Comments on: Reid: Senate floor action before Copenhagen remains on agenda, Cantwell: “We’re happy the bill is moving. That’s the key thing, because we all want to put a price on carbon,” Graham: “It’s a start.”

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:44:22 +0000

G.Bettanini — According to this
http://www.ethree.com/cpuc_ghg_model.html
study commisioned by the State of California, costs are

Busbar (generation) cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Solar thermal: 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317

so using these figures, wind and even solar thermal are less expensive than new nuclear. Despite this, I would still like to see DoE sponored research and development of an integrated fast reactor and a thorium cycle reactor. The former for its ability to clean up the radioactive waste piles and the latter for its promise as an efficient and flexible source for electiricity generation.

By: Will

Will — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:37:53 +0000

Sorry, isn’t there $10 billion in there for the coal industry? How much more does Rockefeller want, and how long are we going to risk the planet over a single replaceable industry? Age…of…Stupid

By: G.Bettanini

G.Bettanini — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:57:02 +0000

Solar thermodynamic and wind energy today are not cheaper than nuclear. CSS Coal is only in the hypotesis stage.
Wind will (maybe) be cheaper than nuclear in 10 years but only with giant turbines builded in zones with 10 m/s medium wind speed.
Solar thermodynamic costs today at least 3 times more than nuclear, Nevada Solar One plant costed 266 million $ and produces only 130 GWh/y of energy.

By: Itzik Kornfeld

Itzik Kornfeld — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:25:41 +0000

While the senators are parsing out options, most of which are long-term, e.g., a nuclear power plant will most likely take 8-10 years to build given all the necessary work to design and build a reactor, the European Union is light years ahead of the U.S.

A book published in August 2009, details alternative/renewable energy sources that appear ready to go. The book by Clarisse Fräss-Ehrfeld (ed.), is titled, Renewable Energy Sources: a Chance to Combat Climate Change (August 2009) Kluwer Law International, Hardcover , 640 pp., ($172.00); ISBN 13: 9789041128706

Fräss-Ehrfeld notes that the costs of failing to turn around climate change are becoming unthinkable. The stumbling block appears to be “the economy”. The author observes that in fact the world economy is not the issue. She observes that “we know now that if developed countries agree to cut their collective emissions by 30% by 2020, annual economic growth would be trimmed by less than 0.2% – a small price to pay to avoid the potential long-term costs of climate change.” Indeed Fräss-Ehrfeld posits that “it is easy to appreciate the positive value of other benefits such as reduced air pollution, security of energy supply at predictable prices, and improved competitiveness through innovation.”

Her edited book goes to the heart of the debate. How do we change our way of life? The chapters in her book provide a detailed analysis for academics and the growing number of enterprises and investors committed to combating climate change with renewable energy technologies, of the opportunities and obstacles involved in developing a coherent and effective business strategy. She addresses various options for Renewable Energy Sources (RES), both existing and under development. And demonstrates how the 27 EU countries are quickly out-pacing the U.S. in tackling the enormous problems entailed by climate change,

The book’s table of contents follows.

Deloitte Services in the Renewable Energy Sector. I. Introduction. II. The Climate Change Issue: An Overview. 1. Definition of Climate Change. 2. International Conventions Concerning the Climate Change Issue. 3. Observed Effects and Impacts of Climate Change. 4. Actions Taken by the International Community. 5. Adaptation to and Mitigation of Climate Change. III. The Role of the European Union (EU). 1. Overview. 2. European Energy Policy. 3. The EU Renewable Energy Roadmap. 4. Second Strategic Energy Review: An EU Energy Security and Solidarity Action Plan. 5. Communication of the Commission in View of Copenhagen 2009. IV. Renewable Energy: A Chance to Combat Climate Change. 1. Introduction. 2. Overview of Existing Energy Sources. 3. Costs, Advantages and Disadvantages of the Different (Renewable) Energy Sources. 4. Renewable Energy Sources (RES) and their Markets. 5. Renewable Energy Targets: Progress to Date. V. EU State Aid Policy and its Programs for Renewable Energy Investments. 1. European State Aid Policy: A Brief Overview. 2. EU Regulations in View of State Aid. 3. Community Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection. 4. Financing Mechanisms and Institutions in the European Union. 5. Current EU Funding Programs for Renewable Energy. VI. National Instruments and Policies to Promote Renewable Energy Sources (RES). 1. Introduction. 2. National Instruments to Promote Renewable Energy Sources (RES). 3. National Policies to Promote Renewable Energy Sources (RES). VII. Promotion Schemes and Feed-in Tariffs for Renewable Energy Sources within the EU-27: A Detailed Country Analysis. VIII. Conclusion and Outlook.

Good reading and learning!

By: Mike D

Mike D — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:23:40 +0000

I really don’t see why any Senator wouldn’t. It’s not like we don’t know how radiation works. It can be safely stored pretty much anywhere given the right kind of facility.

By: Andy Bauer

Andy Bauer — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:35:32 +0000

Which Senator is so high on nuclear that they are willing to host a nuclear waste dump in their home state? Or better yet, their home town?

By: Leif

Leif — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:51:32 +0000

All these past years sustainable energy has been forced to compete price wise with the fossil fuel sector even thou the fossil fuels have been aloud to pollute for free. Now that the sustainable industry has finally reached some parity, we have to subsidize the fossil industry. What a deal… Hopefully “phase out” of the fossil fuel subsidies will address some of this.

By: Jim Bouldin

Jim Bouldin — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:24:33 +0000

In light of what Rockefeller said, I agree with McCain and Graham about a greater emphasis on nuclear. Rockefeller epitomizes the homerism that can weaken or sink the bill.

Nevertheless, the emphasis should be on mandating conservation measures, renewable energy technology development, and land management changes in forest and agricultural land use areas.

By: mike roddy

mike roddy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:10:22 +0000

I guess what we end up with will be a lot better than nothing, which is what we’ve had for the last twenty years. At some point, however, we have to stop clinging to nuclear and CCS coal. According to studies by Lazard and ethree, solar thermal, wind, and geothermal are already cheaper than nuclear or CCS Coal, by a large margin. Nuclear has also been shown to be a substantial emitter. I also don’t see why we have to throw a bone to natural gas, which still sends up a lot of CO2, and is poisoning aquifers in Wyoming and Montana.

But hey, you have to start somewhere.