Politicos give natural gas, efficiency top billing
Increasing domestic natural gas production and retrofitting buildings to be more efficient should form the basis of a low-carbon U.S. energy policy, according to a statement put out Monday during the Clean Energy Summit.
The summit, held for the second year in Las Vegas, brought together some of the most recognized political figures shaping energy policy, including Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and businessman T. Boone Pickens. Other speakers included Bill Clinton, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Al Gore, and green jobs advocate Van Jones.
The event was organized by the Center for American Progress and the Energy Future Coalition, which jointly put out a memo touting the benefits of natural gas and building efficiency.
The memo says that there is now technology to tap natural gas in so-called nonconventional sources, namely trapped in shale deposits in the U.S. "This creates an unprecedented opportunity to use gas as a bridge fuel to a 21st-century energy economy that relies on efficiency, renewable sources, and low-carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas," according to the memo. (Click for PDF of full text.)
Natural gas can be used to make electricity and as a transportation fuel. The memo recommends investing in natural gas filling stations for large trucks and buses, which are much harder to run from electric batteries than passenger cars. In addition to reducing imports of oil, natural gas burns cleaner than coal, emitting half as much carbon
Efficiency, considered the most cost-effective way to reduce fossil fuel use, was a consistent topic of discussion at the summit as well.
The Center for American Progress and Energy Future Coalition estimated that retrofitting 40 percent of U.S. homes and buildings would save consumers $1,200 a month on energy bills and create 625,000 jobs.
"Energy efficiency should be the first source we turn toward to meet energy demand and reduce consumers' bills" said Reid, who is a key figure in the energy and climate bill being considered by Congress. "It creates more jobs than nearly every other energy investment and the cheapest, cleanest, safest energy is the energy we never have to use."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
In any conference like this, you'll always have a few jokers along with the folks with real ideas. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
A 1000 MW coal power plant annually produces 6,200,000 tons of CO2, 20,000 tons Sulfur Dioxide, 20,400 tons of Nitrogen Oxides, 1000 tons of Particulates, 250,000 tons of Ash, 386,000 tons of Sludge, 450 pounds of Arsenic, 228 pounds of Lead, 8 pounds of Cadmium, 16 tons of radioactive Uranium and Thorium, and 800 lbs of Mercury.
The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor would fuel a 1000 MWe power plant for 1 year with 1000 kg of Natural Thorium and generate 1000 kg of waste, 83% of which is valuable for industrial instrumentation, agricultural irradiation and medical cancer treatment and diagnostic imaging. The remaining 170 kg of radioactive waste only needs containment for 300 yrs. The Coal Power Plant thorium waste would run the equivalent Thorium Nuclear Power Plant for 11 years.
As for Natural Gas, it makes much more sense to convert it to Methanol, which costs 7 cents a litre for the conversion, and has double the energy density of NG @ 3,000 psi. It also burns at double the efficiency of a gasoline engine in simpler modification of a standard TDI diesel for spark ignition and port fuel injection. And store it in a flimsy, light plastic fuel tank rather than a massive, heavy dangerous high pressure gas cylinder. The EPA estimates using Methanol as a fuel would reduce fire injuries and deaths by 95% due to its difficulty to ignite and its soft, cool, clean burning flame.
Waste generated that must be protected for essentially ever.
100 billion in subsidies since 1947
Price-Anderson Amendment makes the taxpayer the insurer of these plants, no private company would dare take the risk
Decommissioning costs, security costs, uranium scarcity and increasing cost
Ten year span to build a plant
The real reason nuclear power is not a viable option is simply economics- they cost to much to build given the return on investment. Ontario just canceled plans to build two plants because the only viable bid they received was for over 26 billion! Concentrated solar thermal plants are a bargain by comparison. Sadly nuclear power has become the most costly way to generate electricity.
Absolute nonsense, nuclear waste can be disposed of in deep seabeds, oceanic trenches or stored in salt domes. LWR waste is safe after 10,000 yrs, unlike your favorite 10,000 times the mass Coal Power plant waste or thousands of other chemicals used in industry which last forever. It can be burned up in burner reactors, which your pseudo-environmentalist brethren have blockaded all funding.
?? 100 billion in subsidies since 1947??
Wrong. $65 billion total 1950 to 2006, includes military & fusion R&D, only $6 billion for actual LWR research (the only power reactors used in the USA). For Wind, Solar & Geothermal power subsidies over the same period are $52 billion. So even taking the total $65 billion number, the subsidies for Nuclear are 25% greater than the Wind, Solar Geothermal subsidies but supply 19 times the energy or Return on Investment of 16 times that of Wind/Solar/Geothermal.
??Price-Anderson Amendment makes the taxpayer the insurer of these plants, no private company would dare take the risk??
Wrong. Nuclear power plant operators buy their own insurance. Price-Anderson only caps the level at an exceedingly high level that likely will never be reached. The Taxpayer pays ALL insurance on Coal Power deaths ? at least 300,000 in the past 10 yrs in the USA alone ? military costs & deaths due to Oil Wars ? Hydro Damn bursts which have caused thousands of deaths and $billions in property damages
??Decommissioning costs, security costs, uranium scarcity and increasing cost??
More nonsense, decommissioning & security costs are small, there is no scarcity of Uranium.
??Ten year span to build a plant??
They were built in 3 yrs before the Coal Lobby?s own NRC (Nuclear Refusal Commission) took over licensing from the AEC. Chinese reactors are being built in under 3 yrs and the future small modular reactors will be factory produced, which means considerably less installation time than Wind Turbines or Solar Farms.
??The real reason nuclear power is not a viable option is simply economics- they cost to much to build given the return on investment. Ontario just canceled plans to build two plants because the only viable bid they received was for over 26 billion! Concentrated solar thermal plants are a bargain by comparison. Sadly nuclear power has become the most costly way to generate electricity??
What a load of Crap! The Hyperion Nuclear reactors are selling for $1,400 per kwe and $500 per kwth. No renewable even comes remotely close to that. Westinghouse sold four 1.2 GW nuclear power plants to China for $5.5 billion. This is the actual cost of the power plants ? take away your NRC roadblocks put there by the Fossil Fuel lobbies. USA new nukes are coming in at around $5,000 per kw, with zero supply chain established yet. Pre-NRC nukes came in at about $1000 per kwe in 2007 dollars, with Quad Cities built for $680 per kwe 2007 dollars. The Coal to Nuclear Pebble Beds will cost $1000 per kw to replace the Coal Burner with a Pebble Bed reactor. Even the First-of-a-kind Darlington ACANDU?s with initial cost includes the development cost, is C$26 billion for 2400 kwe = C$10,800 per kwe. Your Concentrated Solar Thermal Power plants are coming in at US$4000 to $5000 per pk kw with no energy storage. At a typical 21% capacity factor that works out to US$19,000 to US$24,000 per kwe. And that?s for extraordinarily Centralized Power production way out in the Desert where it?s not needed.
In Ontario:
??.Developers of multi-megawatt solar projects, meanwhile, said a tariff of 44.3 cents for power from large solar farms still wouldn't make such initiatives economical enough to proceed. One solar industry executive, who didn't want to be named, cited a tight capital market and poor exchange rate for the concern. "The math still does not work," he said. "We are angry because the various government agencies kept telling us not to make waves, that the new numbers would play into the developers' favour. All are feeling shafted." ??
44.3 cents per kwh isn?t enough!!! That works out to $44,000 per kw financed with a 5%, 17 yr bond. For something that only lasts 20 yrs vs Nuclear lasting 60-100 yrs. For intermittent, unreliable power that is lowest in the Winter when power needs are highest. Incredible stupidity.
ACTIONS -- FAR SUPERIOR IRRATIONIONAL SCREAMING AND TAUNTS
AN ARDENT ENVIRONMENTALIST - WITH FUNCTIONAL BRAIN & HEART
- by sslPro August 14, 2009 7:52 AM PDT
- Great , keep up the discussion advocate the do-able ,logical alternatives and promote
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)attaining good results. I live a greener lifestyle low utilities because I want that to be the case
ie gas water & electric for under $100 mo/for 4--- be the person others emulate don't produce
9 lbs of garbage a day try limiting to 4/5 lbs Don't fly unless absouloutly necessary , pick up litter.
If everyone stopped wasting so much & behaved responsibily it would make the region you live in
better.