Please enjoy today’s energy debate watch, a collection of news stories and perspectives about energy, environment and climate related issues. These articles are provided to keep Terra Rossa readers informed about the current public energy debate but are not intended to express the views of the blog. Let us know your thoughts on these articles or tell us about other current items of interest in the comment thread below.
Carbon backlash: Coal divides corporations
Washington Post 07.01.07
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. coal mining companies, which for years have been branded the bad guys of global warming, are fighting back. They are questioning not only the science but also the motives of some of the big-name corporations who have made well-publicized commitments to cleaning up their act.
_____________________________________
Nuclear energy hot topic once again
New York Times 07.01.07
BOSTON (AP) — Thanks to global warming, nuclear energy is hot again. Its promise of abundant, carbon emissions-free power is being pushed by the president and newly considered by environmentalists. But any expansion won’t come cheap or easy.
_____________________________________
Wind, algae projects to tap state money for energy studies
Virginian-Pilot 07.30.07
Turning algae into fuel? Building a windmill on Tangier Island in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay? Setting wind turbines miles off the Virginia Beach coast?
_____________________________________
The drive-a-Toyota act
Wall Street Journal 07.02.07
The next time Democratic leaders lament the decline of American industry, please refer them to the current Congressional brawl over auto fuel-efficiency standards. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and most of their colleagues are siding with upscale environmental lobbies over American carmakers and workers. Call it their Drive-a-Toyota Act.
Read More
_____________________________________
2007 Energy Bill will bring jobs, opportunity to Montana
Billings Gazette, US Senator Jon Tester 06.30.07
After two weeks of debating, tinkering and compromise, the Senate has just given a thumbs up to a sweeping measure that changes our nation’s energy policy. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I had a role making sure the 2007 Energy Bill is good for Montana.
_____________________________________
IBM launches nuclear expertise centre in France
New York Times 07.01.07
PARIS (Reuters) - IBM will open in France its first nuclear consultancy centre in July, at a time when utilities are looking to build new reactors and stretch the old ones’ lifetime, an executive said on Monday.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pm and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Eco-Business Strategies, Energy Debate Watch Articles, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
As I have before, I would invite readers interested in the good and bad of nuclear energy to get some insider perspective via my novel “Rad Decision”, available at no cost online at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com and also in paperback. Too many energy commentators and experts have no practical experience in the field - - and everyone knows how reality can put the kabosh on the best laid plans.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I am frustrated by congress. On the one hand they want to drive policy to save energy, but on the other side they ignore innovation and opportunities. Specifically there are several bills headed through the senate and the congress that will mandate that every government building engage in some form of an energy performance services contract (EPSC). Under these contracts, vendors make major changes to the facilities by putting in more efficient chillers, lighting, etc. Since these upgrades can cost a great deal, the contractor uses a bank to finance the effort and pays back the bank with annual savings seen by the government. So rather than committing billions of dollars directly, the government uses performance savings to fund the effort (off balance sheet). BTW: that is what the air force tried to do to fund the 767 Tankers. If I recall a bunch of people went to jail for end running congressional oversight.
The problem is the proposed laws mandate the government pursue any savings opportunity that has a payback of 15 years or less. So, if you were an EPSC and you knew your customer had to accept a 15 year payback, what would you do if say you could achieve a 20% energy reduction with a payback of just say 5 years? You would be tempted to throw in a bunch of other equipment, with poor payback performance, until the net payback was 15 years.
The other thing about 15 year paybacks is, once spent; a customer won’t plan to upgrade their equipment for another 15 years. Do we honestly believe that no new innovation for energy savings will emerge in the next 15 years? My guess is that in 2-3 years, CFLs will be old school and everyone will be talking about LED lights. But, the government having spent all that it can won’t be able to switch to LED, because they will still be on their 15 year payback funded off balance sheet by a bunch of banks. The GAO covers this and many other issues in a great report: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-340.
The congress instead should insist on getting real information about building performance and than target near terms savings. Texas A&M has proven that 20% of the energy used by buildings is wasted because of mis-configured building systems and poor maintenance. The congress’s plan using a standard EPSC approach costs about $4.5/square foot and saves upwards to 25% of the current energy. Using the Texas A&M methodology achieves a savings of 20% and costs