5/6/2008 - "No More Excuses" My Ass |
|
I live very close to Ann Arbor, a very, very liberal (and uber-cool) city. However, being just on the outskirts, I'm saddled with an unbelievably conservative U.S. Representative. This guy is a total Bush toadie and I have disagreed with his positions on nearly every issue you might care to name. It's pathetic, really. I moved down here to steep myself in the wonderful liberalness that is Ann Arbor and this fool is my representative. Might have to run for his House seat someday... (kidding)
Anyway, this conservative lackey has recently added his name to the list of co-sponsors for H.R. 3089, absurdly named "The No More Excuses Energy Act". It's basically a way for the pro-Big Oil Lobby to line the pockets of their Oil & Gas benefactors. Reading through this abominable piece of "legislation", I became apoplectic. I simply had to write a letter to the local newspaper, a rag of considerable dubiousness, I admit, but the best way to reach the eyeballs of this guy's constituents. I've reprinted the letter below. If you're in the USA, you may wish to consider contacting your Representative and encourage them to shoot this piece of < expletive deleted > down with everything they have. Yes, it IS that bad. Enjoy. I'm just sayin'... LETTER TO THE EDITOR U.S. Representative Tim Walberg recently signed onto the ridiculously-named "No More Excuses Energy Act" (H.R. 3089) which he describes as a bill that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower fuel costs. However, even a cursory review of this shameful legislation shows that it is little more than a handout to multinational oil and gas companies with very little return. The bill is composed of four parts. The first part sets aside federal lands to be given to the oil and gas companies to build more refineries. These are public lands to be given away to companies that are making staggering and record profits right now. For example, ExxonMobil made almost $11 BILLION in profit in the last quarter of 2007 alone! The second part is extends the federal wind energy production tax credit by 10 years. A nice gesture but a token gesture at best. It seems out of place in this bill suggesting that it was included only to allow the proponents of the bill to say that it is "green". The third part of H.R. 3089 offers large tax credits in order to jump-start the nuclear power industry. While nuclear power seems a nice "green" panacea, requiring no foreign oil and releasing very little greenhouse gases, this part of the bill is, perhaps, the most insidiously dangerous. In this section is the ominous declaration "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not deny an application for a license, permit, or other authorization under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 on the grounds that sufficient capacity does not exist, or will not become available on a timely basis, for disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste from the facility for which the license, permit, or other authorization is sought." What we must keep in mind when talking about nuclear power is that it is far from a "green" or "clean" power source. The wastes generated by a nuclear power plant, 20-30 tons per year for the average plant, remain radioactive and lethally toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,000 years and it remains toxic for 240,000 years. Currently, nuclear waste is stored on-site at power plants because there are no nuclear waste repositories in operation. A proposed one in Yucca Mountain, Nevada was scheduled to open in 1998 but due to political and environmental problems associated with it, it's likely it won't open until 2020 and probably beyond. Storage at myriad power plants presents a homeland security risk we can hardly tolerate, particularly since the current most attractive market for nuclear waste is for use by terrorists. These arguments don't even include the environmental damage done by uranium mining, the dangers in shipping nuclear waste to a repository once one is opened, or the devastating effects that would occur in the event of a nuclear power plant disaster like the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Finally, nuclear power plants cost several billion dollars and can take 10-12 years to build so this is hardly a "fix" for current energy problems. The last part of this horrendous bill covers oil drilling in two separate ways. First it allows for tax credits for the use of carbon dioxide used in enhanced oil recovery. This process injects carbon dioxide deep into oil and gas wells to help force the oil and gas out. While this sounds good and seems a reasonable way to reduce the greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, this bill explicitly credits only the initial injection of carbon dioxide. What isn't widely known is that more than half and up to two-thirds of the carbon dioxide comes back out again with the oil or gas. So, in reality, it does very little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The overall effect, once again, is to essentially provide oil and gas companies with subsidies with very little return. The other part of this section reopens drilling on the outer continental shelf and coastal plain of Alaska. Drilling in Alaska has been rejected time and again by Congress and most Americans are against it. Contrary to what many people believe, the amount of oil in this area is actually quite small, relative to the global oil reserves. It is estimated that that the supply of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, if used to supply only 5% of US oil needs, will last as little as 12 years. If it supplied ALL of our oil needs, it would last under a year. As Senator Joe Lieberman once said, "Is it worth forever losing a national treasure, one of our last great wild places, for a six month supply of oil 10 years from now?" That, I would suggest, is a very easy question to answer. Even if there were significant reserves in Alaska, Mr. Walberg seems to misunderstand basic rules of economics. Prices for fuel are determined not by where it comes from but what the market will bear. If a new supply of oil becomes available, costs will not drop for the simple reason that demand is high and people around the globe are willing to pay. It matters little if that oil comes from under the sands of Saudi Arabia or under the wilderness of Alaska. The upshot is that drilling for oil in Alaska will have little, if any, effect on the cost a gallon of gas. I agree with Representative Walberg on one thing: we absolutely MUST end our dependence on foreign oil and gas. However, H.B. 3089 is NOT the way to do it. Please take a moment out of your day and contact Representative Walberg. Tell him that this so-called "No More Excuses Energy Act" is a sham and one that does little if anything to solve our energy problems and, instead, lines the pockets of companies already profiting handsomely from rapidly rising energy costs. Tell him that the real answer to our dependence on foreign oil and gas is to heavily invest in and promote conservation and alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and biofuels. Ask him to join with Governor Granholm and others in our state to make Michigan a world leader in truly "green" alternative energy sources and technologies. Fondly yours, The Ever-Lovin' Eclectablog |
5/6/2008 - Aielman Said... |
|
Um...I don't think you read that act very carefully. You're incorrect about several items about it, and other assumptions.
ExxonMobil made almost $11 BILLION in profit in the last quarter of 2007 alone! Yes...and why? Perhaps the fact that the commodity their profits depend on went from $48 to $65 a barrel. 2 competing refinories were down for repairs, caused them to have to increase output. And demand for gas worldwide jumped 8 percent. So yeah...they made a 10 billion that quarter. The total profit for the year was 40.6 billion...out of 922 billion in sales...on which they paid 30 billion in taxes...a rate of 41%. Something that didn't get quite as much press. The reason for public lands is because it's been 19 years since anyone's been able to build a refinory. Every time somene tries, it becomes a case of Not In My Backyard. The last oil refinery was completed in the US in 1976. Since then, only two groups have started the process to build new refineries. Of the two, the one that is closest to actually building started the process in 1998. In 2005, they received the FIRST of fourteen permits needed to build. To obtain that one permit, they spent $12.8 million in fees for studies, attorneys, court costs, etc. They expect to complete the permit process and start building the actual refinery in 2012. That's a long time from start to being able to build. Theoretically, if they use federal lands, that won't be an issue. What we must keep in mind when talking about nuclear power is that it is far from a "green" or "clean" power source. No. But it is highly efficient. And the amount of waste is far less than that of the petroleum industry. In fact, according to Mujid Kazimi ( the Director, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, TEPCO Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT), per unit energy, the volume of waste of the fuel and the plant is the smallest of any other power source. Finally, nuclear power plants cost several billion dollars and can take 10-12 years to build so this is hardly a "fix" for current energy problems. They are expensive to build, but you can build one in 4 years if you don't have to spend 10 to 15 years trying to get the necessary permits. You can also significantly reduce the cost if you don't have to deal with the insane amounts of lawsuits you have to deal with in order to get the permits...to the tune of an average of 100 million or more. First it allows for tax credits for the use of carbon dioxide used in enhanced oil recovery. Um. Yeah. So? It also gives tax credits for capturing of andy CO2 captured during any refining process, or in any recovery process. CO2 is used frequently, as you mentioned, in recovery of oil in nearly played out wells. I would think you'd find it a good thing that they're giving incentives to recover that gas, rather than letting it loose into the atmosphere. I agree with Representative Walberg on one thing: we absolutely MUST end our dependence on foreign oil and gas. However, H.B. 3089 is NOT the way to do it. Yes we must...and this might help. Not even Walberg says it will be the end all be all solution. |
5/6/2008 - Eclectablog Said... |
|
I'm sorry, where was I incorrect? I read that bill VERY closely and nothing that I stated is incorrect. I am for enhanced oil recovery and even spent some time developing water-thickening polymers for that use. My complaint is issuing tax credits for something that does very little to solve the greenhouse gas problem. It's, once again, a handout to a wildly profitable industry. You may think that it's no big deal that a commodity industry has profits in the double digit percentages but that only goes to show that you know little about commodity chemicals, something I, as a chemist, do know a little something about. <10% profit margins are, by and far, the norm.
It's one thing to be wildly profitable. It's entirely another thing to hand out tax breaks to these companies. It's money wasted that could be spent actually solving the problem. ...per unit energy, the volume of waste of the fuel and the plant is the smallest of any other power source... Yada, yada, yada, 240 MILLION years, lethally toxic, 240 MILLION years, no safe storage places, 240 MILLION years... There isn't a single other source of pollution or waste with that kind of horrendous legacy. Period. |
5/7/2008 - Aielman Said... |
|
|
My complaint is issuing tax credits for something that does very little to solve the greenhouse gas problem
Every little bit helps. You may think that it's no big deal that a commodity industry has profits in the double digit percentages but that only goes to show that you know little about commodity chemicals, something I, as a chemist, do know a little something about. <10% profit margins are, by and far, the norm. I'm certain I know far less about the chemicals than you do. But I do understand how the Market works. And I'm well aware of what is driving oil profits at the moment...things you seem to ignore. But then again, I don't think that making profit is automatically evil. There are subsidies that we should be getting rid of at this point, no doubt. But just because there are some that should be curtailed, that doesn't mean that any subsidy is a bad idea. The oil companies are already paying an average of 40% in taxes. It's one of the most heavily taxed industries. The carrot and the stick needs to be put to work on this. Use the stick by removing some subisdies and the carrot of new subidies to encourage movement in a direction we want with others. There isn't a single other source of pollution or waste with that kind of horrendous legacy. Period Yes...and nobody goes to war over it. There's no influence peddling over it. There's no air pollution from it. It generates a fantastic amount of energy for very little input. It provides thousands of domestic jobs. There are 104 reactors in the US and there hasn't been one built since 1978. There's 197 nuclear power plants in Europe, and the number is climbing. The French managed to build 56 of them in a period of 15 years...not only satisfying all of thier power needs, but allowing them to export power. One of the reasons is because they know how valuable this type of power generation is. More importantly, they also don't have a legacy given to them by Carter like we do. They actually reprocess thier fissionable waste products into new fuel...instead of arguing over what hole to put them in. But because reprocessing involved the separation of plutonium, the specter of nuclear terrorism arose, and Carter got scared and banned the processes here in the US. And because Nulear power is not only in use, but popular, they can turn a lot of attention to finding ways to more safely dispose of the waste that eventually is created. France and England, for example, have 4 national labs each totally devoted to the task of finding ways to dispose of waste in safe fashion. But we here in the US are paralyzed by unreasoned fear. We've let environmentalists and the same fear tactics that you rage about the government using, be used by opponents of nuclear power to scare everyone into believing as you do. But hey...I guess all those scientists like the one I linked, and there are a great many of them, who think that we're as stupid about refusing to use nuclear power as you accuse Bush of being about stem cells, are all wrong. |
5/7/2008 - Eclectablog Said... |
|
|
Every little bit helps.
Not if it diverts funding from better "little bits" or, especially "big bits". But then again, I don't think that making profit is automatically evil. And, of course, neither do I. I happen to be a capitalist as well. I just think the whole concept of giving money in the form of subsidies to exceedingly profitable companies, particularly at a time when the cost of their product is damaging our economy, is patently absurd. And I totally and completely disagree with you on the nuclear power issue. A "Generate waste now, figure out how to deal with it later" approach makes "putting the cart before the horse" seem like a woefully inadequate description. It hardly takes an environmentalist to see that tons and tons of waste that will remain crazy toxic for 240,000 years stored at vulnerable reactor sites around the country, many near large urban areas, is a Bad Idea. Might be the first time I've heard you suggest that the French are smarter than us. I'll have to remember that ;) |
5/7/2008 - Aielman Said... |
|
|
I just think the whole concept of giving money in the form of subsidies to exceedingly profitable companies, particularly at a time when the cost of their product is damaging our economy, is patently absurd.
Then remove the right subsidies.Get rid of the ridiculous ethanol subsidies. It's a 30 year failed experiment. Get rid of the tax breaks that don't deal with exploration, developing new products, squeezing more out of wells that normally get abandoned, and clean operations. You don't remove the carrot to give incentives for them to do things that are less profitable, but better for all overall. And btw...if you're going to bitch about subsidies, make sure you spread it around to Aerospace, who got the biggest tax breaks, more than 28% bigger than petroleum...and throw in Transportation, Industrial and farm equipment, Telecommunications, Electronics and electrical equipment industries, all off who far eclipsed Petroleum in their subsidies. It hardly takes an environmentalist to see that tons and tons of waste that will remain crazy toxic for 240,000 years stored at vulnerable reactor sites around the country, many near large urban areas, is a Bad Idea. You don't have to store it at vulnerable sites. Yucca Mountain will work fine if you can kick the environmentalists out of the mix. The department of energy has been ready to go out there since '98. If it weren't for the legal challenges and the NIMBY mentality of people who've been fear mongered, it would be open today. You basically have 2 entire states where most of the territory is uninhabited and uninhabitable, and always will be, that we could store waste in safely, indefinitely. And we could create far less of that waste if we'd get rid of Carter's stupid restrictions. Might be the first time I've heard you suggest that the French are smarter than us. I'll have to remember that ;) It's the first thing we've talked about that they're not stupid about. Talk about cooking, wine, sex and art and you'll find that I think they're pretty damn smart as well. It's their politics and attitude, specifically of the Parisians, I have a problem with. |
5/8/2008 - OgreJehosephatt Said... |
|
"You basically have 2 entire states where most of the territory is uninhabited and uninhabitable, and always will be, that we could store waste in safely, indefinitely."
I mostly agree with you here, but I have a hard time swallowing the word "indefinitely". We don't know what kind of crazy stuff could happen.. Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors 'n' such blastin' the storage site. Maybe it isn't so hard to find sites that shouldn't see any of that activity in the 240,000 years it takes to become safe, but this is something that if it happens to go wrong, it really goes wrong.. We need to be careful in how we handle it. Heh. Though it may be a little optimistic to think that humans will still be around in 240k years. And at least we're almost assured that we'll have easy travel to the moon at least before that time is up. We could just store all our nuclear waste on that lifeless rock. |
5/8/2008 - Eclectablog Said... |
|
|
Right. Just pray you don't have a "Columbia Shuttle Disaster" moment with any of the rockets taking it there.
"Oops!" *BOOM!* "Shit..." |
5/8/2008 - Eclectablog Said... |
|
|
Great article about this topic here. (Actually the source of some of the information in my letter.) |
5/8/2008 - Aielman Said... |
|
|
Right. Just pray you don't have a "Columbia Shuttle Disaster" moment with any of the rockets taking it there.
You are aware that we've been shooting nuclear material into space for close to 30 years now aren't you? Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors 'n' such blastin' the storage site. They don't seem to have affected the 120 sites we have in 39 states that have been receiving nuclear waste since the 70's at the latest...and the 50's at the earliest. Have you ever seen the national repository? It's over 1km below ground. Any hit from any metor large enough to damage it is going to cause so much damage on it's own that the nuclear waste won't much matter. No explosion is going to breach it as we've used the site to test nuclear explosions underground...and didn't breach the ground then. The chances of volcanic activity at or near the site is 1 in 70 million per year. Great article about this topic here. (Actually the source of some of the information in my letter.) And here's another great one. |
5/8/2008 - Eclectablog Said... |
|
|
You are aware that we've been shooting nuclear material into space for close to 30 years now aren't you?
Multi-ton payloads of nuclear waste? No, I didn't know that. Do tell. |
5/9/2008 - OgreJehosephatt Said... |
|
|
"Just pray you don't have a "Columbia Shuttle Disaster" moment with any of the rockets taking it there. "
Unless we find a way to make a ship leave the Earth's surface really cheap, I don't think that'll happen. And if it becomes pretty cheap, I don't think ships will be as volatile. I imagine that we'd use a space elevator, or a really big magnet cannon. "They don't seem to have affected the 120 sites we have in 39 states that have been receiving nuclear waste since the 70's at the latest...and the 50's at the earliest. " Hahaha. 60 years ain't 240,000 years. The human species isn't even that old. I agree that it's extremely unlikely that something would happen to the storage site. It's also extremely unlikely for people to win the lottery, or get struck by lightning, or get killed by a sting ray, but this is stuff that happens. It's just that even though it's extremely unlikely, it has a consequence we can't really deal with. If that shit gets into the atmosphere, who knows what will happen to life on earth? I'm pretty sure at least societies will crumble as folks bury themselves underground.. the ones that are still alive, anyways. You never bet your soul... even if it's a sure thing. |
5/9/2008 - Aielman Said... |
|
|
No. It's a consequence we can deal with...just like the consequences for every other highly toxic substance we have. Nuclear waste isn't the only thing man makes that can kill and mutate large numbers of people, nor is it the only byproduct that's carcinogenic. The likelihood of a major chemical disaster far far higher, and yet we move chemicals by rail and by road every day, and have hundreds of chemical plants that are far more vulnerable to attack than any storage facility. Bhopal isn't the only place were thousands could be killed.
There's a point where the benefits far outweigh the minute possibility of tragedy. We're at that point. |
5/9/2008 - Eclectablog Said... |
|
|
Frankly, the transportation of these wastes (along with the chance of a power plant accident) aren't really the things I worry about, much for the reasons you give. It's the storage of something that has to be kept isolated for a quarter million years.
Did you know that much of this waste remains physically hot for at least 100 years? This is not an oil spill or a gas release we're talking about here by any far stretch of the imagination. It's not comparable to any other wastes we generate. |
5/10/2008 - OgreJehosephatt Said... |
|
|
Heh. Well, if we could guarantee that the nuclear waste can stay in one place that whole time, I would have a problem. My concern is that something so catastrophic happens that it vaporizes the waste and it's dispersed into the atmosphere, sprinkling the radiation on a global scale. |
Eclectablog
 |
|
Name: Mr. E (get it?) Location: Ann Arbor-ish, Michigan, USA, Earth EFx2Blogger since: September 19, 2007 |
Home |
Eclectacopia |
Profile |
Register Today! |
RSS Feed |
EFx2Blogs |
Forums |
Admin |
EclectaShout
EclectaQuotes
Some folks sleep on a problem, but you can camp on one as well. Camping is for the mind what a high-speed run on the highway is for a car. It tends to blow out all the sludge that accumulates in the type of urban driving most of us are forced to do in order to earn a living.-- Tim Cahill
To eat is a necessity, but to eat intelligently is an art.
-- Francois de La Rochefoucauld
The most alarming sign of the state of our society now is that our leaders have the courage to sacrifice the lives of young people in war but not the courage to tell us that we must be less greedy and wasteful.
-- Wendell Berry
EclectaCool
