Skip to main content

The Energy Bill at Triple Speed

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

Ioannes 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.
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.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …