alvdh1's Comments (255)

“I hope Hayworth wins the primary so that a right wing nut job has to run against a moderate Democrat. Arizona is on the cusp of becoming a purple to blue state.”

“Never under estimate the Democratic party's ability to collective ruin every opportunity to unify their grip on power as evidenced by health care reform. They leanred absolutely nothing from the Republican's when it comes to unifying their party and acting as a single politcal force. Instead, it is the same old plotical infighting that is laying the groundwork for their demise in the 2010 mid-term elections. Republican control.

The President needs to lock all of them in one room and give them a collective lashing for screwing up this great opportunity. Unfortunately, he has chosen to be a distant soldier in the battle for health care reform. America gave you a landslide victory hoping for leadership driven change that has been noticeably quiet from your perch. If you allow reform to drift into 2010, it will ensure that it will not pass in any form. Reid also needs to make it perfectly clear that nobody is going home for Thanksgiving or Christmas until reform is passed.

2010 does not have to be a wake up call for the Dems, but the clock is rapidly approaching a point of no return because of their dithering and bickering ways. This is a symptom of how corrupt and influential corporate America has become. The Republicans wage war against Americans on behalf of Corporations and some Democrats wage war against corporations on behalf of American's with some being the key word.”

“Utilties discount rates to commercial users on the back of residential consumers. In essence, the utilities encourage commercial users to squander power by offering significant discounts. Busineses relocate or start up operations to take advantage of lower rates with no incentive to pursue energy efficiency. Once the capacity of the new plant has been absorbed, the process starts over with an application to build a new plant.

The alternative is the Independent Service Operator (ISO) model used in California. The grid in California is owned by the ISO and they purchase power from all of the producers small and large and resell it to the consumers. Prices fluctuate based on demand at any given point of time. For example, rates are lower during the night and higher during the day. If you run your electric dryer during peak demand period, you are going to pay more for the electricity.

California passed feed-in tarrifs at the end of September which will allow residential and business producers to install solar, wind and biomass and receive a check at the end of the month for excess power sold into the grid. New coal and nuclear plants would have a very difficult time competing or getting financing in this market. The stage has been set in California for this model to replace the GROR structure in the rest of the country. This is where the next grassroots movement needs to organize to stop dirty coal from spreading.”

“Excuse me!!!!!! The environmentalists did not stop nuclear power. The principal reasons are specifically related to multiple economic events. Three Mile Island not only spooked Wall Street, but it also spooked regulators, investors and citizens. It cost nearly 2 billion dollars to construct and produced power for a short period of time and then stopped producing power after the fire and explosion. It was not a good return on investment.

While this unfortunate scenario was unfolding, the Washington State Nuclear Whoops Bond failure was well underway. The utility defaulted on their bonds due to cost overruns coupled to the fact that they were building 4 new plants without enough demand to support all of the proposed power supply. Every nuclear power plant constructed in the U.S. was victim of massive cost overruns and came in behind schedule.

Wall Street hasn't invested a thin dime in nukes since 1980. While environemntalists may have slowed the permit process on some of the later plants, they never prevented a nuke from being constructed. Once the permitting process had been cleared, the construction delays and cost overruns were primarily the result of design, material supply problems, unrealistic estimating of construction costs and the change orders to correct the design deficiencies.”

“This is a great success story at the grassroots level coupled to the Minnesota PUC's decision to stick future GHG costs onto the investors. There are a few lessons to be learned from all of this as a means to redress the externalized costs of burning coal. First, grassroots organizations are and have been effective against highly centralized polluting power stations. Perhaps, an alternative grassroots movement could emerge to replace the the Guaranteed Rate Of Return (GROR) investor owned utility model utilized in 48 states. The structure is antiquated because it encourages wasteful power production and an ever growing expansion of new plants based on the wasteful formula of discounting rates to large commercial users of power at the expense of residential consumers.

This model is largely risk free to the utility when they are afforded a GROR from the rate setting bodies of Public Utility Commissions (PUC's). A utilitiy applies for a permit to build a new coal fired power plant from the regulatory agencies ranging from the EPA, State and the PUC. Once they recieve approval, construction commences and upon completion the plant goes into operation. The PUC becomes the primary regulatory body setting and adjusting rates based on construction and fuel costs and power demand with one aim in mind - which is to ensure a GROR for the utility.

The utility, in turn, sets rates per kilowatt hour in order to create demand for the new power supply which include wholesale, commercial and residential rates.

Continued”

“As soon as you agree to be taxed to death. Nuclear power has been born out of 100% government subsidies on the backs of ratepayers - which is code for double taxation. We don't need anymore nukes nor can we afford them. Instead of smirking at Kerry, you might consider looking at the history of the economics associated with nukes.

Subsidies:

Uranium Mining
Mine reclamation
Fuel Processing
Fuel Fabrication
Fuel Transportation
Security
Plant Construction Via Loan Guarantees
Waste Disposal
Plant Decommissioning
NRC
Research
Price Anderson Act
New Plants $575,000,000 per year per plant for loan guarantees and production tax credit.”

“After inventing the H-Bomb, Dr. Teller emerged as a fanciful lunatic when he proposed building a new Panama Canal using hydrogen bombs. He wasn't satisfied with just proposing that environmental blunder. He also proposed liquifying the Colorado oil shale with H-Bombs and until his lasp gasp of air he maintained that there were no inherent dangers associated with blowing stuff up with atoms or that nulcear power had any inherent health or safety problems over the entire nuclear fuel cycle. The man was oblivious to anything biological except killing it. You might want to come up with another person.”

“As long as you get your information from Fixed News, then you will be safe in saying that acting will accomplish nothing. If, instead, you take your head out of the sand long enough to see the global transformation occuring in the area of energy efficiency and alternative energy, then perhaps acting would make a difference. As long as you are locked in your paradigm of the stauus quo, then nothing will change in your world while the rest of us race past you.”

“Your post defies logic. We have gone from 285 ppm in 1850 to 380 pmm CO2 today. This represents a 32% increase. Yet, you have managed to interpret this as a zero change. I am glad we are back to the fuzzy math of the Bush administration.”

“In addition, the fallacy of your arguement Mr. Sparrow is that you assume that transitioning to a green economy can only occur through taxes. Investors have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into energy efficiency and alternative energy for the specific purpose of making a profit. Confusing taxation with with profit motive distorts the true nature of human greed and altruism wich can and does co-exist with making a buck.

Contrary to your oversimplified castigation of taxation, the nuclear, coal, utility, oil and natural gas industries are the fruits of your taxes. I would encourage you to examine the nuclear power industry to see just how extensive taxpayer ownership is of this industry is and ask yourself why Wall Street hasn't invested a thin dime in nuclear since 1980 and has poured hundreds of billions into energy efficiency and alternative energy.

It seems that ranting is more interesting to you than doing research into how conventional energy sources have been socialized and the profits privatized. Worse yet, the poisons produced from conventional energy sources have been externalized on the enevironment and society. When you start clamouring over this travesty, you will truly understand the difference between the old and new economy.”

“I love it when neophytes, such as yourself, make statistical forecasts based on gobbledegook.

Brownsferry Alabama nuclear accident
Three Mile Island nuclear accident
Enrico Fermi nuclear accident
Windscale England nuclear acident
French Nuclear Program disaster as reported in the March 23, 2009 Alternet article
Hanford Nuclear Reservation waste spill
West Valley New York Reprocessing Plant/Superfund Site
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Mess
Planned and Unplanned Releases from all 104 U.S. operating nuclear power plants
Chernoble nuclear accident

Sounds like you are scoring a zero and the asteroids are winning the battle.

I can numerous other accidents, but I am limited to so many words here.”

“How do you get immediate and a 10 year construction schedule into the same sentence? How do you align ecological with the production of the most toxic substance known to man with half lives ranging from a few seconds to 24,000 years? Does our economic future mean we have to concentrate enormous power into a handful of utilities who can pass massive cost overruns onto the ratepayers while still being guaranteed a rate of return on their investment with the taxpayer picking up the rest of the tab through loan guarantees and subsidizing the entire nuclear fuel cycle? If nuclear is such a great prospect for our economy, then why did Wall Street stop funding them in 1980? The EPR reactor designed by the French Company Areva and under construction in Finland is 3 years behind schedule and $3,000,000,000 over budget with a capital B. The same reactor design is being promoted in Maryland and Georgia with the utilities wanting to build them with zero risk on the backs of the ratepayers, taxpayers via a shell LLC with zero liability risk to the parent utility company. This all sounds like an ideal scam with everyone carrying the financial risk but the utility.”

“I think you are dreaming in reverse, if you think nuclear is a viable alternative.

Nuclear power is subsidized throughout the entire nuclear fuel cycle - from mining to disposal. Oh, I forgot. The waste is being stored on site. The nuclear industry has received over $150,000,000,000 in government subsidies not including the liability protections under the Price Anderson Act. The proposed loan guarantees in the 2007 Energy Bill could amount to $575,000,000 per year per reactor for the nuclear production tax credits and loan guarantees according to Constellation Energy- one of the largest nuclear utilities in America. These subsidies do not include the nuclear fuel cycle subsidies.

Fortunately, the 2007 loan guarantees have recieved zero interest from Wall Street from a nuclear investment perspective. Wall Street cut off the nuclear industries insatiable thirst for money in 1979. Therefore, massive government subsidies coupled to massive rate increases on the back of ratepayers is the only avenue available to build nukes in America.

You might want to rethink your intemittent green energy theory after I completely disable it in my next post.”

“You are referring to the Heritage Foundation study which has been totally debunked. Spain does not have 100% back up for it wind power.
Once energy, especially dirty fossil fuel energy, is properly priced, all of your already meaningless stats will be obsolete. The U.S. utility externalizes the social and environmental costs on people and the environment. These costs don't show up on your utility bill, but they are costs nonetheless. They show up in property destruction from acid rain, shortened life spans and higher medical costs. Reduced agricultural production form pollution and contaminated water in fishing area of the ocean are additional externalized costs.

Being the expert you think you are, it should be easy to tabulate these externalized costs and add it to the kilowatt hour cost on your utility bill.
In a report conducted by the National Academy of Science, Institute of Health, National Academy of Enegineering and National Research Council, the non climate damage in the U.S. for burning fossil fuels for electricity and transportation totaled $120,000,000,000 in 2005. The effects on fisheries and agriculture was not included in the study or the costs. Those costs could easily dwarf the $120,000,000,000.

Solar and wind had minimal costs associated with health.”

“whine about!!!!


With regard to Spain, how do you explain an increase of 1,600 megawatts in wind capacity for 2009? I don't have the number for solar yet, but I will find it and post it below as a reply. All of this stuff is easy to find on the internets, so you might want to do some fact checking before you post mis-information. Spain has a total installed wind capacity of 16,000 megawatts through 2008. They started their wind program in the late 90's which would give them an average annual installation rate in excess of 1,400 megawatts per year. They now produce 30% of their energy needs through alternative energy. America had 25,000 megawatts of wind at the end of 2008 and it accounted for a paltry 1% of electricity in the U.S..”

“I suspect that you invest in oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas at the pump and via your utility bills. In essence you are putting your money where your mouth is and Al is putting his money where is mouth is. This is America - which is a capitalist country. I would be concerned if he wasn't investing in clean green energy. In order to make the transition away from carbon fuels, it will require the financial efforts of individuals, businesses and government. The Al Gore profiting from climate change is a smeer campaign from the climate change deniers.

The rest of the world is racing toward clean energy and energy efficiency. In fact, it is likely that China will become the leader in total solar and wind power installations in the next year or so. They are already growing at a faster rate than any other country in the world. They are in the process of leaving us in their technological dust in solar and wind manufacturing as well as LED lighting and you are worried about Al Gore making a profit or putting his money where his mouth is without examining the consequences of relying on finite resources to power our country let alone the environmental legacy we are leaving future generations.

It is time for you to stop whinning about the petty issues surrounding Al Gore's investments and get on board the train or be left at the station - which will really give you something to”

“The most authoritative reporting on this issue came fron Frontline's segment done this April. I have correction from my first post. The cities should have been New York, Washington D.C., Atlanta and San Francisco. I should not have included Boston of Chicago in the list. The estimated total chicken waste production in 2008 was 1.5 billion pounds around Chesapeake Bay according to the Frontline report.”

“The quickest and easiest solution to the problem is to build small modular biomass power plants on or in close proximity to the poultry farms. Biomass systems utilizing combustor and gasifier technology coupled to a gas turbine will burn the waste cleanly while creating biochar as a byproduct. The biochar changes the carbon cycle of chicken waste from a few years to over a thousand years. The biochar can then be used as a soil ammendment which helps the soil retain water and activates microbial activity responsible for soil nutrition. Instead of having massive runoffs into the bay and methane being reased into the atmosphere, electricity is produced and the Bay stops being the public sewer for Perdues profit machine.

I believe the farmers would gladly take on the waste if they could get financial assistance with the small biomass plants and be allowed to sell the electricity into the grid at market rates as a new revenue stream for their farms. The manure in this scenario would become a commodity more valuable in the biomass power plants than as a methane producer in the farm fields or as an unintended fertilizer in the bay. By builidng the power plants on or near every farm, the oil consumed to transport it away would be greatly reduced.

If people would stop for a moment and consider simple non-invasive solultions that create profit incentives for those most in need of it, then we would not have dead or dying bays.”

“The biggest threat to the Chesapeake Bay is chicken manure and urine. The trail of poop leads directly to the front door of Perdue Chickens. Perdue long ago learned to maximize profits by signing contracts with the local poultry farmers in which they provide the chickens and feed to the farmers in exchange for payment fofr raising the chickens. The contracts have one added benefit for Perdue in that the farmers get to own the poop. Thereby, making it the responsibility of the farmers to dispose of the chicken waste.

Everyday the two legged future friars of America create more waste than all of the daily human excrement created in New York City, Atlanta, Chicago and Boston. Runoff into the Chesapeake Bay from the poultry farms and the farm field where tons of the waste has been used as fertilizer, has had the unintended consequence of fertilizing Chesapeake Bay with phophorous and nitrogen. Trace amounts of arsenic and other heavy metals leached from the chicken waste are also added to the pollution dilution process in the bay.

Perdue needs to be responsible for the waste in the contract process. I have called the EPA and other agencies including Perdue with a possible solution, but I have yet to receive a return phone call.”

“Actually, the two bills signed by Arnie were designed to cap the larger installations in order to shift the emphasis toward residential and business installations and away from large scale projects like Chevron's.”

“The concept of feed-in tarrifs is beginning to make progress among legislators. Gainsville Florida, Vermont and now California have passed feed-in tarrifs. As time passes, the concept will catch on as it has in Europe. The net metering laws have not performed as hoped because in most cases, the utilities have been able to write the laws with unreasonable gird interconnect rules. While many states receive passing grades for their net metering laws, most recieve below average grades for the interconnect rules.

This is why a national feed-in tarrif law with a national uniform grid interconnect regulation makes the most sense. Especially, when coupled to the lucrative investment production tax credits available to alternative energy. Solar and wind will be far efficient if developed at the residential and business level with the understanding that they will receive a monthly check for excess capacity sold into the grid.

It will reduce the demand on the grid system because the power will be primarily consumed where it is produced. It diversifies the energy supply making the system more stable and less subject to interruption. It will force coal fired utilities to compete and take older coal fired power plants out of operation if cap and trade is added to the national startegy.”

“We have two utility structures in this country. Guaranteed Rate of Return (GROR) in 48 states and the ISO structure in New York and California.. The biggest impediment to the widespread adoption of alternative energy is the GROR structure. This is a government sponsored utility monopoly designed to enrich the utilities and eliminate consumer choice. It eliminates risk for the utilities by ensuring that they can pass all of their costs onto the ratepayers and still receive a guaranteed rate of return.

GROR fosters waste. It encourages the development of large centralized power stations of the coal variety. The rate srtuctures are then dsigned to reward large commercial users of electricity to waste energy by offering them lower rates than residential customers. Once the capacity of a power plant has been absorbed, they petition the PUC/PSC to build another plant.. In essence, commercial users are rewarded to use more electricity on the backs of residential consumers. The plants necessarily become energy hogs building up for daily power demand curves as opposed to leveling demand.

The ISO prices electricity based on demand. It is a self-regulating form of time of day pricing that encourages the shift in consumption to off peak hours. The ISO is capable of a accomodating feed-in tarrifs more readily than the GROR structure because the ISO buys power from all suppliers and sells it into the market. California passed feed-in tarrifs this week, but has yet to set the tarrif rates.”

“You can listen to these two fellas on today's Diane Rehm show on NPR. The story they share with Diane is fascinating to say the least.”

“The California ISO purchases power at market rates based on supply and demand at any given point during the day. The higher the demand, the higher the rate per kilowatt hour. They do not purchase power from business or residential producers- which is going to change, if Attorney General Jerry Borwn has his way in his current court case to provide feed-in tarrifs in California. Currently, business and residential producers get a credit on their utility bills for the excess capacity fed into the grid under California's net metering law.

Gainsville, Fl and Vermont have passed feed-in tarrifs this year. The Vermont feed-in tarrif pays 30, 20 and 12 cents per kilowatt hour for solar, wind and biomass respectively. Creating federal regional ISO's coupled to feed-in tarrifs would do more to promote alternative energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any other form of legislatio­n-especial­ly if the the investment and production tax credits for alternative energy are left in place until 2016 as planned.

The current ROI utility structure gives zero incentives for utilities to promote energy efficiency when all they have to do is go to their public utility commission to seek a rate hike to build another power plant. It is a vicious cycle for ratepayers when their utility gets a guaranteed rate of return no matter how dirty or inefficient the power plants they build are because they are going to get paid their profit through the rate base.”

“I am sorry Senators Boxer and Kerry, but American cannot take control of its energy future until you end the guaranteed rate of return utility structure enjoyed by utilities in 48 states. This structure eliminates competition and thus choice for consumers. In addition, it promotes unprecedented waste at the expense of energy efficiency. It needs to be replaced with and Independent Service Operation (ISO) where the ISO owns the grid and purchases power from all producers including residential and small business producers of clean, green power at full retail rates either through feed-in tarrifs or a national net metering law. Until this change in law is made, we will be forced to buy coal and nuclear pollution in exchange for electricity.”