POINT: McCain's stance dims energy investment
By Conrad Burke
Published August 1, 2008 at 8 p.m.
Not long ago, I spoke with Sen. John McCain during an economic round-table that included CEOs of Silicon Valley clean-tech companies. I was struck by this American hero's attentiveness to the solar energy industry's potential to address our energy, economic and national security challenges.
At the event, he greeted individual CEOs by name, cited passages from a recently released book on the topic and inspired a lot of us in that room. I, and many others, left the event feeling that McCain stood with the 94 percent of Americans who, according to a recent survey, strongly support developing America's solar energy resources. (www.seia.org/solar news. php?id=184). Among those polled, the highest support came from independent voters - the same bloc McCain must win over to become president.
I thought McCain got it.
That's why I was disappointed when he recently passed on the opportunity to support solar and other renewable energy sources in this country - for the sixth time.
He chose not to vote for H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act, at all, and he didn't vote when the alternative energy industry needed him the most.
His vote and his leadership would have broken the gridlock and set a new course for America's energy future - the same sort of cross-partisan appeal around which he's based his election appeal.
It's a contradiction I've had trouble resolving. Take the speech McCain gave in April, when he called our dependency on foreign oil "a major strategic vulnerability . . . a serious threat to our security, our economy and the well being of our planet," stating that "national security depends on energy security" (www.thedailygreen.com/ environmental-news/latest/1086).
But this is the same McCain who said on May 13 that he was "a little wary" of government subsidies for solar but declared later the same week that already-lavish nuclear subsidies don't "go far enough . . . in my estimation." (http://blogs.wsj. com/washwire/200 8/05/13/mccain- raises-concerns-about-subsidies- for-solar-power)
As our economy stalls, we cannot afford such double standards applied to the solar industry, which has tens of thousands of American jobs and billions in investment dollars at stake.
I'm not a particularly political person. I'm just an entrepreneur trying to build a company that could employ Americans in the fast-growing solar industry. I plan to do business in Colorado, and I've met with national solar energy experts at Golden's National Renewable Energy Laboratories. Most importantly, I'm a legal immigrant from Ireland who is in the process of becoming a proud, naturalized American citizen.
The McCain I met I believe is truly a clean energy supporter. However, the McCain who won't vote for America's clean energy future and who says he's against support for solar but sponsors subsidies for the highly profitable nuclear industry is not the person I recently met.
As the de facto leader of his party, McCain has a great opportunity to become the national leader on clean energy issues and pass a long-term extension of the solar tax credits. He can lead people such as Colorado's Sen. Wayne Allard to begin supporting clean energy. Allard hasn't supported solar, even though the state has tremendous solar resources and 150 solar energy companies creating jobs and economic growth.
The bottom line is that members of both parties need to come together to stabilize the investment environment for solar so that the industry may continue to produce high-paying jobs and begin to stabilize skyrocketing energy prices.
That's going to take the bipartisan focus on accomplishments that McCain says he's offering, the kind that only can be delivered by the McCain I met - not the one I've read about.
Conrad Burke is CEO of the solar company Innovalight in Sunnyvale, Calif.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 2, 2008
12:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Oh god another that wishes to run out to the field of corn and pull on stalks to make the corn grow faster..
Addressing powerplants fueling through solar and wind technology isn't an answer to our foreign oil crisis because our power plants are use just 16% to 22% of our FOREIGN oil dependency, even if there were no cloudy or calm days without wind.
70% of our FOREIGN oil dependency is by our TRANSPORTATION industry.. so with 100% solar and wind power replacing all of the natural gas, oil and coal fired plants output 24 hours a day, you are only addressing a portion of that 30% not related to Transportation.. hello..
The so called "clean" energy of course has CO2 as a pollutant, thus placing an unnecessary hurdle in front of any fossil fuel.. but how about Hydrogen run Internal Combustion engines for our transportation industry instead of the cute little gizmos that are in Hybrid cars that only SAVE GAS.. not eliminate it.. The neat little "battery" cars do not have a support infrastructure in place for repair and replacement or SAFE disposal. These neat little geeky "futuristic" things we clamor toward do not have safe disposal as admitted by Honda, Ford and Mercedes..
The technology is very expensive and will need subsidies for many years to come.
In essence this same disposal problem using "green technology" in our autos is the same mentality that mandates mercury filled light bulbs in every American home. 'TOO SAVE THE PLANET?" FROM WHO? .. Crazy people believing they can save the world by going green are running the looney bin..
Complexity in any project affects the time it takes to complete.. you've just added a bunch of complexity to re-tooling off of foreign oil.. like pulling on a stalk of corn to make it grow faster?
Love to all,
Father O'Malley
August 2, 2008
6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Conrad
You surely know that no matter what comes out of his mouth is just to get votes. After big oil dumps millions into his pockets he will always take care of their best interests. See if they could find a way to put a meter on the sun you would become as rich as Bill Gates. It's all about money my friend all about money.$$$$$$$$$
August 2, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Solar and wind are to replace coal, not petroleum.
August 2, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
Researchers at MIT have announced a breakthrough in storing solar energy for use when the sun isn't shining. This technology will move solar to the mainstream of energy production. With goverment support, American ingenuity can dramatically shift the energy paradigm.
McCain has been wholly purchased by Big Oil. I no longer have any respect for the man who has now become "Bush Lite". With each passing day he seems to be controlled, more and more, by the same forces that guided the Bush presidency. Even his campaign manager has conceded that McCain doesn't speak for the "campaign".
August 2, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
The largest solar thermal electric generating plants in the world were built in the Mojave desert in the 1980's. Those 9 plants to this day are capable of generating 354 MW of electricity, However, the company that built them went out of business in the 1991 because the Democrat controlled Congress let the tax credits that were part of their business plan expire and they went bankrupt.
Now when gas has gotten to $4 a gallon, we have a Democrat controlled Congress that refuses to even debate opening up more areas for drilling, but proposes tax credits (surprise!) to spur renewable energy. But the Democrat crooks running our Congress can't write a simple bill to just re-instate the old tax credits. No, they have to throw in a whole bunch of tax breaks to their trial lawyer friends, and impose a whole bunch of new taxes on American corporations they don't like.
And to dress up this pig of a bill by calling it the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act is a slap in the face to every American.
Why can't the Democrats just support a bill to restore the tax credits without throwing all that other junk in?
I'll tell you why. Because to Democrats politics is just a game. They could care less about you, me, the country, anything but the game of winning more and more power through politics.
If there is no partisan advantage to a bill, they aren't interested in it.
August 2, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
The above, by "woodwose", utilizes the strategy adopted by the McCain campaign. Attack the Democrats instead of justifying your own actions. John McCain is sinking deeper and deeper into "Bushism" and even his supporters on this thread can do nothing but attack Senator Obama and the Democrats.
Please elaborate how Sen. McCain, by continuing the same policies of the Bush administration, is going to come up with a different result.
Aside to woodwose: "couldn't care less" is what you mean to say..."could care less" is opposite to your point.
August 2, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Dukeco1, maybe you should pay more attention to what's going on in Washington than listening to Democrat propaganda. Are you one of the "we can't drill our way out of this problem" Democrats or one of the "even if we started drilling now, the oil wouldn't come online for 5 to 6 years" Democrats?
Bush proposed opening up ANWR for drilling 7 years ago, but couldn't get that passed in Congress because Democrats continually filibustered it in the Senate. Gee, just think, if we had drilled then, that oil would be coming online right now. What kind of prescient genius does that make the President you love to hate?
McCain wants to drill too. But McCain also wants to push a lot harder for nuclear energy than Bush has. And coming from Arizona which is one of the leading states for renewable energy, McCain has always been bigger supporter of renewable energy than Bush.
The failure of the United States to honestly and effectively address its energy needs since the 1973 oil shock has to go down in history as one of the largest, boneheaded disasters any country has ever committed. I blame Republicans as well as Democrats; there is plenty of blame to go around for both.
But I blame Democrats more, because of their antipathy towards doing ANYTHING. Nuclear power plants? No, can't do it. Build a power line, Nope. Drill for oil offshore? Uh Uh. How 'bout ANWR? No way! Windmill farms off the coast of Massachusetts? Not if it disturbs the view from a Kennedy yacht!
The Democrats have no plan, period. If it was up to them, every American would be cutting down trees in their neighborhood to heat their houses and cook their food.
And even when they come up with something that halfway makes sense, like this bill, they have to turn it into a ridiculous partisan exercise to provide tax breaks for their trial lawyer donors and slam corporations in industries they don't like (oil, for instance) with massive tax hikes.
And you never answered the question I asked above.
Why can't your Democrat heroes just write a bill to provide tax credits for companies that work to provide renewable energy without all the one-sided gimmicks?
August 2, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
The debate about energy and the environment is going nowhere if both sides cannot find a way to speak to each other rather than past each other . We need intelligent compromise and statesmanship. At one time, I thought McCain was just such a person. He and Joe Lieberman reached across the aisle and co- sponsored legislation. I even hoped that they might form the nucleus for the third party we so desperately need in this country, one carved out of the middle this time and not the fringes. Hey! This old independent can dream can't he?
I am now beginning to see election pressures change McCain. I fear as others have stated that he may prove to be "Bush-Lite" , another" Great Divider". I wish that I liked Obama more than I do at the moment. I may find myself voting for him out of the hope that he will bring change to the national debate and to many of our current national policies.
These forums don't offer much hope as participants don't seem to be able to get past the right and left wingnut metaphors. I have been called an environut, chicken little and many contrived and rude epithets. Until we can start a conversation with the assumption that the other person is intelligent, thoughtful and just might be bringing something of value to the debate ( I know, there are a few who will never do that) we will sabotage efforts to solve some of our most major problems. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that one of us is automatically stupid, unpatriotic or ill informed. We should share information, explain our opinions and strive to find common ground. I know this works, I've tried it and have been influenced and educated even as I have influenced and educated others'
The participants in this current thread are mostly reasonable. Take that beyond this forum and try to encourage others to do the same. Its one way that we can make a difference. Beyond being Republicans, Democrats and Independents, we are all Americans first. We need to remember that.
August 2, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
I cannot answer the question you pose, woodwose, because I am not a legislator and I do not know the details of the debate on Capitol Hill. Perhaps for the same reason the Republican Congress with a sitting Republican President spent six years in control of this government and did nothing.
Why didn't they change things? How did the Democrats stop them when they, the Republicans, had all the cards?
August 2, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
Greenleaf,
Thank you for the thoughtful comment above. I have been engaged in this debate for some years now and have spent too much time on blogs in various places, many of which are even less cordial than this site.
The overarching reason for the ugliness is a lack of respect. While I readily agree that rudeness and stupidity exist on both sides of the equation, I will venture that it is a bit onesided. The hate speech of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly has convinced those inclined to listen to them constantly that anyone who disagrees with them is somehow less than human.
This detachment allows the hateful person to perpetrate any sort of ugliness with no thought of personal responsibility. This is not a new concept and any student of history knows of it.
I routinely communicate with legislators and officials(governmental and corporate) with whom I disagree. When one has to repeatedly converse and work with their adversaries, there is a tendency to learn to be respectful. When you are sitting across the table, you are presented with the fact that your opponent is just another person. On a forum like this, anonymity allows those hateful persons to descend to any level of bigotry or hatefulness. I guess it is just an unfortunate statement about how far we have fallen.
August 2, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
ezekiel,
I heard a discussion on c-span yesterday about the embarrassing spectacle being held on the floor of the House by the oil and gas industrys' bought and paid for legislators. They were commenting on how ridiculous this unprecedented publicity stunt really was. The fact that they are lobbying for more profits for their benefactors is certainly no surprise.
August 2, 2008
9:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
dukeco1:
What's more ridiculous is the Democrats adjourning without addressing drilling. Gas is $4 a gallon, and they are walking out without adressing an issue that 80% or higher of the American people want addressed. No bs, no partisan favors for their buddies. Pass a damn bill!
Or are Democrats able to lead? Apparently not, they'd rather run home than even discuss it. Oil has dropped by $25 a barrel since Bush rescinded the Executive Order against offshore drilling, largely on the hint that we might be serious about increasing supply. But with Pelosi and Reid in charge, that's never going to get pass those idiots in Congress.
But Harry "Oil makes us sick, SICK" Reid and Nancy "I'm trying to save the WORLD" Pelosi know more than anyone else put together. Jesus Christ, you liberals talk about an imperial Presidency, what kind of twisted royalty do you think we have running Congress?
And let's talk about your MIT "breakthrough" about storing electricity from solar energy generating stations. First of all the MIT "breakthrough" concerns the electrolysis/fuel cell closed loop of electrical energy storage/generation.
Fuel cells have been used for 40 years on manned space missions specifically because of this closed loop cycle. Spacecraft typically deploy photo voltaic collectors to generate electricity. And while they are in full sunlight, they generate excess electricity which is used to electrolyze water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Which when the spacecraft is behind earth is burned in a fuel cell to create electricity and water.
August 2, 2008
9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Cont.
In 1986 I spent a semester in a graduate level mechanical engineering class researching the feasibility of using a photo voltaic array to generate electricity during the day and storing it in either batteries or as electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen to run a fuel cell to power lights for a remote highway interchange,
It was feasible, it could be done, but it didn't make economic sense unless you had to extend a power line more than 500 miles to power those lights,
Now you are suggesting we do this for the entire country because of the MIT "storage breakthrough." Your so-called "breakthrough" is that the MIT researchers have improved the efficiency of the electrolysis process by using a cobalt phosphate catalyst. I'm not sure what the efficiency improvement is, but electrolysis is notoriously inefficient, plus has the added complication of storing hydrogen which is a wildly explosive gas and hard to store to boot.
But even if the improvement is damn near miraculous, you still have to store the hydrogen, and you have to build a whole boatload of coblat phosphate catalyzers. Cobalt is a toxic heavy metal, kind of like mercury who you Democrat heros have forced the entire country to get up close and personal with based on their edict forcing everyone to buy Compact Fluorescent tubes for all their home lighting needs in the next six year. It's also carcinogenic, like nickel, so everyone involved in assembling these things has a lawsuit to look forward to when they grow old and start to die.
But the so-called "breakthough" addresses the wrong side of the equation. It addresses the electrolysis side, which takes water and electricity and produces hydrogen and oxygen. It doesn't address the generation side, which takes hydrogen and oxygen and safely produces electricity and water.
Take hydrogen and oxygen, mix them together, and light a match. You get the Hindenburg ("the humanity, oh, the humanity!"). But fuel cells control that reaction by using a catalyst to pull the energy out in electricity instead of an explosion.
That catalyst is platinum, which costs what? $2040 an ounce, double the price of gold. Now it is a catalyst, which means it facilitates the reaction but is not consumed by it.
But in order to build the number of fuel cells you'd have to use to power this country at night, as well as put in the 10 million new cars a year that are sold in this country, you would very quickly see what a nearly infinite demand does to the price of a scarce commodity on the Laffler curve.
And that more than anything else is why we aren't driving around in fuel cell powered cars today.
But liberals think things just happen by magic. If it hasn't it's because the greedy oil companies are keeping us down.
But it's not magic, it's hard work, and it takes a sane and steady policy, not the shell games our politicians play.
Sorry to slap you upside the head with a dose of reality, but good God, you needed it.
August 2, 2008
11:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Father writes:
Oh so true FatherO'Malley..."
Oh god another that wishes to run out to the field of corn and pull on stalks to make the corn grow faster..
70% of our FOREIGN oil dependency is by our TRANSPORTATION industry.. so with 100% solar and wind power replacing all of the natural gas, oil and coal fired plants output 24 hours a day, you are only addressing a portion of that 30% not related to Transportation.. hello..
Love to all,
Father O'Malley
How right you are - America need leadership for All Americans, not defined by their net worth. No monkey has all the answers, but the current President's hands off policy allowing the oil companies to run the energy policy of this nation is selfish, not to mention insane. Let's leave patriotism out of this, because I been down this road before - our national security has been jepordized by NOT having a comprehensive energy policy that dimmishes our dependence on oil (foreign or domestic) - smaller cars with CAFE standards set in a coherent manner would be a great start. Speed limits reduced would also reduce comsumption in a hugh way fast!
A leader originating someone with vision and who actually participates in todays latest technologies - not talk about it like McCain who is learning only now how to use a computer like an adult, which in todays world almost makes you obsolete with the rapid changes. Do you really think religious zeal and abortion arguments matter much steering us through the globalization trainwreck that the last wrongly focused leader is responsible for? Not if we are all starving to death because too many do not have the adequate means to feed their families from stable careers - NOT 5 part-time jobs. Economics man - jobs, careers, trade surplus, the right focus... respect from other world leaders that deservingly are willing to follow. Anything less will be a Bush & company greedy dumb and dumber repeat.
Amen Brothers and Sisters - lets get er done !
August 3, 2008
12:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
woodwose,
1. Oil dropped $25 per barrel because American consumption has dropped by 3.4% and because Mexico started signing contracts for delivery two years out at $145 per barrel, not because the COOTWH did anything.
2. Your science lesson is very impressive. One semester of engineering certainly means you know more than the scientists at MIT. Your lecture is a neat way of getting around answering my question. I will ask again. Why didn't your precious Republican majority do something about this during the six years they held all the cards? I suppose you will blame it on filibustering Democrats. Does industry greed enter into your equation anywhere?
I know this industry well. I worked in the gas patch in the Big Thicket in East Texas. I have many family members who worked in the oil patch and some still do. This extortion of the American consumer by the oil and gas industry is just that. The industry is drilling as fast as it can and is dead set on keeping this country addicted to oil as long as it can. I will work as hard as I can to help our elected officials move us to a non-petroleum based economy as soon as possible. We will continue to need petroleum for many years.. and the industry has 68,000,000 acres under lease from which to get it. Natural gas in Louisiana and Pennsylvania, oil in Montana and North Dakota. Williams RMT admits that they already have a ten year backlog in leases. There aren't nearly enough rigs in existence to keep up with their demand and they are building them as fast as they can.
So how about answering my question?
August 3, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
dukeco1,
Thanks for your kind words last night. I agree that the anonymous nature of the internet encourages some to vent, insult and rant rather than try to effectively influence the debate. I have tried to gently turn a few away from that meaningless and empty attack dog mode of posting. I have actually succeeded with one individual who has become an effective, considerate poster. It would be even better if he were on my side of most debates but he isn't. At least now he is civil and his voice can be heard far better without all the partisan insults and emotional static he used to employ. Now he leads by example as I wish more would.
Woodwose,
Are you in fact a mechanical engineer? I am a botanist and businessman. Sometimes it helps the credibility of our arguments to "toot our own horn" when we bring a certain level of expertise to the debate. You sound well versed in what sounds to me more like chemical engineering than mechanical? Maybe you can identify in what field your knowledge actually exists. I have a buddy on this forum who goes by the pseudonym TryThinking, He is a power engineer and I have learned enough from him to know that solar power has potentially a very bright future. However, much like you, he prefers coal as the cheapest current power source. As I have pointed out to him, the actual price doesn't factor in surface disruption in the form of levelled mountain tops in Appalachia or the infamous "strip mines of the west". It also doesn't include costs associated with the mercury the coal burning process has sent into rivers , lakes and oceans. Are you aware that there are now many fish that we are told to eat only in moderation if at all due to mercury contamination from coal fired power plants? These fish include most of the large predatory fish of the sea, notably Tuna and Swordfish. I would say that is a huge cost that isn't factored into the energy equation.
August 3, 2008
7:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Woodwose cont,
I bring up mercury because you seem to be very concerned about it. Pardon me, but I have noticed a tendency on your part to point fingers at the Democrats. You seem to blame them for many of our energy problems, including mercury in CFL bulbs. I suggest my friend that this is a target of convenience for you at best, and an outright misrepresentation of your concerns at the worst. I assume that you are a Republican, forgive me if I am wrong. I have heard very few Republicans demanding that Mercury be scrubbed from coal fired power plants before it can reach the food we eat. No, it was the Democrats and a few independents like myself. Suddenly though, Mercury is an issue with Republicans due to the CFL mandate. I dislike mandates such as this and I can tell you do as well. CFLs are an idea whose time has finally come. I have used them for 18 years and I am still alive to write about it. The mercury hasn't gotten me yet! I am curious, you are concerned about the mercury in CFL bulbs. I imagine that you have also tried to lobby against the use of long tube florescent shop and office lights as well? They have been in use in schools, hospitals offices , warehouses and homes for over 60 years. The average long tube bulb has several times the mercury of the average CFL bulb. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on these issues. I would however find your arguments more persuasive if you kept the blame game to yourself. We are all to blame for our energy and environmental problems. We can all be a part of the solution when we come together to do the hard work of respecting our opponents and finding common ground approaches to our problems. These aren't Republican problems or Democrat or even Independent problems. They are American problems and If we are patriots, we will work together to solve our difficulties as Americans. It can start here!
August 3, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
I have never said that solar electric generating does not have a place in the mix of sources to supply our electrical power needs. It most certainly does. Solar electric is in fact, one of the best ways to meet peak demand during summer afternoons when all the air conditioners are kicking in. There is a place for it, and I am heartened that there at plans for at least 10 so-called "big solar" generating plants of at least 100 MW under various stages of development in this country, even without the tax credits.
However people that blithely throw out statements like, "We'd only need 100 square miles of solar collectors to provide all our electric needs!" ignore reality. It's just not that simple. There's the storage question, there's the question of even being able to manufacture that vast amount of solar collectors, there's the question of making vast changes to our existing grid to accommodate them and there's the question of load balancing.
We have addressed all those problems in our existing electrical infrastructure, but we've been continually building and refining our existing electrical infrastructure for over a hundred years. And to top it off, if we're serious about getting away from fossil fuels entirely (which we damn well should be, in my opinion) we need to use electricity from clean, stable, long lasting sources, to replace the fossil fuels we burn for transportation and heating. And that means we need roughly three times the electrical generating capacity we have today, and a much more robust power grid.
What makes the most sense with the technology that we have today or will have in the near future, is probably a mix of 70-80% nuclear and the rest hydro, wind, solar, with probably a couple of dozen gas powered plants for emergency coverage of peak demands. It will take 30 to 40 years to get to that point though, and if we'd been rational starting after the oil shock of 1973, we would be there already and not be having this conversation.
August 3, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Cont.
But while we are working towards that rosy future we just can't sit idly by and let high gas prices destroy our economy. To transform our entire energy infrastructure is going to be incredibly expensive, and we HAVE to have a strong enough economy in order to deal with it.
Republicans share a lot of the blame for the mess we're in today, but the bulk of it belongs to the party that has paralyzed us into doing NOTHING but grand gestures for the last 30 years. Carter put solar collectors on the White House and wore cardigan sweaters, but presided over the beginning of the demise of the nuclear power plant construction industry. Every single major energy project in this country, green or not, has to navigate an endless obstacle course of lawsuits and regulations filed by or put in place by liberals, to even have a chance at becoming reality. Many of them never make it.
And of course, in the era of $4 a gallon gas, Democrats in Congress shut Congress down rather than even talk about drilling.
August 3, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Greenleaf:
BTW, I have two CFL's. I hate them, the light is too dim and too harsh. I can't even see well enough with them in my bathroom to do the kind of continual cleaning my Congressionally mandated low flow toilet requires.
But I also have several LED lights for specific applications. They are not to the point that you can use them to replace light bulbs for general use yet, but they are getting there. They use less energy, last longer, break less easily and are made from safer materials than CFL's.
They also can be made to produce virtually any frequency (think hue, color, warmth, brightness) of light you want rather than the fairly limited range of cold, harsh, white light CFL's can produce. And you don't need the surge of power that CFL's require to start fluorescing when you flip the switch.
But in order to provide a bonanza for light bulb manufacturers who would really rather sell consumers $5 CFL's or $20 LED's rather than 50 cent incandescent bulbs, our Congress was bribed into outlawing incandescents.
I'm not totally chuffed, because I agree that there are better technologies on the horizon than incandescents, and this mandate will admittedly get us there faster, unless of course everyone switches to halogens, which don't really save much energy, burn much hotter than even incandescents and are therefore more of a fire risk, but certainly produce better light than CFL's. But I digress.
I just don't like being told by Congress how to light my house. I'm smart enough to make my own decisions in that regard based on price, performance, durability, safety and energy consumption. And I think most people in this country are too.
August 3, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
woodwose
After reading both yours and greenleaf's posts I have to say you are nowhere close to being able to debate with this person. It is like me having an argument with Bill Gates about computers. I would suggest you stay with the same type of democrat bashing that SASQUATCH does. See it is very clear that greenleaf has education to back his arguments and you and SASQUATCH have attended the the Rush Limpd--k school of thought. You two have been asked I don't know how many times why the republicans did nothing about these problems the 6 years they had total control. But you refuse to answer and put the blame right back on the the democrats.
August 3, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Greenleaf:
Sorry, I didn't answer your question, I have a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering with a minor in Economics, and despite all that I've been a software engineer for the last 15 years.
dukeco1:
Why didn't Republicans pass a rational energy policy in the years they controlled Congress? In the 1990's they were blocked by a Democrat President. Since Bush has been President, they've only had a majority for a little over 5 years, and never had the 60 votes required in the Senate to overcome a Democrat filibuster. They tried several times.
It is likely that today with voters screaming about high gas prices, that even a Democrat controlled Congress would vote to open up drilling, but the leadership would rather shut down Congress than even discuss it. Which is typical Democrat strategy, if you don't have the votes, use the rules of the institution to deny a vote. If the voters are against your policies, go to court and sue to have them imposed. I honestly don't know why they call themselves Democrats, they are hardly democratic.
And yes, I will concede your point that reduced demand in the country that is the largest consumer of gas (us) has helped bring prices down. The possibility of opening up drilling in this country has mainly helped bring the futures market down.
August 3, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
dilligaf,
Thanks for the high praise, I try to put thought and effort into most of my postings and have always enjoyed a good debate.
I do have to say that woodwose isn't doing badly and does have some points that resonate with me. He certainly isn't in the same league as old Squatch who is in a class of his own. Woodwose shows intelligence and a logical mind although I do disagree with him on certain points. Even Squatch has occasional moments of his version of brilliance and I wish he would display it more often. Of course, he will never do what I wish, but I enjoy yanking his chain nonetheless.
Woodwose,
I agree with you on the subject of government regulation. It is too often not on the mark and not held accountable. CFLs are the product of the moment, but their moment should fade fairly quickly with improvements to LEDs which are light years beyond CFLs (pun intended). CFLs really don't need mandates to be successful . I have a house, business and rentals fully equipped with CFLs and have used them for years. They make sense at this moment in time. As an early adopter, I have saved thousands of dollars through the years by using them. I have LED Christmas and reading lights. Other applications still need tweaking. At my earliest opportunity, I will move totally into LED lighting.
Just for the sake of the debate: don't you have anything to say about my mercury argument? I have never heard Republicans do anything but fight regulation of mercury from power plants, and Bush actually weakened mercury regulation. So why is it that Republicans are suddenly concerned about the tiny amount of mercury in CFLs? Republicans have never even questioned the mercury in long tube fluorescents. Why is that? Back to you my friend.
August 3, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Greenleaf:
A lot of people have had a good laugh reading the EPA's recommendations on how to handle it if you you break a CFL in your house (ie, evacuate the room, put on rubber gloves, if it got on your carpet, cut out the contaminated area, wrap everything up in two layers of plastic bags and take to the nearest hazardous waste facility, etc, etc).
And yeah, Republicans have been laughing the loudest, because it's a Democrat controlled Congress that mandated the use of these killers (I'm being sarcastic here).
But yeah, I'll accept your point that the hysteria over mercury in CFL's is largely generated for partisan advantage in the kindergarten level debate our idiot politicians have whenever anyone talks about anything related to a national energy policy.
And I'll even admit I stooped to that level to add to my list of why I hate CFL's. I hate CFL's for a lot of reasons, but I don't worry about the mercury too much and probably won't until I get ticketed for throwing one away into a dumpster.
Just out of curiosity since you've been using CFL's for so long, how do you dispose of them when the break or wear out? Do you take them to a hazardous waste facility?
But we've widely used lots of things in the past (lead paint, asbestos insulation) that we later discovered we shouldn't have. We know mercury is a heavy metal. It's used in fluorescent lights and has been for a long time. But we're talking about vastly expanding the use of fluorescent lights? Are we going to get to a point a couple decades from now where we regret forcing everyone to switch to fluorescent lights? Are you going to be subject to lawsuits in your retirement years for forcing your tenants to use unsafe CFL's years before the government mandated it? Who knows? Probably not, but the government is immune to lawsuits, you aren't.
August 3, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
dukeco1 writes:
greenleaf and woodwose,
Thanks for that last exchange. It sure gives one a lot to think about. Particularly the liability issue on CFLs.
I just wish I had a few million bucks to put into companies that make LED systems. Drat, another missed opportunity.
August 3, 2008
6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Woodwose,
Ah. my friend, that is an urban myth spread by talk show hosts and those who want to make environmentalists look like fools. The actual EPA recommendations aren't draconian at all and mostly involve using common sense. Broken bulbs can be disposed of carefully in your trash. The amount of mercury likely to shake loose from the coating is apparently miniscule. You can find the real-life non made up recommendations on this EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/ind...
Interestingly enough, in a chemistry lab years ago we had access to a small quantity of mercury, which is liquid at room temperature. We would play with it in slow moments by having it flow like little liquid metal ball bearings across pieces of cardboard. Years later one of the advanced robots in the Terminator movies had a liquid metal make up and it reminded me of the mercury I played with long ago.
What can I say, I'm still alive and reasonably intelligent. Imagine what a mental giant I would have been had I not played with mercury in that lab!;>)
As for my 18 years using CFLs? I have broken several in that time. I just carefully picked the pieces up using a damp cloth and sealed them in a zip lock bag to throw into the trash. It was as simple as that. I remember as a kid going behind the neighbourhood K-Mart to throw rocks at long tube fluorescents in the dumpster. Once again, I'm still here and so are my friends., but just imagine how intelligent I would be today had I not thrown rocks at these long tubes AND played with mercury in the lab years ago.
Recycling? I used to take them to Eco Cycle in Boulder, the only place I could find that would recycle them. Now, you can simply return them to many places where you bought them initially. Xcel has an arrangement with Ace Hardware to take any we might have. The first major wave of them won't need to be recycled for nearly 5 years. that's how long-lived they are ( 10,000 hours versus 1,000 for incandescents).
August 3, 2008
6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Woodwose 2,
One other mercury consideration: until all coal plants come into compliance with the new mercury control laws, CFLs will actually reduce the amount of mercury going into the environment. They use 1/3 the electricity of Edison bulbs to produce similar lumins. Over their long lifetimes they prevent the burning of many pounds of coal. A 30 watt CFL producing similar intensity of light to an incandescent will save 700 KWH over its life expectancy. Since it takes 3 lbs of coal to produce 1 KWH, that single bulb will save the mining and burning of over 230 # of coal over its lifetime. That's a lot of mercury not sprewed far and wide from tall smokestacks!
I'm not worried about liability with my tenants either. Remember my experiences, and I'm doing fine! Also our leases require that the tenants replace all burned out bulbs before move out. They will soon have no choices other than CFLS (or LEDS). If no other choices exist, who could they sue for any ill effects? The previous tenants? All their previous landlords( how could they prove who is responsible)?
At any rate, I hope we will transition to LEDS within 10 years anyway. Most traffic lights, cross walk lights and car dashboard and consumer electronics lights are already LED. The next wave is already here!
August 3, 2008
7 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Correction,
it actually takes only one pound of coal to make 3 KWH, I reversed my numbers!
Must be mercury induced Dsylexia! Sorry guys!
August 4, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
In the interest of completeness, here's the EPA recommendations (from your link) for cleaning up a broken fluorescent, tube or CFL:
Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
* Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
* Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
* Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
* Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
* Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
* Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug
* Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
* Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
* If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
* Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
August 4, 2008
6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Cont.
Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials
* If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
* You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
* If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.
Disposal of Clean-up Materials
* Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
* Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
* Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
* The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
* Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.
August 4, 2008
7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Cont.
And in any case your argument, that mercury in CFL's is harmless while mercury emitted by a coal burning power plant is not, is not rational.
Either they are both to be avoided or neither is.
But a point I made a long while ago is that we need to move away from fossil fuels, coal included.
You are right to point out that coal plants burn coal that contains traces of mercury and all that mercury adds up. And everyone knows that burning coal creates immense amounts of CO2, not that I'm trying to branch off into a global warming debate here.
But what a lot of people don't know is that coal also contains trace amounts of radioactive uranium and thorium that goes straight up the smokestack and out into the air.
Ironically, a coal plant produces and releases into the environment far more radioactive materials than does a nuclear plant. Scientific American=>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=c...)
Building nuclear power plants is something this country should have never stopped doing. And getting back into building them is something that we should be seriously doing right now.
McCain wants at least 45 nuclear power plants built in this country in the next 30 years. That's a rational plan.
If electric power is cheap enough we can do all kinds of things with it. Already Tesla (http://www.teslamotors.com/) is building and selling high performance electric cars. Electricity can be used for both heating and cooking. We can build electric train systems.
But we have got to stop throwing roadblocks in front of nuclear power plants and improvements to the grid, and do what we can to keep fossil fuel costs from destroying our economy until we get to that point.
And virtually every time you look to see which party is obstructing those goals, you find Democrats.
What is their plan?
Switch to CFL's and power cars with granola?
Please.
August 4, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Woodwose.
Heh,
I have to admit when you cut and paste it it does look a little obsessive compulsive. however, what you stated was:
#
August 3, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Greenleaf:
A lot of people have had a good laugh reading the EPA's recommendations on how to handle it if you you break a CFL in your house (ie, evacuate the room, put on rubber gloves, if it got on your carpet, cut out the contaminated area, wrap everything up in two layers of plastic bags and take to the nearest hazardous waste facility, etc, etc).
You have to admit that this is considerably more extreme than even the EPA's amazingly obsessive precautions.
My attempts at humour obviously fell flat. I am the last one to say mercury, lead, radium or any heavy metal for that matter should not be treated carefully. My point is that I have not been as careful as the EPA and many health experts would recommend. Despite that, I am still functioning well after a lifetime of playing with mercury, eating contaminated fish and 18 years of using and occasionally breaking CFL bulbs.
We are in basic agreement Woodwose. I too believe as a surprising number of environmentalists and Democrats do, that more nuclear energy needs to be developed. I also believe in conservation first, followed by more renewable energy development.
The major roadblock to nuclear development today will come from the Nimby factor and difficulties finding long term investment money. Very few environmentalists who believe in global warming will stand in the way of power sources such as nuclear that don't produce CO2.
Thanks Woodwose. this has been a good conversation don't you think?
August 4, 2008
5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
woodwose writes:
Greenleaf:
Yes, an enjoyable debate, and I think we even agree on most of the big points.
Unfortunately the Democrats just adjourned Congress to avoid even talking about this stuff.
I think that's reprehensible.
August 5, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
Conrad
Your industry has been on the public teat for nigh on 30 plus years and you still can't subsist without big government subsidies. Either become economically sustainable or move on.