Comments on: National Clean Energy Summit, Day 1: Bill Clinton calls for ‘energy independent’ zones http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:25:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17784 David B. Benson Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:11:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17784 Great. Too bad he didn't have these ideas about 14 years ago. Whose fault is that? :-( Great. Too bad he didn’t have these ideas about 14 years ago. Whose fault is that? :-(

]]> By: paulm http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17787 paulm Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:02:03 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17787 lest go america....! lest go america….!

]]> By: John Redford http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17795 John Redford Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17795 For the drier places on the list, one extra advantage of renewables would be using less water to generate power. Fossil fuel plants use it for cooling, and coal for cleaning. According to http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html, it's about half a gallon per kWh. If Nevada switched away from coal and oil, they could use the water saved to put up more fountains in front of hotels... For the drier places on the list, one extra advantage of renewables would be using less water to generate power. Fossil fuel plants use it for cooling, and coal for cleaning. According to http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html, it’s about half a gallon per kWh. If Nevada switched away from coal and oil, they could use the water saved to put up more fountains in front of hotels…

]]> By: red http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17828 red Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:30:55 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/19/national-clean-energy-summit-day-1-bill-clinton-calls-for-energy-independent-zones/#comment-17828 My question on the energy independent areas is "who is going to pay for it"? Let's suppose he's talking about a U.S. Federal government program to make energy independent areas, and they pick Nevada. Why would people in, say, Appalachia have to pay for a Nevada energy independence program? It seems to me that such a program should be national if funded nationally. Perhaps some regions would find themselves benefiting more from the program than others, because their geography is more suited to renewables, because their regions pitched in land or local tax money or whatever into the program, etc. However, making one region pay for another's energy independence strikes me as too close to pork barrel spending, pandering for regional votes, and slapping the face of whatever regions get to pay and not benefit. Anyway, I don't see how a concentrated energy independence effort is superior to a broader but shallower one. The concentrated one may have an energy independence "demo" advantage, but a distributed/diluted version lets everyone participate and see the results as part of their communities. If an energy independence program is to be set up by the U.S. government for foreign governments, I'd want the selection of countries to have a lot to do with factors like whether or not they are truly our allies (reasonable trade balance, democracies, holding their ground in the face of neighboring dictatorships like Russia, China, and Syria, helping us in Iraq or Afganistan, promoting freedom, or similar factors). My question on the energy independent areas is “who is going to pay for it”? Let’s suppose he’s talking about a U.S. Federal government program to make energy independent areas, and they pick Nevada. Why would people in, say, Appalachia have to pay for a Nevada energy independence program? It seems to me that such a program should be national if funded nationally. Perhaps some regions would find themselves benefiting more from the program than others, because their geography is more suited to renewables, because their regions pitched in land or local tax money or whatever into the program, etc. However, making one region pay for another’s energy independence strikes me as too close to pork barrel spending, pandering for regional votes, and slapping the face of whatever regions get to pay and not benefit.

Anyway, I don’t see how a concentrated energy independence effort is superior to a broader but shallower one. The concentrated one may have an energy independence “demo” advantage, but a distributed/diluted version lets everyone participate and see the results as part of their communities.

If an energy independence program is to be set up by the U.S. government for foreign governments, I’d want the selection of countries to have a lot to do with factors like whether or not they are truly our allies (reasonable trade balance, democracies, holding their ground in the face of neighboring dictatorships like Russia, China, and Syria, helping us in Iraq or Afganistan, promoting freedom, or similar factors).

]]>