Our Tanks Are On Full

Interesting how the speaker promotes federal help to expand fossil fuel indistries even though they have been helped for the past 30 years to get us to this point. REpublicans are conservative in that they look backwards at traditional supply and the powerbrokers who own Washington. If they really believed in markets then they would eliminate all hidden subsidies to the coal, nuclear and oil industries and I can guarentee you wind would be cheaper to all consumers. Beyond supply our cheapest and most reliable source of "new" energy capacity is efficiency. According to the Berkeley lab standby power in the US is the equivilent of 8Gigawats of production. Check out the work by the Rocky Mountain Institute on efficiency and how to get beyond oil by letting the markets work (a study comissioned by the Pentagon). In addition check out their recent study on how wind solar tied into a regional grid can provide reliable base power.

Having worked in the demand side of the energy conservation challenge, I can tell you that we have much further to go in reducing demand that has been addressed. I believe this needs to be given our nation's full attention first. Corporations should perform energy audits on their facilities to first understand where they stand, second computerized building management systems and lighting retrofits need to be incorporated to optimize the power consumption of the buildings owned by these corporations. It's rare that I agree with Newt but this idea sounds valid. We need to have an all of the above approach if we are truly going to solve the question of energy independence. Some solutions such as solar work better in certain areas of the country but when exported do not perform as well. When considering that presently the entire midwest and great plains states provide at least 80% of power from coal and the southeastern states generate 50-60% of power from coal, you find that the solution is not going to be achieved by demonization of the dirtier sources. Nuclear power needs to be examined, wind and solar need to be instituted regionally, and biofuels subsidies need to extend beyond ethanol if we are to truly be energy independent. Unfortunately, due to the fact an congressional election being held every two years, this will not happen until people get past not-in-my-backyard disease.

Green Energy ??? The Myth

There is an inherent problem with the dream of green energy and it is in the fundamental understanding of rated power production and baseload power production.

Rated (or Nameplate) power production is the rated power generation capacity at maximum efficiency.

Baseload power production is the base power output of a power plant or power generating facility that provides a consistent continuous source of power.

What do these have to do with green energy? And why does this make green energy a myth?

Well, say there is a 1000 MW coal fired power plant in the state of ND. That plant has achieved PPA (Plant Performance Acceptance) or the proven ability to produce 1000 MW of power provided there are no mechanical outages, interruptions in the fuel source supply chain, etc. This is what is considered baseload, dependable power, that a utility can more or less guarantee electricity available to its customers. Utilities need this baseload power across the majority of their power generation infrastructure to meet the typical daily energy demand. A utility will also have standby or peaker power plants which are brought online to compensate for hot or cold days, plant outages, high demand cycles that they can bring in and back out of the power grid, not effortlessly, but smoothly. Natural Gas, Oil, Coal, Nuclear, Hydroelectric and to some extent geothermal meet the baseload requirements of utility companies. Tidal power could conceivably meet baseload requirements, as well, due to the consistency of the Earth???s tides. Without baseload power, there is no guarantee that the lights will stay or be on when you need them.

Now let us look at green power and its two most promoted flag-bearers, solar and wind. In the same state of ND, say there is a 1000 MW Wind Power Generating Facility. You say to yourself, that is the same as the coal plant, and yes, its rated power production capacity is 1000 MW, but the problem is that the wind does not blow consistently and can therefore not be depended on to produce reliable baseload energy. And on top of that depending on the varying windspeeds, the wind turbines may have a reduced efficiency and lower power output. The same can be said about solar power and, night time, cloud cover, duct cover on the photovalic cells or thin film reducing efficiency. And to further complicate the issue, it is very difficult for utilities to adjust for spikes in the power supply on the electrical grid from sources such as wind and solar due to the sporadic nature of their power supply.

???continued???

This article sums up the short sidedness of the extreme right and their willingness to obfuscate the context of why the left wants to dumb down coal and oil consumption. The idea isn't to make it as hard as possible on business but its because they, like most in this country and nearly all in the scientific community, are trying to stymie the effects of climate change and make our mark on the world a little less devastating. If you don't think climate change is real, look at the IPCC report on climate change, check out what the WMO and GAW are reporting or simply turn on Discovery and watch a few of their specials on it. This article doesn't even mention climate change and characterizes the idea of limiting oil and coal as some kind of political conspiracy (by the way whats their motive?) I agree with him that it is a man made crisis but with good reason, we cannot continue to consume and pollute with impunity. Furthermore he doesn't address the issue that while yes we have a great supply of oil and gas they will one day - sooner rather than later - end. There is virtually no limit to wind/solar energy and if we invest in the resources now to harness those energies then a hundred years from now we won't need oil or coal for energy. The reason we need to limit production and stop drilling new holes is to purposely drive up prices now so we can justify investing in these technologies because us Americans only understand that which affects our wallets. So you make it hurt and you get the nod to do wants needs to be done. On the issue of nuclear power I want to say go ahead, the idea of a meltdown is remote and not a probable threat but where and what do we do with the waste. We can't simply keep hiding it underground - besides the transport of the spent nuclear fuel is 1000 times more threatening than any other pollution that may come out of smoke stacks. If they could address this issue with a real solution then I would be all for it. Coal and oil need to end; its dirty, dangerours, and allows too few players in the world to hold all the cards.

Newt Gingrich really doesn't know what he's talking about. One symbolic example: he talks about "drilling" for oil in "shale-oil deposits". You dont drill for oil in "shale-oil deposits", you painfully dig out something that's not oil at all, or you try to heat in place, over a period of years, to cook out some oil. "shale-oil" is painfully unreatlistic as a solution to our problems.

What we need is what this administration is working towards: renewable electricity from wind and solar, powering plug-in hybrid cars like the Chevy Volt or plug-in Prius.

Newt, and all of the responders, are both correct, and fatally wrong. Example: there is no such thing, technically or legally, as "clean coal". The common fatal error is that we are no longer in the 1970s, when these same arguments arose. In 1991, when I left engineering some sixty power plants, nuclear and fossil, I learned to my horror that 69 engineering department had dropped course work vital to this profession. I recently read articles that foreign engineers are now leaving the US, due to lack of career opportunity. America imports things it no longer produces; this includes talent.

The calendar has flipped. After a career studying every means of advanced power production, i am reasonably certain that our grid will not exist in the coming years. Electricity will become so expensive that it will be beyond most citizens' ability to buy. Your computer will not work. You will have a drastically lower standard of living; your toilet may not work. This is common in other nations; Americans will learn this bitter lesson.

Every generation technology has trade offs, even the green ones. Our litigious nation provides a means whereby one lawyer can completely stop a thousand engineers. So why become an engineer? Ergo, the US now produces 7-8 lawyers for every engineer.

The most vital number that I offer is that it is no longer 1975. That is the year we placed the containment foundation of "my" 1250 MWe nuclear power plant, one of the last. I candidly admit that I knew it would produce spent fuel, radiation, , waste heat and a small waste chemical stream. My large corporation did not worry too much about it. It has powered several states for over a generation. Some day it too will wear out; it's design life was forty years.

America faces political decisions which no longer can be just endlessly debated, electric generation is just one. All technical decisions involve wealth creation, and distribution. A few get rich, many get something, a few may lose. Newt is not a technical person, but he is correct, our energy policies have and are destroying our advanced industrial way of life. They can not continue; it is 2009.

Newt reasonably captures the debate. The posters here decrying "big oil" are just pounding the leftists drum. Hydrocarbons won't be eliminated or even reduced substantially in usage for a long time. So-called "green energy" has nothing like the energy capacity of oil. On the so-called green solutions, one of the most consistent source of energy is hydro. But over 200 hydro dams have been taken out because of depleted salmon runs, so that doesn't "wash" so to speak. Furthermore, there is plenty of hydrocarbon potential, but, and its a big but, the costs of extraction are such that there is no preponderance of cheap fuels any more. Technologies such as EOR, horizontal drllling, UCG etc are useful and expensive. Nat gas needs to be $8 and oil closer to $80 to justify further development. The decline rates in existing production will guarantee $150 - $200 oil in the next few year. So the smart thing is to encourage more exploration and development of recovery technologies which are more efficient so as to cap the costs. Read some Matt Simmons.

On nuclear. The answer is not plutonium but thorium reactors. The research was being undertaken but was killed by the Dims in 1994. Nuclear is the answer for electric generation as much as hydrocarbons are the answer for transportation.

Like most of our big problems the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We need to make gas and electricity affordable for our now able to afford less masses. Unfortunately Newt is spot on about the lawyers and environmentalists stopping almost all of our domestic sources for energy. THEY are the main reason we have these problems. The left seems more intent on eliminating fossil fuels then making energy affordable. Until this changes, the poor and middle class will be "taxed" by extra energy costs. I can't see why they keep voting for leaders that don't look after their financial interests. Last years SHAM vote on offshore drilling is the perfect example of the lack of the left. to care that their citizens receive affordable energy. They follow the trial lawyers and radical environmentalist over the little guy just trying to drive a car and keep the lights on. Talk about out of touch!

Mr. Gingrich is very adept at presenting his or perhaps big oil's agruments. His analysis of nuclear power is off the mark. As many will tell you it is a short term solution to a problem that only gets worse with the amount of waste and how to dispose of it that which only gets worse as time goes on.

This presentation is exactly what lead to his and his party's demise when he lost the speakers position and in the last general election when the Republicians lost both Houses and the White House, they are completely out of touch with mainstream American.

More drilling and tax reduction is not the answer, and he is aware of that and has said so in other forums. Our dependence on fossel fuels is not only short sighted but unnecessary. There are numerous proven alternative fuels and with some of the tax incentives and change in federal laws to support those alternatives along with conservation instead of give in to big oil we could not only end our dependence but find exciting new fuels and sources of renewables.

He is right not one administration has come up with a workable plan to break our dependence on fossel fuels, at least Obama is striking a different chord than the failed policys of Bush/Cheny, who essentially gave in to big oil and its lobby.

If you continue the same policys and get the same results than it is time to make a change and those failed policys are now being challenged and changed. Let's see what happens.

I completely agree with Mr. Gingrich's comment that "we must do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels." But the color of his coat is clear from the fact that his opinion piece completely neglects to mention our greatest domestic energy resource - reducing energy use by increasing energy efficiency. His arguments about "clean coal," and "cost effective shale-oil extraction" are similarly missing equally critical elements. It is true that a "cap and trade" (or preferably a "cap and dividend") regime will increase the cost of adding more CO2 into the environment, but this is what it is designed to do - impose a disincentive to the previously tax-subsidized process of producing CO2-generating energy. It is abundantly clear that we need to change our view that fossil fuels can be cheap again. It will not and it never has been. Our global dependence on fossil fuel has been destroying the habitability of our planet. Only now are the costs becoming undeniably apparent. If we do not act to conserve energy immediately, the cost will only increase. This cost increase will be multiplied by our continued dependence on fossil fuel.
mstocker OCR.org

I completely agree with Mr. Gingrich's comment that "we must do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels." But the color of his coat is clear from the fact that his opinion piece completely neglects to mention our greatest domestic energy resource - reducing energy use by increasing energy efficiency. His arguments about "clean coal," and "cost effective shale-oil extraction" are similarly missing equally critical elements. It is true that a "cap and trade" (or preferably a "cap and dividend") regime will increase the cost of adding more CO2 into the environment, but this is what it is designed to do - impose a disincentive to the previously tax-subsidized process of producing CO2-generating energy. It is abundantly clear that we need to change our view that fossil fuels can be cheap again. It will not and it never has been. Our global dependence on fossil fuel has been destroying the habitability of our planet. Only now are the costs becoming undeniably apparent. If we do not act to conserve energy immediately, the cost will only increase. This cost increase will be multiplied by our continued dependence on fossil fuel.

M. Stocker. OCR.org

Sounds like the old republican line "Drill baby drill??? Bad for us in every way. Coal shale mining devastates the environment. It requires vast amounts of water. We need to find cleaner safer ways to produce energy. We need to use energy more efficiently. Better batteries, solar collectors, and more efficient motors /generators would go a long way to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. That is where our research dollars should go. Save oil and natural gas for use in industrial process to make the products (plastics, fibers, chemicals) we need. Burning them is the lowest use we have for them. Nuclear power plants must be part of the equation. They produce clean electricity. We must recycle spent pellets and find a safe way to store radioactive wastes. It can be done if we have the will to do it. The less fossil fuels we burn the better.

There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. It costs the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. We must do everything in our power to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels especially foreign oil!