Skip to main content

The Energy Bill at Triple Speed

By

As you may have heard, the climate change bill, your gateway to the world of cap-and-trade, successfully made its way out of the House Energy Committee – on its way to Ways and Means, Transportation, even Agriculture, the “cows doing what they do” people (in Rep. John Boehner’s memorable phrase). You can read more about the bill’s passage here.

But since this is Friday, and leading into a long weekend at that, here’s a fun sidelight to the climate change bill. Fearful that the Republicans would insist on a reading of the 900-page bill as a stalling tactic, the Democrats hired a speed reader. It didn’t happen, but our friend Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) didn’t want the day to slip away without hearing what the speed reader could do. That’s what happens here.

Enjoy - and Happy Memorial Day.

 

Comments

Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus said…
I do not agree with all this madness about climate change from fossil fuel CO2 gas emissions. Dr. Jerry Pournelle said it best at:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q2/view571.html#climate

"Without lower energy costs we will not climb out of our depression. It is important to make it clear that the debate is not over, there is no real scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and destroying the economy in order to reduce CO2 output in the United States is all cost with almost no benefit. That debate must continue; and you may be certain, absolutely certain, that those who try to keep this a debate will be labeled 'deniers' and denigrated as fools."

Now yes, I am definitely pro-nuclear, and no, fossil fuel plants do NOT have a right to use the atmosphere as their sewer. BUT, this whole thing about climate change is still disputed.

I don't believe in any cap and trade system. rather, level the regulatory playing field. Just as nukes have to sequester their radioactive wastes, so also should fossil fuel plants have to sequester their wastes of combustion. No govt money for any source of energy. Just a level regulatory playing field. Solar and wind wouldn't be able to compete without govt subsidies. Coal and gas wouldn't be able to sequester their wastes, so they'd have to shut down. Nukes would win hands down.

Instead of common sense, our congress critters come up with cap and trade. Horse manure.
May 23, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Anonymous said…
How is insisting that the legislation you are voting on be read a stalling tactic. Aren't you supposed to read everything you sign? We know every rep doesn't have time to read it on their own.

To me, hiring a speed reader is insulting the legislative process.
May 26, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more