Category Archives: lies told by energy companies

The Topic Of The Week Is Silly Energy Uses – As typed in at Google

Posted on by
Reply

I was shocked when I type in Silly Energy Uses into Google and got back 8 out of 10 references to Sarah Palin. But then I thought about it and realised that the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd does look silly, with oil prices in the 50$$ per barrel range and maybe going to 40$$ a barrel. The Saudis, the Ruskies and the Venezualans (should we call them Vennies?) have got to be looking to kill a bunch of Hedge Fund Operators and other bizzilionaires. Though the Brazilians (Brazzies?)got pletty of crap all over their faces too. What in the world are they going to do with all those oil rigs?

I have not had so much laughter and fun since the gas lines in the 70’s and the recession that led up to globalization in the 80s.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/

 htww.png

Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008 09:39 PDT

Sarah Palin’s silly energy speech

When the announcement that John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate broke across the political landscape like an Alaskan mountain avalanche, many analysts, including yours truly, jumped to the conclusion that her background in energy issues made her a savvy choice in an era of record-breaking oil prices. McCain’s “drill here, drill now” mantra was taking a bite out of Obama’s poll numbers, and the immediate expectation was that Palin would be a potent vehicle for delivering energy-related soundbites.

But it didn’t turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, oil traded at $65 dollars a barrel, more than 50 percent off its July peak of $147. The financial crisis proved more riveting than gas prices, and Sarah Palin’s rocky performance as a debutante on the national political stage swiftly obliterated the conventional wisdom that she could be an asset to the McCain campaign.

 :}

But Palin’s speech is still worth some attention, because it clearly makes the case for why the McCain-Palin agenda is fundamentally wrong for the United States.

Palin started off by acknowledging that “the price of oil is declining largely because of the market’s expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand.” She was absolutely correct to note that “this is hardly a good sign of things to come,” and that “when our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices.”

(:=} even the Saudis got to get into the act)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523334615277739.html

By GUY CHAZAN

 LONDON — The slump in oil prices has spread relief among consumers and fuel-reliant industries, but also is squeezing the companies who could invest in new sources of oil — spurring concerns that prices will prompt them to shelve investments.

Industry executives warn that could mean the world will face a dramatic ramping up of prices as soon as the global economy, and demand, begins to rebound.

“Low oil prices are very dangerous for the world economy,” said Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, speaking Tuesday at an oil-industry conference in London. 

(:=}

The piece drew many comments but the first is the most rational. Then they decay into the IT CAN’T BE DONE comments from the ignorant right. As usual.

 http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/view/index3.html?show=all

What we need is a commitment to relatively low-tech alternative energy

Solar satellites and fusion energy are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have been around forever and have yielded little practical promise. Existing earth-based solar collector and wind farm technology could provide a substantial percentage of our energy needs right now. Dedicating a few hundred square miles of CA/NV desert land to a massive solar collector that could provide 100% of U.S. electrical needs would be a worthy investment.

 http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/86951-sarah-palins-silly-energy-speech.html

Both the McCain/Palin campaign and the Obama/Biden campaign are making unrealistic promises about the prospect of reaching energy independence. As Obama himself notes, when you consume 25 percent of the world’s oil but own only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, energy independence isn’t ever going to come from expanding domestic production.The difference between the two campaigns is that McCain/Palin is more unrealistic. Obama has made it clear that his energy independence plan will requires massive expansion of alternative and renewable energy resources and huge investments in conservation and energy efficiency, even as he acknowledges that more investment in offshore drilling, nuclear power, and clean coal will also most likely be necessary. (McCain and Palin routinely misrepresent Obama’s position on nuclear power and clean coal, and the vice presidential candidate did so again today.)Palin devoted one paragraph of her energy security policy speech to alternative energy solutions.

In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

That’s not enough. True leadership on energy requires devoting more than one paragraph to vague handwaving about wind and solar and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic turmoil and low oil prices may have shunted renewables and conservation off the main track for now, but to quote Palin, “this is hardly a sign of good things to come.”

 :}

But then the real waste of Energy was people trying to “figure out the real” John McCain. He was the guy who wanted to build 100 NUKES and was too old and out of touch to be President.

http://sillyhumans.blogspot.com/

 By TIM DICKINSON Posted Oct 16, 2008 7:00 PM

—
This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain’s life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers’ powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives’ evangelical churches.

 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.

“I’m going to the Middle East,” Dramesi says. “Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran.”

“Why are you going to the Middle East?” McCain asks, dismissively.

“It’s a place we’re probably going to have some problems,” Dramesi says.

“Why? Where are you going to, John?”

“Oh, I’m going to Rio.”

“What the hell are you going to Rio for?”

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

“I got a better chance of getting laid.”
 :}

:}

Mini nuclear power plant proposals – The BBC scooped the Guardian by 7 years

Posted on by
1

Wonder who will print this story in 7 more years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1504564.stm

Scientists funded by Japan’s Atomic Energy Research Institute are developing a nuclear reactor so small that it would fit into the basement of a block of flats.

The reactor, known as the Rapid-L, was conceived of as a power source for colonies on the Moon, New Scientist magazine says. But the 200 kilowatt reactor measures only six metres (20 feet) by two metres (6.5 feet).It uses molten lithium-6 as a coolant in a system which the researchers hope will automatically shut down if it overheats.Planning trouble“In future it will be quite difficult to construct further large nuclear power plants because of site restrictions,” Mitsuru Kambe, head of the research team at Japan’s Central Research Institute of Electrical Power Industry (CRIEPI) told New Scientist.“To relieve peak loads in the future, I believe small, modular reactors located in urban areas such as Tokyo Bay will be effective,” he said.Conventional nuclear reactors use solid rods to control the rate at which the nuclear fuel releases energy and thereby control the temperature of the reactor.

Liquid solution

The rods absorb neutrons, the subatomic particles which keep the nuclear chain reaction going.

But they have to be lowered in and out of the reactor to control it. The Japanese researchers aim to make the process automatic by using molten lithium-6 instead.As the temperature rises in their reactor, the molten liquid expands and rises through tubes into the reactor core, absorbing neutrons and slowing the chain reaction to a safe rate.Mr Kambe was both optimistic and realistic about the future of his team’s work.“Rapid power plants could be used in developing countries where remote regions cannot be conveniently connected to the main grid,” he told the magazine, adding:“The success of such a reactor depends on the acceptance of the public, the electricity utilities and the government.”The reactor would still face the problems of waste transport and disposal associated with larger power stations.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Mini nuclear plants to

power 20,000 homes

£13m shed-size reactors will

be delivered by lorry 

  • John Vidal and Nick Rosen
  • guardian.co.uk, Sunday November 9 2008 00.01 GMT
  • The Observer, Sunday November 9 2008

    • Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

    The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

    The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. ‘Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,’ said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. ‘They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home.’

    Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. ‘It’s leapfrog technology,’ he said.

    The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. ‘We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.’

    The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. ‘They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,’ said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. ‘We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas.’

    The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year

    :}
    :}

    Oil Falls To 57$$ A Barrel – We are all going to die!

    Posted on by
    Reply

    We are all going to die….well not just yet.

     

    https://censys.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=756

     

    Why are oil prices dropping?

    The price of oil this morning is $72 a barrel — half of what it was three months ago. Ashley Milne-Tyte looks into some factors influencing oil markets, including the disappearance of some speculators.

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_petroleum_and_gasoline/index.html?excamp=GGBUoilprice&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=BI-S-E-GG-NA-S-oil_price

    Countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran that were flush with rising oil revenue saw that change reflected in newly aggressive foreign policies. But some unexpected countries reaped benefits, as well as costs, from higher prices. Consider Germany. Although it imports virtually all its oil, it has prospered from extensive trade with a booming Russia and the Middle East. German exports to Russia grew 128 percent from 2001 to 2006. The high price of gas became an important issue in the presidential campaign. Senator John McCain in particular made energy a focus, proposing to suspend the gas tax during the summer. He also made fervent calls to expand domestic drilling for oil, while his opponent, Barack Obama, emphasized the need for alternative fuels. The surge in prices hit automakers hard, as sales of the truck-based models that had been Detroit’s most profitable product dropped sharply. Mass transit systems across the country reported a sharp increase in riders. As prices fell in the fall, the question facing Opec and car makers alike was whether those shifts would reverse, as they had in previous downturns, or whether a tipping point had been reached.

    :}

    Drill Here Drill Now     

          Drill Here Drill Now             

                  Drill Here Drill Now

                                          Drill Here Drill Now                                                                 

                                                              Drill Here Drill Now

    The Report Says We Can Be Done With Fossil Fuels In 80 Years – My question is do we have that much time?

    Posted on by
    Reply

    The answer is definitely NOT:

     http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn15043-2090-is-the-deadline-for-the-end-of-fossil-fuel-use.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

    World can halt fossil fuel use by 2090

    • 12:13 27 October 2008
    • NewScientist.com news service
    • New Scientist staff and Reuters

    The world could eliminate fossil fuel use by 2090, saving $18 trillion in future fuel costs and creating a $360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.

    The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    “Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe.

    A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

    Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

    The total energy investments until 2030, the main period studied, would come to $14.7 trillion, according to the study. By contrast, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, foresees energy investments of just $11.3 trillion to 2030, with a bigger stress on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-US Vice President Al Gore, called Monday’s study “comprehensive and rigorous.”

    Dangerous change

    “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” Pachauri wrote in a foreword to the report.

    EREC and Greenpeace said a big energy shift was needed to avoid “dangerous” climate change, defined by the European Union and many environmental groups as a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.

    The report urged measures such as a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “cap and trade” systems for greenhouse gas emissions, legally binging targets for renewable energies and tough efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles.

    The report said renewable energy markets were booming with turnover almost doubling in 2007 from 2006 to more than $70 billion. It said renewables could more than double their share of world energy supplies to 30% by 2030 and reach 50% by 2050.

    :}

    But it will only cost 17 trillion dollars:

    http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21375/1066/

     Sven Teske, with Greenpeace and co-author of the report, stated, “Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fuelling catastrophic climate change.”Teske added, “All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders.” [EREC]Teske concluded, “Strict efficiency standards make sound economic sense and dramatically slow down rising global energy demand. The energy saved in industrialised countries will make space for increased energy use in developing economies. With renewable energy growing four-fold not only in the electricity sector, but also in the heating and transport sectors, we can still cut the average carbon emissions per person from today?s four tonnes to around one tonne by 2050.” [EREC]

    In the foreword to the report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri wrote, “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” [EREC]

    Dr. Pachauri, who is the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former-U.S. Vice President Al Gore,

     :}

    For more links:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q2I820081027

    People Just Don’t Get Why We Have To Stop Burning The World Up – Stop please stop

    Posted on by
    Reply

    This is so sad it Makes The World Cry:

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14976-arctic-air-temperatures-hit-record-highs.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_dn14976

    Arctic air temperatures

    hit record highs

    • 13:11 17 October 2008
    • NewScientist.com news service
    • New Scientist staff and Reuters

    Autumn air temperatures have climbed to record levels in the Arctic due to major losses of sea ice as the region suffers more effects from a warming trend dating back decades, according to a new report.

    The annual report issued by researchers at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other experts is the latest to paint a dire picture of the impact of climate change in the Arctic.

    It found that autumn air temperatures are at a record 5 °C above normal in the Arctic because of the major loss of sea ice in recent years, which allows more solar heating of the ocean.

    That warming of the air and ocean impacts land and marine life and cuts the amount of winter sea ice that lasts into the following summer, says the report.

    The report adds that surface ice is melting in Greenland and that wild reindeer, or caribou, herds appear to be declining in numbers.

    Domino effect

    “Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions,” says James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and one of the authors of the report.

    “It’s a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways,” he says.

    Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, part of the University of Colorado, recently reported that, this summer, Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level ever.

    The 2008 season, those researchers said, strongly reinforces a 30-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent – 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000, but 9% above the record low set in 2007.

    Last year was the warmest on record in the Arctic, continuing a region-wide warming trend dating to the mid-1960s. Most experts blame climate change on human activities spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    :}

    Then there is this longer piece in The Independent;

    :}

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/record-22c-temperatures-in-arctic-heatwave-394196.html 

    Record 22C temperatures in Arctic heatwave

    By Steve Connor, Science Editor
    Wednesday, 3 October 2007

    The high temperatures on the island caused catastrophic mudslides as the permafrost on hillsides melted, Professor Lamoureux said. “The landscape was being torn to pieces, literally before our eyes.”

    Other parts of the Arctic also experienced higher-than-normal temperatures, which indicate that the wider polar region may have experienced its hottest summer on record, according to Walt Meir of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

    “It’s been warm, with temperatures about 3C or 4C above normal for June, July and August, particularly to the north of Siberia where the temperatures have reached between 4C and 5C above average,” Dr Meir said.

    Unusually clear skies over the Arctic this summer have caused temperatures to rise. More sunlight has exacerbated the loss of sea ice, which fell to a record low of 4.28 million square kilometres (1.65 million square miles), some 39 per cent below the long-term average for the period 1979 to 2000. Dr Meir said: “While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent.”

    An international team of scientists on board the Polar Stern, a research ship operated by the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany, also felt the effects of an exceptionally warm Arctic summer. The scientists had anticipated that large areas of the Arctic would be covered by ice with a thickness of about two metres, but found that it had thinned to just one metre.

    Instead of breaking through thicker ice at an expected speed of between 1 and 2 knots, the Polar Stern managed to cruise at 6 knots through thin ice and sometimes open water.

    “We are in the midst of a phase of dramatic change in the Arctic,” said Ursula Schauer, the chief scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute, who was on board the Polar Stern expedition. “The ice cover of the North Polar Sea is dwindling, the ocean and the atmosphere are becoming steadily warmer, the ocean currents are changing,” she said.

    One scientist came back from the North Pole and reported that it was raining there, said David Carlson, the director of International Polar Year, the effort to highlight the climate issues of the Arctic and Antarctic. “It makes you wonder whether anyone has ever reported rain at the North Pole before.”

    Another team of scientists monitoring the movements of Ayles Ice Island off northern Canada reported that it had broken in two far earlier than expected, a further indication of warmer temperatures. And this summer, for the first time, an American sailing boat managed to traverse the North-west Passage from Nova Scotia to Alaska, a voyage usually made by icebreakers. Never before has a sail-powered vessel managed to get straight through the usually ice-blocked sea passage.

    Inhabitants of the region are also noticing a significant change as a result of warmer summers, according to Shari Gearheard, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. “People who live in the region are noticing changes in sea ice. The earlier break-up and later freeze-up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel,” she said.

    Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, said: “We may see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes. The implications… are disturbing.”

    The North-west Passage: an ominous sign

    The idea of a North-west Passage was born in 1493, when Pope Alexander VI divided the discovered world between Spain and Portugal, blocking England, France and Holland from a sea route to Asia. As it became clear a passage across Europe was impossible, the ambitious plan was hatched to seek out a route through north-western waters, and nations sent out explorers. When, in the 18th century, James Cook reported that Antarctic icebergs produced fresh water, the view that northern waters were not impossibly frozen was encouraged. In 1776 Cook himself was dispatched by the Admiralty with an Act promising a £20,000 prize, but he failed to push through a route north of Canada. His attempt preceded several British expeditions including a famous Victorian one by Sir John Franklin in 1845. Finally, in 1906 Roald Amundsen led the first trip across the passage to Alaska, and since then a number of fortified ships have followed. On 21 August this year, the North-west Passage was opened to ships not armed with icebreakers for the first time since records began.

    Kay Bailey Hutchison, Newt Gingritch, John Boehner and the President of the United States Are All Proven Liars

    Posted on by
    Reply

     Add to that list T. Boone Pickens and American Solutions (thus Grover Norquist). The high oil prices and the high gasoline prices were the direct result of Market Manipulation by commodity speculaters. It did not amount to the “single largest transfer of wealth overseas”, as Pickens claims. Almost all of those speculaters were right here in the good old US of A. They took billions of $$$ from poor and middle class people pockets. Those that could least afford it as their capitalist schemes brought the financial markets down.

    Oil is now below 80$$ per barrel and gas is below 3$$ per gallon. Not a single new well has been drilled. No appreciable amount of oil has been added to the system. In other words, no new “supply” was added to the “market” and yet prices are falling. Hmmm so when are people going to go to jail?

     But bigger questions remains. Now that the market has been destabilized by speculators how low can the price of oil go? The Saudi’s estimate that it costs them 40$$ to put a barrel of oil on the deck of a ship, and ironically another 10$$ to ship it. Can the price of oil drop below 50$$ a barrel? And what happens then?

    The Big Oil Companies worst fears have arrived. As millions of Americans (yours truely included) shed billions of miles of driving reducing demand for gasoline in unprecidented fashion, what will the outcome be for the automobile industry and what is left of America’s manufaturing base.

    Oh did I mention – When are people going go to jail for this “harmless little prank”?

     www.yuwantitwhen.com

    wreck.jpg

    John McCain’s Global Warming Policy – Well, he calls it Climate Change

    Posted on by
    Reply

    But you know what he means, right? nudge nudge wink wink Know What He means?

     http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/da151a1c-733a-4dc1-9cd3-f9ca5caba1de.htm

    Climate Change

    John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children.John McCain’s Principles for Climate Policy

      • Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
      • Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
      • Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
      • Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
      • Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.


    John McCain’s Cap and Trade Policy    John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.

    How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work?A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

    Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables

    2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

    2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

    2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

    The Cap And Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions.

    The cap and trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business – sectors responsible for just below 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase “offsets” – financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture – to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.Innovating, Developing and Deploying Technologies

    To Support The Cap And Trade System, John McCain Will Promote The Innovation, Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technologies. John McCain will reform federal government research funding and infrastructure to support the cap and trade emissions reduction goals and emphasize the commercialization of low-carbon technologies. Under John McCain’s plan:

    Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies. A portion of the process of these auctions will be used to support a diversified portfolio of research and commercialization challenges, ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. Funds will also be used to provide financial backing for a Green Innovation Financing and Transfer (GIFT) to facilitate commercialization.John McCain Will Streamline The Process For Deploying New Technologies And Requiring More Accountability From Government Programs To Meet Commercialization Goals And Deadlines.

    John McCain Will Ensure Rapid Technology Introduction, Quickly Shifting Research From The Laboratory To The Marketplace.

    John McCain Will Employ The Inherent Incentives Provided By A Cap-And-Trade System Along With Government-Led Competitions As Incentives For New Technology Deployment.

    John McCain Will Foster Rapid and Clean Economic Growth

    John McCain Believes An Effective And Sustainable Climate Policy Must Also Support Rapid Economic Growth. John McCain will use a portion of auction proceeds to reduce impacts on low-income American families. The McCain plan will accomplish this in part by incorporating measures to mitigate any economic cost of meeting emission targets, including:

    Trading Emission Permits To Find The Lowest-Cost Source Of Emission Reductions.Permitting “Banking” And “Borrowing” Of Permits So That Emission Reductions May Be Accelerated Or Deferred To More Economically Efficient Periods.

    Permitting Unlimited Initial Offsets From Both Domestic And International Sources.

    Effectively Integrating U.S. Trading With Other International Markets, Thereby Providing Access To Low-Cost Permit Sources.

    Establishing A Strategic Carbon Reserve As A National Source Of Permits During Periods Of Economic Duress.

    Early Allocation Of Some Emission Permits On Sound Principles. This will provide significant amount of allowances for auctioning to provide funding for transition assistance for consumers and industry. It will also directly allocate sufficient permits to enable the activities of a Climate Change Credit Corporation, the public-private agency that will oversee the cap and trade program, provide credit to entities for reductions made before 2012, and ease transition for industry with competitiveness concerns and fewer efficiency technology options.

    A commission will also be convened to provide recommendations on the percentage of allowances to be provided for free and the percentage of allowances to be auctioned, and develop a schedule for transition from allocated to maximum auctioned allowances. Cap-and-trade system will also work to maximize the amount of allowances that are auctioned off by 2050. John McCain Will Provide Leadership for Effective International Efforts John McCain Believes That There Must Be A Global Solution To Global Climate Change. John McCain will engage the international community in a coordinated effort by:

    Actively Engaging To Lead United Nations Negotiations.Permitting America To Lead In Innovation, Capture The Market On Low-Carbon Energy Production, And Export To Developing Countries – Including Government Incentives And Partnerships For Sales Of Clean Tech To Developing Countries.

    Provide Incentives For Rapid Participation By India And China, While Negotiating An Agreement With Each. John McCain Will Develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan John McCain Believes A Comprehensive Approach To Addressing Climate Change Includes Adaptation As Well As Mitigation. He believes:

    An Adaptation Plan Should Be Based Upon National And Regional Scientific Assessments Of The Impacts Of Climate Change.An Adaptation Plan Should Focus On Implementation At The Local Level Which Is Where Impacts Will Manifest Themselves.

    A Comprehensive Plan Will Address The Full Range Of Issues: Infrastructure, Ecosystems, Resource Planning, And Emergency Preparation.

    :}

    There are a ton of problems with this plan but the first of the problems is IT”S TOO LONG. In fact, I doubt that anyone will ever read these words, and not just because this is an obscure blog at an obscure site. Nobody will ever get this far! The other problem is it takes too long. I mean no significant reductions before 2050. Who is going to be left alive at that point? But the real killer is the Cap and Trade system. This is just an industry fudge to get around the Clean Air Act. We need to shut down every coal fired powerplant in this country. Contrary to T. Boone Pickens, we need to convert all of those plants to natural gas, until we can get rid of them. We need to start at least three major “Hot Rocks” projects here in the US now. More about Cap and Trade when we look at Obama’s environmental proposals.

    :}

    John McCain’s Energy Policies – The “drill here, drill now” crowd looks pretty foolish right about now

    Posted on by
    Reply

    Even Bill O’Reilly agrees with me:

    www.billoreilly.com

    The rapid rise in Oil Prices and the concurrent rise in gasoline prices was caused by speculators in the oil market, reductions in gas refinement, the drop in the dollar value because of speculators, and China stock piling diesel fuel for the Olympics. There is no way that it was remotely related to supply and demand. Demand fell as the price climbed. Even conservative estimates say that so far this year Americans have driven 50 billion miles fewer than just last year.

    Even worse than that is the fact that the Congress conceded the point to an angry electorate and passed a bill expanding drilling. That inspite of the fact that there is no oil in ANWR or along most of the continental shelf, there will be no bids on the leases if they are ever put up for sale, and we don’t have any oil rigs to drill there anyway. Every last rigg in the WORLD is spoken for right now.

    So given all of that why is John McCain still touting the policy below?:

    http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

    John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit – 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

    :}

    Shouldn’t we be saying “anywhere but here, anytime but now”? Like New Orleanians say about hurricanes.
    :}

    John McCain Capriciousness Will Cost Him The Election – The myth of the multiple Nukes

    Posted on by
    Reply

    McCain is a hot headed shoot from the hip cowboy Republican and his Nuclear Policy, such as it is, shows it. He is George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove combined without the nasty little snicker. He could have stated a policy pro-nuclear. He could have stated a policy of 3 or 4 Nuclear Power Plants, with a “we’ll see how it goes” clause. He could have done something helpful as a Republican and said, “We will open the waste depository in Nevada within the first year of our presidency.” Something no Democrat could offer because of Harry Reid.

    But instead he wants to try to build 45 Nuclear Power Plants. That is 1 for almost every state in the Nation! That with the credit markets paralyzed and a new generation of “light reactors” that have not been tested in the US. Then he goes on to say with “a goal of building 100”. This is so off the charts as to be dismissable. That is, it is impossible. So why so over the top? BECAUSE THAT IS what John wants to do. That’s it. So what else does John want that is inconceivable to most of us? But if he was President of the US he could get just because he wanted it? War with Iran? War with Russia? More to the point a Florida surrounded by oil wells? A move to cripple the solar and wind turbine markets? T. Boone Pickens Plan? What?

    That is pretty scary….

    John McCain And The Myth Of The Multiple Nukes – A goal is 100 Nukes or Double our current capacity

    Posted on by
    Reply

    I wrote in the title of a previous post that John McCain just doesn’t get it about energy policy. A commenter took me to task for attacking McCain personally not his policies. Well lets see, he wants to build 45 Nukes to start. That would come with a price tag of 150 billion$$s and if you have looked at the credit markets lately, that just makes no sense. Georgia Power is about to try to “self-finance” 1 Nuke at a cost of 3 billion$$s. I have serious doubts about whether they shall succeed.

    http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

    John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

    :}  So where to start?We do not have the skilled workers to build them.We don’t have the money to build them.

    We don’t have safe sites to put them on.

    We don’t have the fuel to put in them.

    We couldn’t afford the electricity they would produce.

    Not to mention all the energy that we would have to burn to build them and to fuel them.

    But the worst mistake here is that we have NO PLACE TO put the waste.

    All this to just boil water?

    So we leave our great grandchildren with the legacy of radioactive waste, financial debt and expensive energy that they can’t use?!? Look if there was a metal or and an award for NOT GETTING it, John McCain should be awarded it immediately.

    :}