New Energy Bill a Boom to Coal and Oil while limiting freedoms?

Question

The new energy bill does nothing to increase competition against oil and coal, instead protects these industries from competition while giving Wal-Mart a financial shot in the arm.

This bill does nothing to reduce green house gases. Oil and coal will still reign as kings of energy for many years to come.

If congress pushed nuclear power, then we could actually reduce ghg's no matter how many incandescent light bulbs were used.

Instead congress places the burden on the user rather than the producer while at the same time not giving us the option to choose a cleaner burning source of power.

Which proves my point. Global warming is not about the reduction of ghg's, as politicians will always need polluters so they can maintain a source of power.

The people will be the ones to feel the abuse of power from the politicians.

First it's the light bulbs, then it will be the SUV's, then bottled water.

Meanwhile we will still be building coal generators.

Anyone else agree?

Answer 1

Nuclear power is the only viable route to significant reduction in green house gas emissions, all else is no more than feel good p!$$ing into the wind. Of course reducing green house gas emissions has never been the agenda for most so called environmental activists.

And the problem of spent fuel can be solved easily by reprocessing.

Answer 2

I knew it would turn out this way. Aren't the Nuclear Power lobbyists strong enough to get their point across? Is anyone in congress even looking into Nuclear Power? I love how some of your answerer's to this question just put the blame on the President, but it's congresses job to draw up the suggestions they put into the bill. Sometimes the President asks congress to consider things, but so far Nuclear Power has seemed to be swept under the rug by every administration. Otherwise we'd already have a lot more Nuclear Power plants than we do now.

Answer 3

I agree that the energy bill is not all it should be. The Bush Administration forced the removal of a requirement for renewable energy, and continued absurd tax breaks for fossil fuel producers.

But it doesn't affect the science of global warming.

We'll get better global warming legislation after 20 January 2009.

I also agree, as do many (most?) environmentalists we need to do a lot more to build nuclear plants.

We know how to deal with the waste:

http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

It's just a political problem to designate a site.

MIKIRA - There really isn't much of a nuclear power lobby. The plants are so expensive to build and the public worries so much that most private industry isn't all that interested in building them. The government doesn't merely have to get out of the way, it actually has to work hard to promote nuclear power. Previous administrations had no good reason to do that. And the oilman Bush isn't interested.

Mark 20 January 2009 on your calendar.

KUSHENG - It's more like a hundred power plants. The deadline set is kind of wimpy, but, as effects from global warming mount, the timeframes for action will get shorter.

Answer 4

1. Reduction in energy consumption can only come from the end used. If we don't use it they want produce it.
2. I'll bet they are open for any "real" suggestions that we can really implement and still keep the lights turned on and traffic flowing.
3. Green house gas... I want get into that one as there just as many studies that say it's false and bad science as there are that say it's a problem.
4. I like the idea of nuclear power, however, what do we do with the radio active byproducts that will be dangerous to humans for 12 to 15 thousand years.
Good luck

Answer 5

The Democrats wanted an easy win here, and replacing incandescent light bulbs seemed to be an easy win-win. Remember, Bush could have vetoed anything controversial.

Replacing the bulbs nationwide will have a small effect. Maybe enough to get rid of one coal plant. If that's the case, it's worth it. It costs the economy very little to comply with this change.

When we get a more moderate person in the White House, a more aggresive bill will likely be passed.

Answer 6

It is a measure that looks good to the green lobby and costs nothing (because the energy saved WILL more than pay for the bulbs), but has practically no effect. Just the kind of thing politicians love.

Answer 7

You know from the Manhattan project, there is enough depleted uranium in the DOE to run fast breeder reactors for the next 400 years(to supply 100% of US electrical needs)...

if we undid jimmy carters ideas and reprocessed the nuclear fuel, we would have less waste to store.....if we could build the nuclear plants near the mines, process the uranium there, use the fuel and reprocess it there you would not have to worry about transportation either....

but running fast breeder reactors is not socially acceptable these days...

but dumping millions of tons of CO2 is?

Answer 8

Yes, and I would add that its emphasis on conservation continues to shove a final solution to the problem further in to the future, just like conservation dogma has ever since the Saudis jacked up the price of oil from $5 to $25 overnight back in the 70s, sending the US economy into a recession.

Answer 9

Close enough for me to agree in principle.

Answer 10

you are right. they are always the one who are benefited. but i hope they will realize that abusing power is not good