is the fact that an assortment of companies provide energy in this nation (and Canada) - and none want to invest in infrastructure as, in many cases, such investment would also aid others.

This is why nationalized (although not necessarily government controlled) utilities could be more efficient and safe. I say safe, because of the terrorist applications that could obviously be found in exploiting a system such as we have.

One fourth of the United States' electricity should not be able to be taken down in a matter of seconds.

__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer

smooth

What is everyone getting so worked up about anyway? If we don't do anything about the essential limited resource--water--we have more than enough energy until we die of thirst.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Shagg

JameS... WTF?

The rolling blackouts were to compensate for a lack of supply. An artificially created lack of supply. Powerplants were shutdown months before scheduled overhauls were to take place. It was deliberate manipulation of the market. Power that was being generated in California was being sold to other states as well.

Rolling blackouts were scheduled. The whole intent was to keep power available for essential operations, ie hospitals, communications and transportation. On days of excessive demand, they would black out areas at a particular time of day, and only for 1 hour at a time.

JamesS

Shagg, eek - you're right, of course. I read an article talking about Cali's (and the nation's) overburdened lines and assumed facts that were not in evidence. I didn't consider the obvious. Thanks for setting me straight.

But my point about infrastructure still stands, though - it's simply not profitable in this environment to upgrade until just past the point where it becomes absolutely neccesary.

__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer

Superbelt

That's probrably sarcasm, but anyway...

Bush is part of the problem. He refused to help modernize it two years ago.
He denied 350 million to upgrade the grid.

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03..._blackout.html

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0

He is negligent towards our problems and not a good leader.

Us environmental whackos are not the problem either The US is only at 75% capacity. We just don't want the same old pollution prone plants built. Wind and solar are viable now. They just need support from the government to get them started. And it isn't dinky energy either. Wind farms can supply as much or more energy as fossil fuel plants and we need tax credits for energy saving devices in our homes and to put solar cells on our homes to increase the power going into the grid. Think how better off we would be if half the homes in america and all the skyscrapers had solar cells on them. But Bush isn't interested in funding these initiatives, he just wants to give more money to fossil fuels.

Superbelt

But wait! There's more!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug16.html

This was said after the blackout.

reconmike

Let's see.......

The nations power supply is privately owned, so the people who are blaming Bush are advocating some sort of corprate welfare.

I have have a good friend who works for the water company here in Jersey.
Guess who owns his company?

The Germans, they own 1/3 of the nations water supply along with all of Englands.

Are they thinking about the US, or their bottom line?

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Superbelt

It shouldn't be privately owned. The deregulation of the power industry is almost the exclusive legacy of the Bush family. Clinton started out supporting it but after the california crisis, kicked Enron out of Cali and started rolling things back. Bush II came in and started down the road of dereg again, and allowed Enron back into California.

Corporate welfare is bad, but federal loans to require power companies to upgrade are good, loans get paid back with interest. Loans are what Bush denied. Federal regulations should be imposed on the companies also to ensure this doesn't happen again.

omnigod

I really dont pay attention to the news very often, and most of the time i have no clue what i am speaking about so useally my source's are few and one sided. (hence listening to rush on my way up to my campus)

The problem with Wind thingies is that no one wants them where they live. People are willing to shove them onto others, but refuse to have the fields put up where they live.

2010 (i think) is when the hydrogen car is released to the public. They had better put some MAJOR safety devices on the cars because hydrogen goes boom very easily.

nuclear powerplants are clean, and their waste goes to yucka mountain. there is and was no life at yucka ever, so placing nuclear waste there is not effecting anything. All it does is give Area 51 more toys to play with. (Yes area 51 exists, i used to live near it)

Superbelt

I find wind farms asthetically pleasing. The only real drawback to them is they hamper bird migrations. A decent sized wind farm can be a more than substantial replacement or supplement to any power plant. And there are versions that work in moderate to low wind areas. Wind farms do work, and have been working for many years now. Given the choice most every american will pick a wind farm to be within sight rather than some fossile or nuclear powered plant in their environment. It is a fight either way and wind is the better option. As more and more are built it will become more acceptable.

Hydrogen goes boom very easily but so does Gas if exposed to a spark. You are sitting on a volatile mix either way. There are ways around that though. A safer hydrogen car would separate the hydrogen out of water as it is needed in a car's fuel tank. That way there is little to no combustible fuel in the vehicle at any point of an accident.

Yucca Mountain is not a perfect solution. It isn't nearly as stable as it needs to be and it NEEDS to be stable for about 10,000 years. We fill up Yucca mountain and some earthquake comes around (Which is common in that area) and the rad's get into the water table and then we have China Syndrome on our hands.

What we should be doing with the nuclear waste is reprocessing it and build a nuclear plant that can burn that reprocessed material, that way we will have a substantially smaller amount of material to deal with first.

Isn't it pretty?

omnigod

Agreed 100%

in this kind of situation, instead of arguing about cost and (too many) politics, the democrats and republicans should just hire engineers to fix the problem.

Superbelt

Most of europe reprocess the nuclear material that we call waste into usable fissile material. Why we don't is a mystery.

Lebell

This post is without rancor and sarcasm, just to make that clear.

Most of you, especially those espousing solar and wind, have NO idea what you are talking about.

I say this having spent 15 years working with the energy industry.

Simply put, solar is too expensive to retrofit all existing areas plus it is not viable for all climates. There are not enough areas that can be set up for wind, plus it is still more expensive per kilowatt/hr than current sources.

The only current power source that has a decent chance of seriously reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is nuclear.


Our best bet is:

-continue to clean up current technologies, including coal plants.
-develop new nuclear plants
-continue work on more efficient energy processes, including hybrid autos and fuel cell technology
-continue to work on more efficient motors, engines, etc.
-continue investing in long range energy research, including fusion and vacuum point technology
-continue use alternative energy technologies WHEN AND WHERE IT MAKES SENSE

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Superbelt

Wind does make sense. They are profitable now. There are several companies, most in the very windy west and one going up in Nantucket Sound that are private companies making money off wind. It may not be as profitable as coal and oil right now, but it is getting there. And these farms are helping to push that along. And I would personally like to see more of these operating at lower profits and keeping our environment cleaner.

Utilities now are adding solar and wind turbines to their existing infrastructure as they are needed in the community rather than build entirely new fossil fuel plants that won't be working to anywhere near capacity for over 30 years.

Personal turbines and solar cells may take about 20 years to pay for themselves but they do it eventually, and with energy prices expected to rise even the current crop may pay themselves off more quickly. Plus the peace of mind that you are that much friendlier to the environment.

Solar may not be viable everywhere, but there are low wind requirement turbines now that are capable of powering a personal residence. Tax credits will get these in more peoples homes and stimulate research to improve on them. (And I mean very rural homes, as a turbine and it's anchor wires are a hazard in a neighborhood.)

Successes:
http://www.gepower.com/corporate/en_...ses/100902.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/

Willy

600k for a 4 bedroom house in one of the most crime-ridden parts of the bay area isn't going to appeal to a lot of people. I guess it depends on your definition of "economically viable", but just because it is possible to power your house with solar panels if you're willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars per household on panels that the neighborhood kids or a hail storm can completely destroy doesn't make it a viable option for the average consumer. Put reasearch into improving solar energy, provide incentives for people to buy them for their houses, but this is NOT going to solve the energy crisis that we are getting into alone. Not even close.

Willy

Are you saying that you're comfortable with this? California's power consumption has gone up 25% in the last 5 years. Do you know how hydrogen is made? With electricity.

Superbelt

Yeah I am comfortable with us being at only 75% capacity. There is room for growth there and it can be methodical, responsible growth, like wind turbines as needed.

And yes I know hydrgoen is split from oxygen in water using electricity. It doesn't take much electricity at all to split them, a solar panel is sufficient.

onetime2

Ahhh yes. It's Bush's fault. Starting to become a nice little refrain.

My power went out blame Bush.

My stocks are down, blame Bush.

My roof is leaking, blame Bush.

I stubbed my toe, blame Bush.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Kadath

Yeah, that'd be great if the Bush administration intended to create hydrogen out of water, rather than oil/natural gas.

__________________
it's quiet in here