Republican Energy Plan

[Alferd_Packer]

In another thread, when the subject of the Republican plan for the future came up someone recommended this web site: http://www.gop.gov/solutions

A subpage to that site deals with the Republican plans for energy: http://www.gop.gov/solutions/energy

Here are a few highlights and my comments

Nuclear:
The 104 nuclear reactors in America today provide the United States with 20 percent of its electricity and 73 percent of its CO2-free electricity, yet no new reactors have been ordered since 1978. The Republican Plan establishes a national goal to safely bring 100 new nuclear reactors online over the next 20 years to strengthen America's commitment to clean, reliable energy.

There is a reason no new nuclear plants have been built since 1974 and it has nothing to do with Three Mile Island (well maybe nothing). It costs too damn much. Plants were designed and built in the 60’s and 70’s with substantially lower costs than could be achievable today. Even if we were to roll back all the safety, security and environmental regulations to 1960’s levels, even if we were to go back to 1960’s style waste disposal practices, there is no way that a nuclear power plant could be built at the same relative costs as they were back then. To build 100 new nuclear plants, the Federal government would have to heavily subsidize the construction program. In other words, this plan will mean a huge government spending plan. While I have no doubt that new plants can be built that are much safer, and more efficient then existing plants, I have no illusions that this won’t cost a butload and a half of money and a huge federal bureaucracy to oversee this.

New and Expanded Technologies:
The Republican plan creates a Renewable and Alternative Energy Trust Fund to provide funding for energy programs authorized by federal law, such as biomass, hydroelectric, clean coal, solar, wind, geothermal and other forms of renewable energy. The fund will encourage the development of renewable, alternative and unconventional fuels, and new energy sources, using receipts from the new federal and oil gas leasing in the Arctic Coastal Plain and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Off shore and drilling in remote areas is not a valid long term solution. But what about these alternative fuels? What are they specifically talking about?

Alternative Fuels:
The bill spurs the development of America's alternative fuels by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of fuels derived from sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to liquid technology. The bill also encourages the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology by allowing federal agencies to enter into long-term contracts to buy coal-derived fuel and by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects.

That’s right, the alternative fuels are basically going back to coal base fuel sources.

American Energy:
The Interior Department estimates that the OCS holds up to 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Significant portions of the OCS remain unavailable because the current Administration continues to delay leasing activities. The bill increases the supply of American energy by immediately moving forward with a leasing program on the OCS, simplifies and harmonizes the OCS mileage restrictions, expanding state territorial waters to 12 miles offshore (most state borders stop at three miles), and gives coastal states a share of the receipts from such energy exploration. A portion of the revenues created by OCS exploration would go to a renewable energy trust fund to pay for a variety of renewable, alternative and advanced energy programs.

Who’s going to be leasing and drilling these assets? BP? Shell and other American companies? “Drill baby Drill” is not a viable long term solution to our energy needs.

Conservation and Efficiency:
The bill provides tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. It also extends tax credits for energy efficient appliances and energy efficient upgrades made to existing homes, a tax credit for individuals who purchase a new energy efficient home and a tax credit for energy efficient commercial buildings, home energy audits and smart meters.

So are they going to give President Obama credit for his plan on this issue?

 

[Thunder]

how about huge solar power farms?

how about huge off-shore wind farms?

how about tidal power?

 

[daenku32]

Just because the GOP ideas raise more questions than answers, I'm just going to expand on the nuclear issue:
How do they plan on reaching the goal of 100 new nuclear plants?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Just because the GOP ideas raise more questions than answers, I'm just going to expand on the nuclear issue:
How do they plan on reaching the goal of 100 new nuclear plants?

Government $,$$$,$$$,$$$

The Utility companies aren't going to spent that kind of cash by themselves.

 

[Cleon]

Government $,$$$,$$$,$$$

The Utility companies aren't going to spent that kind of cash by themselves.

In Georgia, Georgia Power/Southern Company successfully lobbied the state to allow them to raise rates to pay for their new reactors.

 

[Mark6]

Government $,$$$,$$$,$$$

Which I think needs to be done. Even though nuclear power is not going to get any cheaper, fossil fuels will only get more expensive as their supply dwindles. By the time nuclear power is competitive because other energy sources grew more expensive, it will be too late to start new reactors. We should start them now, so they are ready when they are needed.

And if that means a "butload and a half of money and a huge federal bureaucracy to oversee", then so be it.

 

[Tony]

The only good idea is the nuclear idea.

 

[Cleon]

Incidentally...Obama has been largely (though not exactly aggressively) pro-nuclear. It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans are willing to work with him on that front.

I'm not putting any money on it, though.

 

[tyr_13]

Incidentally...Obama has been largely (though not exactly aggressively) pro-nuclear. It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans are willing to work with him on that front.

I'm not putting any money on it, though.

There is still hope on that front at least.

 

[daenku32]

And if that means a "butload and a half of money and a huge federal bureaucracy to oversee", then so be it.

Communist!

 

[MattusMaximus]

Just because the GOP ideas raise more questions than answers, I'm just going to expand on the nuclear issue:
How do they plan on reaching the goal of 100 new nuclear plants?

Government subsidies is the only way to do it. And I think, on this issue, the GOP is right.

Of course, it's big government spending, but now that the election is over the hypocrisy can run rampant

 

[MattusMaximus]

Incidentally...Obama has been largely (though not exactly aggressively) pro-nuclear. It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans are willing to work with him on that front.

I'm not putting any money on it, though.

I'd take that bet... seriously.

I think this is going to end up being one of the positive legacies coming out of the next two years. It's getting to the point where everyone in the government, behind closed doors at least, who isn't a complete nutjob sees that this is what is going to have to be done.

It'll happen, it's just a matter of time.

 

[Tricky]

Incidentally...Obama has been largely (though not exactly aggressively) pro-nuclear. It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans are willing to work with him on that front.

I'm not putting any money on it, though.

It depends on if they can successfully spin it so that Obama doesn't get any credit.

 

[Mark6]

It depends on if they can successfully spin it so that Obama doesn't get any credit.

Given how bad Obama has been at claiming credit for anything, I don't think GOP will have much difficulty here.

 

[Beerina]

Which I think needs to be done. Even though nuclear power is not going to get any cheaper, fossil fuels will only get more expensive as their supply dwindles. By the time nuclear power is competitive because other energy sources grew more expensive, it will be too late to start new reactors. We should start them now, so they are ready when they are needed.

You're talking a few years to build plants -- there's no way in hell we're gonna run off a cliff on oil and coal and natural gas all at the same time, in that short a time.

If anything, it's looking like the "prohibitively expensive" ways at getting at shale oil and the like are being manhandled into submission, and only because it's barely of interest to do so, economically. Hell it's possible (probable?) that plants running off renewable stuff like the famed sugar cane or something else might rise to the occasion and we'd never need nuclear plants.