An energy bill Randy Kuhl could vote for
After a wonderful trip to Brazil where Congressman Kuhl discovered among other things that the Brazilian government mandates 50 mpg cars and a percentage of sugar ethanol usage in gasoline. The energy bill he supported becomes law and none of those concepts are in the bill.
WooHoo - We give tax breaks for the oil companies and in 13 years our fuel standard goes to 35 miles per gallon. I wonder how many loop holes there are in the 35 mph requirement?
Check out these two paragaphs from the Washington post article.
White House press secretary Dana Perino gave credit to Bush, saying he “pushed Congress to pass this legislation all year.” But congressional Democrats said they had withstood veto threats by the White House as well as heavy lobbying by automakers and coal companies before ultimately preserving much of what they wanted in the legislation.
[snip]
For farmers and agribusiness, it is a windfall, providing more support than perhaps even the farm bill. It doubles the use of corn-based ethanol — despite criticism that corn-based ethanol is driving up food prices, draining aquifers and exacerbating fertilizer runoff that is creating dead zones in many of the nation’s rivers.
Oil and coal companies get what they want. We get higher food prices and environmental issues.
Thanks Randy.
See you in November.
Great post…I’m a writer/editor covering renewable energy and I have been following the news on the energy bill as part of that. By and large upstate’s congressional and senate reps voted for the bill. I don’t know the exact numbers off hand. The most important thing however is that the Democrats are vowing to revisit the issue in 2008.
We will most likely see a stronger energy policy with more funding for things like sugar ethanol as well as taxes on carbon emissions. Just a note though, sugar ethanol isn’t really a viable option in this country, hence the ridiculousness of Kuhl’s trip. Push for solid biomass ethanol to be included in your gasoline, it’s much more abundant in this region.
Happy Holidays all!!
I probably should have mentioned that solid biomass is things like waste wood, landfill materials and sewage materials…
again Happy Holidays!
Thanks -
Ultimately we need a varied sources of alternative fuels. I’m sure in some parts of the country, sugar might make sense, others maybe corn, or still other areas something different.
Yes, we basically will need to take advantage of the various climates we have in this country to create fuels and electricity. Unfortunately in the short term part of the solution will have to remain fossil fuels and most likely nuclear.
There are advancements in all renewable energy and fuel technologies everyday…and not to push my site on everyone, but check out…
http://www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com
We’re the number one source for renewable energy and fuel news and information. We publish a free twice weekly newsletter. Thanks.
Holy Crap! I used to read you guys every freaking day!!!
Before local politics and 3 kids took over my life, that is.
If I were a politician, from local to state level, I would work to build a fund to help offset the installation of home and commercial geothermal systems. I had an estimate done 3 years ago and the breakeven point to having it pay for itself was 5-7 years. (vs. my current heating via natural gas)
If we could get that breakeven point to <5 years, I think I could convince a whole lotta people to jump on board.
Given your expertise, what do you think about that? Does the idea have any merit whatsoever?
Thanks for the site I’ll check it out
I’d have to disagree if you are talking about new generation plants especially Nuclear power. I’m not convinced that we need to start building new nuclear plants. They take too long and we have to deal with the waste later on. In my mind it is like drilling in ANWAR - there is oil there but it will take too long to extract it. Instead, let’s focus the resources on actually solving the problem rather than delaying it.
But, until Congress is actually focused on solving the problem instead of passing an energy bill which continues to put oil (21 billion in breaks) over alternative sources - fossil fuels are part of the plan.
Just to be clear. We should reduce and use our current fuel sources much smarter than we do now.
There are states in the country that are looking into/already giving tax breaks/credits for personal solar and wind systems but as far as I know there aren’t really any programs out there for geothermal.
I could discuss this all day but the reality is that nothing like that will happen until two things happen, first, personal energy technology must become cheaper and more easily accessible. Second, we need a new administration…and I know no one will like this, but even the Republican candidates are better on renewables than Bush.
So for the time being keep conserving energy and keep pushing local/state politicians to support wind, solar, geothermal and biomass projects like the landfill-to-energy plant that is planned for Auburn.
A couple personal energy tech questions (links to articles are great if you have them).
1) Do you see the cost/watt of solar going below $1 anytime soon?
2) Is suburban/urban home wind generation on the horizon? I’m talking non-tower based, sit-right-on-the-rooftop wind generators.
3) My wife is leery of getting any kind of alt-e home system, because it seems it’s like being an owner of an early automobile, you have to be a mechanic/plumber/electrician to maintain it. Compared to our furnace where you just have to change the filter and it just works. Is that your opinion or have things evolved/stabilized?
Oh, and thanks for reading RT!
I’ll just answer your questions in order…
1. There are several companies working toward that goal namely Nanosolar who actually just shipped thier first panels yesterday. They believe they can make the cost/watt $0.99 in the near future.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50926
2. Roof mounting of wind turbines is a bit tricky and probably not all that realistic right now, mostly because of how homes are built and cities are laid out.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=45725
3. There are a lot of people out there who have had systems installed who aren’t tech savy…we don’t generally cover this area a lot but for more information you can check this out…
http://www.homepower.com/
And I like reading RT, it helps me keep up on things in my hometown.
That’s the small eyed approach of Randy Kuhl that does get bought by the American public and the rest of the world. It’s not sugar for some, corn for others, switch grass, wood chips and sewage for the rest of us.
A global approach to finding alternatives through bio, nuclear or fossil research needs to be developed that will allow for not only decreased dependence on oil and gas in this country, but offer a global approach to decreased dependence world-wide that offers a clean and cost efficient as well as eco-friendly technologies that can offer a world-wide solution to the problems as they currently exist.
Without a global solution, as well as changes to what we accept as the “norm” in heating and transporation, manufacturing and other arenas, we would create pocketed advantages to some, and disadvantages to others both financially as well as resourcefully.
Those who have sugar in plenty have an advantage over those who have none. It’s like the differences now in the price of electric in Fairport vs. being a customer of RG&E.
That will lead to a class system within this country, and across the globe that will encourage corruption and greed and will not provide environmental protections that need to be put into place for the long term stability of our planet, as well as our country.
Travelling to Brazil does not make Randy Kuhl a visionary. He’s grasping for straws and has done little or nothing to incorporate the real strategy that needs to be developed to truly solve this problem. He needs to lead by example, and has failed miserably to prove he is capable of taking on the urgency of the challenges represented to him - challenges he was elected to work towards resolve.
Instead, he visited and stayed at all the best of the best Brazil has to offer without being able to produce receipts on the taxpayer dime. This is in no means providing favor for those at home.
See you in November indeed.
[...] You can read my take here. It is worth a reread. [...]
[...] Let me give you a hand by reminding you that this page was really really pissed at the Energy bill passed by Congress. That my Congressman, Randy Kuhl, initially voted against it because oil companies tax breaks were removed. He, of course, voted for it when oil company tax breaks were restored. [...]
[...] we have had this discusison before you were wrong then as you are wrong now. In the end you got a bill you could vote [...]
[...] their hand up and says Taxes = Profit for the government, or supports a Gax Tax Holiday, or keeps tax breaks for Oil companies like Randy Kuhl, or, again, like Randy Kuhl says, we need to increase supply by drilling in Anwar [...]
[...] Well with the DCCC MIA in the 29th so far. The Patriot Majority just released this ad. Of course, we have been critical of Randy Kuhl’s stance on Big Oil Tax breaks. Remember his Energy Bill vote? [...]