So Bush is pushing for Cheney's energy bill again...

[salin]

While I haven't followed the development as closely this time around, it seems that the energy bill is in the same exact place it was a year ago. And its all bad.

Did some digging last spring/summer and have a bit of a sense of some of what is in there - and how it relates to the California crisis and how some of the provisions could impact situations to make the big blackout more common, rather than less common. And for a surprise treat... Good ole Ken Lay plays a big old role (even if not active now - remember this whole bill is tied to the energy task force in which he played a major role prior to the Enron meltdown - the House version is about in the exact form, I believe, as the task force recommendations; the senate version softens a few blows - but is still a BAD, BAD (and dangerous) bill; but they were forced to start work with the House version - sort of like starting from destination H*LL and only being able to barely modify the path).

What I have gleened is a very convoluted story. And I am sure there are more sources out there for us to read and get briefed. But we NEED to be knowledgable - this is the admins next big push. Why are they pushing now? Because bush is out fundraising again and has to make promises to deliver to his #1 constituencies (Big Energy) - something beyond some goodies/spoils from Iraq, he has yet to be able to deliver.

Are folks up for some self-teaching over the weekend? I will be out much of today but can be back Saturday afternoon or anytime Sunday to try to share what I know - to find more information - in order for more of us to try to get our hands around key issues. To be informed is to be forarmed. Sadly most people stay away from the issue beyond Anwr (which - by the way is a big part of their political strategy - get all eco groups focused ONLY on the one issue - bargain it away and get the bigger bag of goodies from the American public as a result) - because it is not an area most people know much about, and thus feel they are unable (or they are unwilling) to get informed and get involved.

Anyone up for this? I would love to spearhead such a discussion - but it will take some time/effort to ramp up for it - and would rather only invest that time and energy if there is some DU interest.

BTW here is a little taste - an article our own WillPitt wrote last year during one of the earlier pushes for this toxic energy bill. (the following parts were set aside, iirc, due to the fast moves of the bushadmin to push iraq iraq iraq 24/7). http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/07.10A.wrp.burning.htm

So what do you think? Those with energy interests or expertise - will you join us? Those with a willingness to get acquainted with the issue will you join us? Or is "us" just salin alone - barking up a lonely tree?

[Hubert Flottz]

1. When did he EVER stop?

Mass Vacations cost money!

[gristy]

2. need talking points

I'm willing to commit to calling my senators and representative - though I have to admit the two repukes who represent me (1 Senator and 1 Rep) are about as far right as you can get.

Can you, salin, give me bullet talking points? Or is another DU out there who can find a summary of the bills? Surely there is a summary somewhere.

[salin]

11. Perhaps that should be the goal of the discussion

getting the main gist of what is going on - and then developing some talking points.

have to admit that my forte is getting through some of the heavy issues and noting when something seems important enough to bring several minds together to analyze it (sometimes I see WHAT is important - sometimes my understanding is limited but my logic sensors go off wildly indicating it is something to pick apart).

My forte is not boiling the complex down into clear talking points.

But - there are a number of folks around who are GREAT at that.

Hopefully this can be a community/group project with that goal in mind.

[salin]

17. How about getting the discussion going Saturday afternoon?

we can see where it goes - people can tune in and out - and we can continue on Sunday.

I like the idea - if we can - get to developing some talking points.

Thanks for showing the interest. It is timely and I think it is important.

salin.

OOPS - meant to put this at the bottom of the thread - as a general comment. oh well.

[asjr]

3. energy

Since I believe nothing will stop this administration from getting what it wants, it would be easy for First Energy in Ohio to start a "little" problem. After all, they are big contributors to the WH. Now that the energy bill is being pushed again, they can say to Democrats we have a big problem and you must vote for our energy bill. Never mind that they will not take out any objectionable portions--drilling in Alaska, etc. Democrats will be painted as unpatriotic and not doing what is right for the "people." Maybe I am the only one who thinks this is plausible, but right now I believe it.
If First Energy takes blame, are they going to pay "fines?"

[salin]

12. Without a doubt the admin - even though they were already

pushing on this legislation to get it going again (and doing some arm twisting in the senate) - they WILL use the big crisis and First Energy, in some Orwellian manner, to make their case to push the bill hard.

[WildClarySage]

4. Why do they keep trying to shove

that same smelly diaper up our noses? How many times do we have to tell them where to stick it? We don't want that damn energy bill, George! We don't want it. We don't want it. And all the rolling blackouts, pseudocrises and fear tactics in the world don't change our minds.

Somebody find a shiny toy for George to play with for a while.

[Hubert Flottz]

6. Bush is like a smelly diaper in MANY ways!

GREED is the Motive for the crimes!

[buddhamama]

5. i'm in

i remember that article and your work.

we're going to pay for the transmission to be upgraded.
disgusting. it should have happened a long time ago.
any citizen that doesn't see we're getting screwed is blind.

no new nuclear plants. that is an issue of mine.

[salin]

13. It is a dangerous bill. Glad you are in!

And I am glad you remembered the work (its been more than a year). Sometimes - especially back then - it is/was hard to know if anyone was really reading/thinking about these issues. (It is so easy - for quite some time - at DU to feel anonymous. Thanks for the validation. :D )

Your keen attention - and ability to see where issues fit with other issues/news items - will be great.

Edited title (said dangerous work - as if talking about this was dangerous - what I meant is the BILL is dangerous for the country. Very bad policy).

[buddhamama]

24. indeed.

:scared: strength in numbers :D

i also remember your research/work was in memory/dedication of your father.

i was a lot quieter then so i may not have responded much but i was definitely reading. :thumbsup:

[salin]

28. wow. I am very, very touched

that you remember that. And yes the work - which was a labour of love and not tied to anything else - was inspired by him, his work and his memory.

[sandnsea]

18. yes, but assign the sections

I'll help, but we have to organize this. I can't stand random lookups, drives me crazy to think I'm hunting up stuff others have already found only to found other stuff that hasn't been researched at all.

This is a HUGE bill, lots of bad stuff. 50 nuclear power plants. No CAFE standards. No or little wind power and alternative energy money. I can't even remember what all. It's really awful. And it is NOT the bill the Senate passed last year either, it's HR 6 from the House.

[salin]

19. My understanding

is that it is in conference and that the House bill is unchanged, and that the only way it escaped the senate (after arm twisting from the admin) was for it to revert to the bill that came out of the senate last year.

In other words the two bills going to conference committee - are the same two that went through last year.

[buddhamama]

20. that's correct,salin

the talk of drilling in the Arctic et al.

[sandnsea]

22. I heard them talk about that

But I think Bush is wanting to resurrect HR 6 because last year's bill didn't have ANWR drilling and that's what he's pushing. I bet when they get back in September that compromise is going to be out the window.

[salin]

25. Last year Anwr WAS in the house bill - and not in the Senate

The GOP strategy =

Focus all debate on Anwr - keep it in and push hard so any compromise is focused on Anwr - and that all special interest groups (re: environmental) focus all energy and $$$$$ on fighting Anwr.

Thus - in house fight on Anwr - repubs win - stays in;

in senate - fight on Anwr - dems win - gets out BUT is still in the house bill.

In conference committee (where the two versions of the bill have to be hammered out into a single bill that must then go back and be passed by each house) anwr is in one version (house) and not in the other (senate). ALL citizen activity and special interest acitivity is focused on Anwr. IT is the bargaining chip.

All the rest of the deregulation; increased subsidies for big energy companies; focus on depletable with almost nothing for r&d in renewable energies - all of it - stays in and gets passed.

They are USING anwr - indeed on the hill the feeling is that the GOP doesn't really care about Anwr - it is there solely as strategy.

[sandnsea]

31. I guess that's my point

Why are the Democrats letting them get away with it? There are alot of other things in this Bill that are as bad or worse than ANWR. I don't know why none of the rest of it gets talked about. It's like Democrats don't know that people can think about more than one thing at a time. ANWR and wind energy and nuclear waste and deregulation. This Bill affects the future of power for the country and the Democrats let it get all wrapped up in one controversial issue, ANWR. They need to change the debate and include the whole bill and I can't help but wonder why they aren't.

If I understand you correctly.

[salin]

32. I think they feel besieged

on this and other issues. They pick their battles - and go to win. On Anwr they can get the backing of public opinion and have some repub backers - the issue also plays well for the dems politically.

Until there is more public awareness and outcry on related issues - the gop has the corner of the PR market. EG - they WiLL switch the energy blackout issue that shows the problem of dereg into a reason for more dereg on a national scale. Really. Unless we can help push the story in another direction. That means knowing it - and pushing it into the hands of journalists who are writing related stories.

Sounds like overshooting - but I have witnessed stranger things happen in the past couple of years.

[sandnsea]

35. I'm for adding more dialogue

I think there's other things in this bill that would get people's attention more than ANWR. I hope we're on the same page. I'll get to gathering some info on alternative energy over the next day. I have really got to get some work done, I've done NOTHING today. I haven't even checked my email. Lucky thing I'm my own boss!

[salin]

36. we are VERY MUCH on the same page

I know what you mean. I got back two hours ago with the idea of continuing to work from home... and here I sit...

Thanks for being interested in diving into this!

[buddhamama]

23. i'd be happy

to take the nuclear angle.

Bechtel is in the Nuclear Industry and i have a lot of info on them and the Industry in general.

[salin]

26. great it is what I know the least about.

n/t.

[sandnsea]

27. Efficiencies/Renewables

I'll do that and compare the oil & gas subsidies to what's going into renewables.

And here's a bunch of nuclear links and a pretty good general overview as well, but I think there's more in this bill than even this covers.

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2003/

[gristy]

7. some reading material

Bush's Bogus Blackout Remedy
<snip>
The Blackout puts Bush in the hunt for another triple coup of wrong-headed policies: deliver more money to his favorite campaign contributors in the energy business, continue pushing deregulation, and hype fossil and nuclear fuels.
MORE: www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/34/we_533_01.html

Bush: Power grid standards needed
<snip>
"They need to come together and get an energy plan, an energy bill to my desk as soon as possible," the president said at a $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser in Portland, "an energy bill which will encourage the modernization of the electricity infrastructure of America."
<snip>
In Portland, the president's motorcade route was lined with a few thousand chanting, sign-waving protesters. But Bush appeared unfazed.
MORE: www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/22bush.html

Keep Senate energy bill intact
Neither the Senate nor the House has produced an energy bill that serves the national interest well. But the Senate's is less objectionable and more deserving of passage when Congress meets again in September to reconcile their differences.
The Senate bill's most worthy provision promises a vote on separate legislation that attempts to strengthen the flagging U.S. commitment to reducing carbon dioxide gases that cause global warming. The legislation, sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., would begin to align the United States with the rest of the world on global warming again, despite President Bush's abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming two years ago.

The bill also contains some useful provisions for encouraging renewable energy.

Unfortunately, the Senate missed opportunities to make the bill much better. Proposals for raising fuel mileage standards for automobiles and SUVs, protecting consumers against Enron-like transactions in electricity markets and efforts to strengthen government reviews of public utility mergers all failed. The bill neglects innovative, practical ideas that would promote greater reliance on biomass fuels and a more efficient electrical infrastructure.
MORE: www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/6478861.htm

Bush Wants Congress to Get Moving on Energy Bill
At an impromptu press conference in Waco, Tex., Tuesday morning, President Bush told reporters he's been calling for an energy bill for a long time -- and now is the time for Congress to "move and get something done."

President Bush called the House energy bill a good, "comprehensive" bill, whereas the Senate energy bill was "expedited" by senators who "wanted to get out of town." (What does this mean? gristy isn't sure...)
MORE: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200308%5CPOL20030819b.html

Regional power grid concept flawed
And finally, I read a letter to the editor in my local paper today (need a paid subscription to read on-line, so no link) which criticized the linking of regional grids into one national grid. The writer stated that this action is the centerpiece of energy deregulation and gives electricity producers the ability to "pretend" to sell electricity to anyone else in the country. But with the grids interconnected, one failed small piece (e.g. FirstEnergy in Ohio) can bring a big piece of the whole thing down.

[salin]

14. Excellent items

most of my work (til I dig back in) is a bit dated. Thanks - these will make for a great starting point.

[gristy]

8. kick

:kick:

[buddhamama]

9. this is a good read,imo

the Greg Palast article of last week.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=258&row=0

Before Greg became an investigative journalist He worked with the UN regarding 'energy'issues.

[salin]

15. Maybe if we dig some goodies up - he might be interested

in reading our discussion this weekend.

[buddhamama]

21. Greg was on DemocracyNow this week

can you listen to audio files? i could get you the link.

there were three other gentlemen on the show with him speaking on deregulation. i wish i could remember the name of one of the men. he wrote a book back during the 80s about energy industry. He's an insider who left after becoming disallusioned.

[salin]

29. I would love to hear it - if you can find the link.

thanks.

[buddhamama]

33. okay,salin

i don't know how to transfer audio files :dunce: but here is the DemocracyNow page for Monday. if you click on any of the segments listed you should be able to reach the audio link.

the last two segments are the ones i recommend.
http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20030818

[buddhamama]

10. can't forget this bit of corruption

http://www.seen.org/pages/press_releases/EnronFCPA_073003.shtml

insidious!

i recommend using seen as a source for energy info.
if you remember Salin, they carried the Crude Vision story of Bechtel.

that has been updated,btw. it can be found on their site.

[salin]

16. Great!

I will dig through Waxman's site to see if they have any more updated information - same with Public Citizen - both were excellent sources last spring/summer.

[salin]

30. related archived threads

some of the discussions from last year (attempting to link old archived threads)

From June 12 2002: http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=28121&forum=DCForumID35&archive=

Around a sac bee article that highlights some of the problems in the energy bills. (link to article is in first post).

A discussion thread (okay - mostly me discussing) - with more information on the bills from waxman's office (info links on the first post of the thread). http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=28347&forum=DCForumID35&archive=#23

Here is a group that did tons of work on the California energy crisis and on Enron: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org

Last year USPirg did an analysis of the two bills: http://www.uspirg.org/reports/pirg_analysis_final.pdf

Also check out Public Citizen - they have been a wealth of good info.

[buddhamama]

34. i have to sign off now

but i will be back tomorrow and will check in with this thread.

have a good night. :hi:

[salin]

37. Thanks for helping

get this moving - and thanks for the Democracy Now link. I look forward to the discussion tomorrow!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. kick!

me too!

[salin]

39. Todays WP - gives the Bush frame: the energy crisis is because dems

prevented the energy bill from passing (essentially).

Here is the LBN thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=79644

[buddhamama]

40. good morning !

first article of the day

Bechtel's Nuclear Nightmares

Special Series
By Pratap Chatterjee
Special to CorpWatch
May 1, 2003


Last month, the San Francisco-based Bechtel Corporation won a $68 million contract to rebuild Iraq following the devasation wrought by the US invasion. Bechtel is notorious for having friends in high places, perhaps explaning how they got the contract in the first place. The privately owned corporation has operated with impunity, whether siphoning off millions of taxpayer dollars from government contracts or poisoning the communities surrounding their ventures. In the second part of our series we look at the enviromental and human right impacts of just a few of Bechtel's operations.

San Onofre, California, has a 950-ton radioactive problem: a nuclear reactor built by Bechtel that nobody wants. The unit was shut down over a decade ago in 1992 by its owners, Southern California Edison, who preferred not to spend $125 million in required safety upgrades.

The only place that will accept the reactor is a dump in South Carolina but railway officials refused to transport the cargo across the country. The next suggestion was to ship it via the Panama Canal but the canal operators said no. So did the government of Chile when the power plant owners asked for permission to take it around the Cape of Good Hope.

The only option left is to ship it all the way around the world, although even that is looking unlikely as harbor officials in Charleston, South Carolina, are already suggesting that they may deny the reactor entry. Edison officials are currently desperately looking for a port that might accept the toxic cargo before the dump shuts its doors in 2008.

Part of a Pattern
This is, by no means, the only nuclear headache created by Bechtel. The company estimates that it has built 40% of the United States nuclear capacity and 50% of nuclear power plants in the developing world. That accounts for 1,200 reactor years at 150 nuclear power plants. Indeed, Bechtel is still building nuclear reactors including the 1,450 megawatt nuclear reactor in Qinshan, China.

In fact, the world's first nuclear reactor to generate electrical power was completed just over 50 years ago by a team of Bechtel engineers in the sagebrush desert of southeastern Idaho under contract to the federal government. The 100-kilowatt EBR-1 was completed on December 21, 1951, ushering in the dawn of commercial nuclear power. Bechtel was quick to capitalize on its newfound nuclear expertise.

"Nobody doubted that nuclear energy could work. The real question was, could anyone make a profit in it?" recall the authors of Bechtel: Building a Century , the coffee table book that the company produced to mark the company's 100th anniversary in 1998.

The question is deeply ironic for ratepayers in California who are still paying for the financial bills and the environmental costs of the San Onofre nuclear power plant, which has two reactors that are still generating power.

--snip-- http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6669


The Senate's version regarding nuclear power is worst than the House's.

[buddhamama]

49. lest we forget--

"Bechtel's Friends in High Places"
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6548

[buddhamama]

41. "Nuclear Renaissance or Nuclear Nightmare?"

Thought the Nuclear Power Industry was Dead? Guess again. The Bush Administration is Breathing New Life into Commercial Nukes.

By Karl Grossman
Special to CorpWatch
October 23, 2002

--snip--

"Nuclear Globalization
Meanwhile, as it prepares for its hoped-for "renaissance," the nuclear industry has globalized:

British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has purchased Westinghouse (the worlds largest reactor manufacturer) and ABB/Combustion Engineering (itself the product of an earlier merger of the Swedish ABB and the U.S. corporation Combustion Engineering).

Siemens, the largest reactor builder in Germany, and Framatome, with a monopoly on construction of French reactors, announced their intent to merge most aspects of their nuclear businesses.

General Electric (the world's second largest reactor manufacturer after Westinghouse) joined with Mitsubishi to build new atomic plants in Japan.

Minatom, the giant Russian state-owned nuclear entity, is moving to build new nuclear plants in Russia and internationally.
A handful of giant multinational energy corporations are positioning themselves to become "the robber barons of the 2lst Century," says Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service/World Information Service on Energy-Amsterdam (NIRS-WISE Amsterdam). Mariotte added that "perhaps no industry is embracing globalization quite so fervently," in a field "where the stakes are highest, where the threats to all life are most at risk."

Paul Gunter, head of the organizations Reactor Watchdog Project, who attended the "Nuclear Renaissance" conference in Washington, said rather than a renaissance, what is involved is "a relapse into the failed nuclear energy policy" of the past."

--snip--

"Corporate Welfare
Also making a presentation at the "Nuclear Renaissance" conference was Westinghouse Vice President for New Plants Ernie H. Kennedy who described "the post-TMI phase" for the nuclear industry as a "collapse of new plant orders, cancellation of existing orders" and "sharply increasing O&M costs." But, he said, the nuclear industry in the 1990s had been busy "getting the house in order" and "preparing for the renaissance 2000s." Now, said Mr. Kennedy, there is "slow but sustained improvement in public acceptance" and "improved political support."

Gail H. Marcus, Bush administration appointee as principal deputy director of the U.S. Department of Energy, who is also president of the pro-industry American Nuclear Society, began her presentation by quoting from report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. She said new nuclear power plants would be built under a "cost-shared" arrangement between the federal government and utilities. This will be combined, she said, with the Department of Energys "Early Site Permit" or expedited nuclear plant process on three projects soon to be advanced.

The "cost-shared" and "Early Site Permit" arrangements will be initially used in construction by:

Dominion Energy for new nuclear plant at the current North Anna nuclear plant site in Virginia

Entergy for a new nuclear plant at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant site in Mississippi

Excelon for a new nuclear plant at the Clinton nuclear plant site in Illinois.
Marcus said the new plants were expected to come on line by 2005 and some, or all, of the "advanced" nuclear plant would be deployed by 2010."

--snip-- http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4528

[buddhamama]

42. limited liability

this is important deals specificly with the Price Anderson Act contained in both Bills but far worse in the Senate's version.

--snip--

"A key object of the new corporate set-ups, says Scott Cullen, executive director of the East Hampton, New York-based STAR, is in a nutshell, to avoid liability. The nature of a limited liability corporation," said Cullen, an attorney, "is to insulate the owners and stockholders from liability in the event of litigation or some sort of accident."

"We are not saying that limited liability corporations in and of themselves are bad. But we are saying that the ownership of ultra-hazardous machines by limited liability corporations is extremely problematic," Cullen explained.

"The idea is to buy these things cheaply and to run them basically on skeleton crews thereby reducing operation and maintenance costs-to run these things into the ground," says Paul Gunter, head of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the Nuclear Information & Resource Service/World Information Service on Energy-Amsterdam.

The conclusion of Financial Insecurity: "Over the last ten years, the ownership of an increasing number of nuclear power plants has been transferred to a relatively small number of very large corporations. These large corporations have adopted business structures that create separate limited liability subsidiaries for each nuclear plant, and in a number of instances, separate operating and ownership entities that provide additional liability buffers."

"The limited liability structures being utilized are effective mechanisms for transferring profits to the parent/owner while avoiding tax payments. They also provide a financial shield for the parent/owner if an accident, equipment failure, safety upgrade, or unusual maintenance need at one particular plant creates a large unanticipated cost. The parent/owner can walk away, by declaring bankruptcy for that separate entity, without jeopardizing its other nuclear and non-nuclear investments."

--snip-- http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4529

[buddhamama]

43. Public Citizen

letter to the Senators

Oppose the Senate Energy Bill

Letter to Senators Regarding the Energy Policy Act of 2002

Source: Public Citizen
Posted: April 11, 2002



Editor: Public Citizen sent out the following letter endorsed by various consumer, public interest and environmental organizations, to all U.S. Senators on April 9, 2002.

Senator,

Upon returning from recess, the Senate is expected to resume debate on the massive energy legislation, S. 517, the Energy Policy Act of 2002. The bill was seriously flawed to begin with, and it has only gotten worse since the Senate began debating it. Amendments that would have benefited consumers, taxpayers, public health or the environment have failed miserably. Amendments to reward and pamper giant energy corporations, on the other hand, have passed with comfortable majorities. As representatives of consumer, public interest and environmental organizations, we are saddened and alarmed at the prospect of S. 517's passage for many reasons, including:

The bill buys a one-way ticket to Enronworld by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), the federal government's most important mechanism to protect electricity consumers. In the wake of the collapse of energy giant Enron, consumers need more regulatory protection from the energy industry, not less.

--snip--

"S. 517 seeks to prop up the beleaguered nuclear power industry with $1.3 billion over four years in direct subsidies, another billion in tax breaks, and a reauthorization of the industry's taxpayer-backed insurance subsidy scheme, the Price-Anderson Act."

--snip--

"There also appears to be a consensus among senators that they must support energy legislation lest they get blamed for some future energy "crisis," reminiscent of last year's California fiasco. Yet supply interruptions and skyrocketing energy prices in California were caused by deregulation, and S. 517 further deregulates the energy industry by repealing PUHCA. Should similar circumstances flare up in the future, it will very likely will be because of the policies both ignored by and contained in S. 517."

--snip-- http://www.corpwatch.org/bulletins/PBD.jsp?articleid=2277

[buddhamama]

44. the significance of the Price-Anderson Act

Nuclear power as we know it wouldn't exist today without the P-A Act.

The Senate's Bill allows for further weakening on this Act-- in regards to new Nuclear plants--as bad as it was to begin with.

[Pepperbelly]

45. drilling ANWR will prevent blackouts?

These guys never cease to amaze me.

:eyes:

[salin]

50. The think that Americans are stupid and have logic capacity

and sadly with media echochambers taking their message, and many Americans being more concerned with making it through the day (and through the economic downturn), many aren't paying attention. It is not that folks buy this ridiculous logic - they are just too warn down to pay attention to this particular issue.

[buddhamama]

46. NIRS review of the Energy Bill

(senate's version) http://www.nirs.org/nuclearrelapse/S14factsheet.htm

[buddhamama]

47. more

this is press release so i'm posting it in its entirety

For Immediate Release

May 1, 2003 202-328-0002


BUSH-CHENEY-DOMENICI ENERGY BILL WOULD GIVE BILLIONS IN TAXPAYER MONEY TO BUILD DANGEROUS, UNNECCESSARY NEW ATOMIC POWER REACTORS


BILL APPROVED BY SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE WOULD SET NATION ON WRONG ENERGY COURSE FOR DECADES


The Senate Energy Committee today approved a comprehensive energy bill that would provide huge new taxpayer subsidies to the nuclear power industry, including direct taxpayer funding of new commercial nuclear reactors—a path that wasn’t chosen even during the gung-ho days of nuclear development in the 1970s.

“The Senate Energy Committee is facing backwards,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). “They are getting ready to throw the public’s hard-earned cash at the most dangerous and most obsolete technology of the 20th century. Instead of attempting to secure a future that will meet our needs for both energy and a clean environment, committee chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) has fashioned a bill that would do little but enrich a few nuclear utilities and reactor manufacturers with the public’s money.

“The Senate Energy Committee would have us believe that spending tens of billions of dollars to help utilities build 6-10 new reactors would be in any way meaningful for our nation’s energy future. Spending that kind of money might be useful—if it were for wind power and other renewable technologies that can provide electricity without producing lethal radioactive waste, threatening communities with atomic meltdown and providing tempting targets for terrorists, as the FBI warned about just yesterday,” Mariotte said.

NIRS noted that while three nuclear utilities are in the process of applying for “early site permits” to build new reactors, that program is being paid for by taxpayer money too. “The utilities aren’t willing to put up their own money to build new reactors,” pointed out Cindy Folkers of NIRS’ Energy Future Project. “It’s only when taxpayer funds are provided that the utilities show interest in new reactors.”


Among other provisions, the energy bill would:

Give billions to cover 50% of the cost of up to 8,400 Megawatts, or 6-10 new reactors, of new nuclear power plants. Since 1947, government subsidies to nuclear reactors have reached $145 billion while wind and solar have received about $5 billion.

Would renew the Price-Anderson Act indefinitely. This law caps industry liability at about $9 billion when estimates of the actual cost of a catastrophic accident reach as high as $600 billion. The difference would likely be covered by taxpayer money.

Bush’s Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative would receive $1 billion to research hydrogen fuel production from nuclear reactors, which could include construction of a new reactor in Idaho. This ignores the fact that hydrogen fuel for cars can be generated much faster, cheaper and more cleanly by using other methods, including sustainable energy.

Approximately $610 million would fund the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative which would allow reprocessing research and could fund the Mixed Oxide fuel program (MOX). Reprocessing was banned by the Carter Administration because of health and environmental concerns. The dangerous MOX Program would use plutonium from nuclear weapons as fuel for commercial reactors that were not designed for it.


“It is clear from past precedent that nuclear power cannot survive in a free market. At a time when our country must have true energy independence, the Senate has decided to give yet more taxpayer money to nuclear power reactors, an expensive, dangerous source of energy and a terrorist target.” said Folkers.



“The once touted ‘too cheap to meter’ nuclear industry now boasts itself invulnerable to terrorism,” said Paul Gunter, Director of the NIRS Reactor Watchdog Project. “But building more nuclear power plants actually would mean more pre-deployed terrorist targets in an increasingly insecure world,” he concluded.



“We hope that the American people will learn what this energy bill really is about,” said Mariotte. “And it’s not about energy. It’s about ensuring that our nation’s energy resources stay in the hands of the few—especially the centralized nuclear power utilities and manufacturers--instead of being distributed where they would do the most good: among the renewable energy and energy efficiency communities. In the long run, the people who wrote and support this energy bill will make the executives of Enron look like paragons of social responsibility.”

http://www.nirs.org/energybillpressrlease5103.htm

[buddhamama]

48. still more

Union of Concerned Scientists
excellent group (i encourage membership-i am) with extensive energy related info.

link to their main page for nuclear power
(if you want info on the blackout especially the Davis-Besse plant this the place to go)

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/index.cfm


link to UoCS review of the Senate's Energy Bill
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=1236

[salin]

51. Buddhamama - great reading materials

fantastic stuff. Thanks to you (:-) )I will be reading a great deal this afternoon.

I appologize but I forgot that I committed to reviewing and giving feedback on a friends first 3 chapters of her dissertation this morning/early afternoon. So I am not going to be able to dig into the reading til a bit later.

Please keep adding the reading info, though.

Later today or tomorrow we should dig into discussions based on this material.

Kudos to you, Buddhamama - great work! :thumbsup:

This, in a great part, is why I love DU! :loveya:

[buddhamama]

53. that's okay

no need to apologize. the extra time will allow me to familiarize myself again with the Energy Bills and related info/articles that have been posted here.

thanks for the words of praise. :loveya: too

better get reading!

[buddhamama]

52. good article on deregulation

and how ignoring the problems got us where we are (of course we know WHY the problems were ignored)

Bush Turns Blind Eye to Blackout Culprit

FirstEnergy's Executives Raised Thousands for Bush Campaign

By Tyson Slocum
Special to CorpWatch
August 21, 2003

An Ohio-based energy conglomerate has been identified as responsible for the massive power blackout that shut down much of the Midwest and Northeast -- but the Bush administration isn't taking notice. FirstEnergy's strong ties to the president may help explain why the company may be let off the hook for depriving millions of power during the blackout.

Top executives at FirstEnergy rank among the Bush campaign's top fundraisers. FirstEnergy President Anthony Alexander was a Bush Pioneer in 2000 - meaning he raised at least $100,000 - and then served on the Energy Department transition team. H. Peter Burg, the company's CEO and chairman of the board, hosted a June event that raised more than half a million dollars for Bush-Cheney '04.

--snip--

"Why Bush Won't Blame FirstEnergy
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, discussing the administration's plans for addressing the blackout, told CBS's Face the Nation that consumers should be responsible for paying the $50 billion he claims is needed to upgrade the transmission system. Abraham added: "Rate-payers, obviously, will pay the bill because they're the ones who benefit."

Missing from the Bush administration's solution is corporate America's culpability. Since FirstEnergy started the problem, why shouldn't the company be held responsible?

The reason FirstEnergy may be getting a free pass is because the company enjoys a close relationship with President Bush. On June 30, FirstEnergy CEO and Chairman of the Board H. Peter Burg hosted a fundraiser with Vice President Dick Cheney near the company's headquarters that raised $600,000 for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Held at the Hilton in Akron's upscale Fairlawn neighborhood, attendees ponied up $1,000 to eat shrimp and hear Cheney speak. For an additional $1,000, they could get their picture taken with the vice president.

Anthony J. Alexander, FirstEnergy's president and chief operating officer, is a 2000 Pioneer - meaning he raised at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign. He was also part of the Republican National Committee's Team 100, raising $250,000 for the GOP in 2000. Alexander personally gave another $100,000 to fund Bush-Cheney inauguration festivities. When Bush took office, Alexander was included on the Energy Department's transition team.

FirstEnergy's PAC and its top executives are the sixth-largest contributors from the electric utility industry, giving more than $1 million to federal candidates in 2001-2002 alone, with 70 percent of the money going to Republicans. The company gave an additional $168,000 to Ohio state candidates over the same period (with three-quarters going to Republicans).

FirstEnergy wields enormous lobbying influence in Congress as well. The company spent nearly $3.8 million lobbying Congress and the Bush administration in 2001-2002 alone."

--snip--

"FirstEnergy, Deregulation and the Bush Administration
FirstEnergy may have been the spur of the power outage, but deregulation deserves the overall blame. The Bush administration pursued a policy of energy deregulation long before the August blackout, and now that policy has come back to haunt us.

Bush's energy deregulation is making America vulnerable for two reasons. First, America's transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, freewheeling trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances under deregulation. Sending power over a much wider area strains a transmission system designed to serve local utilities. That's why state regulators in the Midwest warned FirstEnergy and other utilities months ago that the transmission network was vulnerable to a blackout. But these concerns were ignored by these energy corporations.

Second, state-based deregulation means utilities are no longer required to reinvest ratepayer money back into the transmission system, as deregulation replaced that orderly planning with reliance on "the market." But the market has been unwilling to make the necessary investments in transmission. In particular, the market has not functioned properly as loopholes were punched in the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) over the past decade.

PUHCA, slated for full repeal by the Republicans in both the House and Senate energy bills, is the last federal regulation that requires giant energy companies to disclose crucial financial details and limits the types of non-electricity investments they may make. If PUHCA is repealed, a wave of mergers will likely result, leaving a handful of companies (like Southern Co., ExxonMobil and FirstEnergy) in control of our electricity - with no effective regulators looking over their shoulders.

In the case of the August blackouts, the deregulated wholesale markets of the Midwest and Northeast - typically cited as models for national deregulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - failed in their ability to provide reliable and affordable power. As a result, wholesale prices remain higher than under regulation, and nearly 96 percent of the 40 million residential consumers in the remaining 15 deregulated states lack access to competitive electricity suppliers.

This is the world of energy the Bush administration and its financial supporters envisioned. Of course, no one wanted a regional blackout. But no one was there to prevent it, either."

--snip-- http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=8131

[sandnsea]

54. Comparison HR 6 and S 517

Here's a chart comparing the two bills, S 517 is last year's senate bill if we haven't got that up there. Still looking up alternative energy 'stuff'. ain't I so technical.

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/energy_bill_comparison.html

And here's a pdf with costs in HR 6 as well as a brief statement about each section.

http://www.taxpayer.net/greenscissors/LearnMore/houseenergyanalysis.pdf

On edit:

Note the tax credits in the first link, all the way at the bottom. There's the tax give-away, is that right?

[sandnsea]

55. Wind Energy Assoc

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html

Still trying to figure out how much investment, land, time, etc., it would take to get wind energy really going compared to what's being subsidized for drilling, coal and nuclear.

[buddhamama]

56. hi,sandnsea

i posted this link above,don't mean to step on your toes but this is a good analysis/comparison wind v. coal from the Union of Concerned Scientists. the info and analysis that they have at their site is extensive so i'll just post the 'main' page link for renewable energy.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=994

[sandnsea]

58. The more the merrier!

Thanks. I am really looking into this wind because it just seems so damned logical. And you know, if something's logical, it's going to be kicked right out the door in D.C.!

For example, a 250 acre farm can install 2 acres of tubines and earn an additional $14,000 a year in lease subsidies. With the same kind of subsidies and low-interest loans as other power generators, wind is claimed to be the cheapest. I'm trying to figure out how many turbines will fit on an acre to actually see how this whole thing works out as far as land use.

And now I have your coal comparison to help too, I hope it's good!

[ErasureAcer]

57. who wants to bet Coleman jumps ship and supports ANWR this time around?

I have to put up with 5 and a half more years of this jackass? ugh.

[salin]

59. Checking back in

to get the links and figure out what to print up to read. Great work so far!

[sandnsea]

60. Wind Costs - Check my math please

A 100-megawatt (MW) wind plant (capable of supplying the electricity needs of 28,000 homes) There are now wind turbine installations in 26 states providing 4,261 MW of clean, renewable wind energy to consumers nationwide.
http://www.awea.org/news/news020425rps.html

Costs $1 million per MW of generating capacity. Economics 20 MW with 26 turbines, $20 million.

Turbines can be placed on existing farms. A $250 acre farm can gain $14,000 in lease revenues using only 2 acres of the farm land.

1.5 acres per turbine w/ 30 mile spacing. If comprised of units rated at 750 kW, the 10,000 MW of generating capacity would require 13,333 wind turbines. At 30 acres per wind turbine, the total land required would be 400,000 acres. This is equal to 625 square miles.

http://solstice.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/chapman/chapman2.html#OW1

US generating capacity - 2001 811,625 MW

http://www.tsaugust.org/False%20Promise%20Notes.htm

Based on this info I figure that an area the size of North Dakota (70,000 sq miles) would provide 800,000 MW at an initial cost of a trillion dollars. Considering what we spend on the military to protect the Middle East oil, that seems cheap to me.

Did I figure this all correctly?

S517
five-year extension of the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) as part of the broad energy bill, S. 517. The bill also would create a new investment tax credit for small wind systems used to power homes, farms, and small business.

The new investment tax credit for small wind systems (75 kilowatts and below) would cover 30% of system costs for both residential and business uses.

I don't have the figures on HR 6, I'm a slow-poke.

[buddhamama]

61. morning.

been reading and wow there is a lot of info.

we'll have to real hard to keep this organized. if you go in one direction and it leads you off onto something else. when i was putting together the nuclear info yesterday, i soo wanted to tie it all in to the military industrial complex, because it is related.
but that would kinda take us off track.

[Booberdawg]

62. up for the evening crew

:kick:

[salin]

63. Am about half way through articles

from this thread - great stuff.

It seems that there are some changes in these bills than from a year ago. Including the further deregulation piece (disbanding PUCHA) - I knew to look for that - I don't know what else I am looking for (I wasn't familiar with all aspects of the bills). But it let me know that I was wrong earlier - these are changed.

I thought I would be further than I am - but I would like to keep checking in on this - new information - and wading through with thoughts from some of the reading.

A few times - on the old DU - when it came to weighty information that took time to get through - we moved the thread to the meeting room where it was less likely to move into the archives (since we aren't archived here - the equivalent is being back so many pages that it is hard to find). Let me know if you think this is a good idea.

[buddhamama]

65. that's a good idea,salin

having the thread moved to te Meeting Room.

i had a problem accessing Public Citizen this weekend so i'm a little behind with my reading.

i am speechless at the moment. what both Houses are considering... :mad:

[buddhamama]

64. Public Citizen's comparison file

http://www.citizen.org/documents/energybillcomparison.pdf

H.R. 6 House and Senate and,
S.R. 14

[buddhamama]

66. relevant to this discussion and to keep in mind

while digging through the Energy Bill mess the last of the EPA rule changes are to be finalized tomorrow...

Congressional Report Says EPA Lacks Data to Ease Pollution Rules

Washington --- The Environmental Protection Agency relied on anecdotes provided by industry to support its conclusion that changes in a key pollution rule would lead to cleaner air, investigators from the General Accounting Office said Monday.

The rule change, approved late last year, would allow owners of industrial boilers new flexibility to make upgrades and expansions without triggering a Clean Air Act provision known as "new source review."

Prior to the change, the provision caused old plants to lose their exemption to certain federal air pollution rules if the plants were expanded or fundamentally improved.

Former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman said in announcing the rule change last year that different requirements on industry would lead to greater plant efficiency and would "encourage" owners of industrial boilers to reduce pollution.

--snip--

"EPA relied primarily on anecdotal information provided by the industries most affected by new source review in concluding that the program discouraged some energy efficiency projects, including some that would have reduced air emissions," the GAO said.

--snip--
Another in a series of air pollution rule changes is to become final this week, according to the EPA. It applies to electric power plants and allows them much greater flexibility in counting upgrades and other changes as "routine maintenance" and therefore not covered by new source review.

In a series of lawsuits filed during the Clinton administration, the EPA and the Justice Department accused five Southern and Midwestern utilities of expanding scores of old coal-burning power plants without complying with the Clean Air Act.

--snip--

http://www.nrdc.org/news/newsDetails.asp?nID=1074

[buddhamama]

67. random and scattered

i had hoped to be able to work on the nuke power issue this afternoon but had to work so this certainly is not concrete or necessarily coherent :-)

So the question i've kept asking myself is this, Why nuclear power
or more accurately Why after all these yrs is it being pushed? One is answer is Bechtel.

researching the energy bill(s) i keep coming back to one
thing, Nuclear power and Bechtel.

it's not surprising how/why 'they'(admin and congress) would
push for nuke power now, not sure how the Ohio Davis-Besse
plant will affect this push...desperation on the part of the
American public.
the selling on nuke power as a means to get away from
dependence on Oil,etc,etc. but,the NRC has had a hard time
convincing the public that nuke power is safer and; they
failed to measure up to their 'promise' of electricity to
cheap to measure.

but there is something far more sinister going on here,imho.

1)Mox power is being implemented. Mox nuke power is a mix of
plutonium and uranium. hah, this helps the government though to get rid of
its stockpiled weapons--The Moscow Treaty signed in 2001. add to this the weakening of the Price-Anderson
Act and this is major. Chernobyl has cost over $350 billion to 'clean' up but the P-A Act limits liability to $8 billion. That would change limited liability would become even more limited if the Senate's version were to pass.
nuke power came after nuclear weapons but it made sense and saved money. what better could you get your nuke weapons???

there is something else too, that troubles me. Water.(and inspite
of what you may have heard, releases happen everyday, into the
air and the water.)

the Bill would allow for In Situ Leach mining for uranium.
what's that you say. huh read this
http://www.sea-us.org.au/isl/islsuks.html
or
http://www.sea-us.org.au/pdfs/isl/islsummary.html

and while this is being 'discussed' Bush has rolling back Clean Air and Water rules.

i'll add more later.

[buddhamama]

68. the developement of Tritium producing reactors

in 1997 the DOE chose two undisclosed nuke plants for test/evaluation for the developement of tritium producing reactors.

anyway, the DOE has been researching/experimenting with tritium production. currently Hanford is the tes location.

what is tritium and what are its uses.

Tritium:Tritium is hydrogen with two extra neutrons. That is, the nucleus is one proton and two neutrons instead of just a plain proton like normal hydrogen. Tritium is radioactive, while deuterium and hydrogen are not.

Tritium is currently used in glow in the dark key chains,buttons and exist signs.

the other MAIN use for tritium, Thermonuclear weapons.

more reading info
http://www.nirs.org/mox/HANFORDD.TXT

http://www.nirs.org/mox/TRITANDY.TXT

http://www.nirs.org/mox/HANFORDD.TXT

[buddhamama]

69. okay,

a few things to keep in mind.

there hasn't been any new nuclear power plants ordered in this country since the 70s. that means that all these mucky-mucks in the nuclear power(military) industry have had to rely on business outside of the U.S. not including regular maintenence equipment of the existing power plants.

the big three are Bechtel,GE and Westinghouse.

we are certainly aware of the connections this administration has with all three...payoff time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. Not true...nuclear power has never been cheap anyway

without HUGE subsidies paid to the nuclear industry via NUCLEAR WEAPONS, nuclear POWER could never be affordable to the consumer...I don't have time to look it up ( hope you do...great finds BTW) but there was a great article at Tom Paine pointing this out in the last 2 or three years.

[buddhamama]

71. i'll look for the camparison #s

don't know what i said that wasn't true though, can you point it out to me? were you refering to my payoff comment? payoff to the big three is what i meant, definitely not the public.

Heh...the slogan energy/electricity too cheap to measure was created by the AEC. we're supposed to think they're looking out for us when in fact they has never been the case. they were created specificly to promote nuclear power. look at TVA as an example. they were given a licence to build their Unit 1 nuke plant without ever submitting a design blueprint. then when ?s were asked,after a near accident, the NRC (formally the AEC) said an inspection had been conducted BUT, that was a lie and their own internal documents proved this.

the nuclear power industry came about by government means.

did you know that the first breeder reactor was developed to breed uranium because the government wasn't sure of the amount of uranium available to them? it was thought at the time the U.S. had 6000 tons at best. that wasn't 'enough' so the government set scientists on the path to creating more.

and of course, you have the P-A Act. at the time nuclear power was being introduced GE has filed for bankruptcy

edited to add a excellent article on the P-A Act found at TomPaine
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4687

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Sorry..wasn't challenging you

They really didn't need to rely on business outside the US...they went for it because they could....

[buddhamama]

73. i see your point

you're right bad choice of phrasing. i apologize if i snippy. after reading more into the Davis-Besse plant last night, i ended up breaking out my books on nuclear power and was late reading.
i have been a long time opponent of nuclear power and to see this come around again really ticks me off.

what i meant to say, was that they specialized in the manufacturing of nuclear power plants,reactors,etc, and taking the 'waste materials' or 'byproducts' and applying them to other modes production/materials. they were stymied in the U.S. and now they are hoping to reverse that trend and make billions off of taxpayers.

[buddhamama]

74. TomPaine has a lot of info

this One article takes apart the entire energy bill with further links for your reading pleasure :-)
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/4343
(a small exceprt)
Atomic Economics

At a time of soaring energy costs, we are told that nuclear power, at 1.83 cents per kilowatt hour compared with 2.07 cents for coal, 3.52 for natural gas, and 3.8 cents for oil, is now the cheapest source of energy. But as creative accountants know, cost calculations can vary greatly: it depends what you count. The above figure represents only the current operating cost of a nuclear power plant -- the cost of the fuel to run the reactors plus maintenance on the plants. It does not include all the really expensive stuff associated with nuclear power that the public gets to pay for.

One of the most recent public handouts to the nuclear industry came via energy "deregulation," which was supposed to make energy markets more efficient by allowing people to choose the kind of power that supplied electricity to their homes and businesses. A good idea in theory, but utilities were saddled with huge debts -- mainly from building nuclear power plants -- and it was not politically possible to lift their monopolies and let them sweat it out in the market on their own, says Karl Rabago, managing director of the Rocky Mountain Institute and a former public utilities commissioner in Texas.

Ironically, Rabago says, it is nuclear power that started the chain reaction that has led to the current energy debacle in California, which is fueling calls for more nuclear power: "up until the time we started bringing nuclear power into rates, the electricity industry was enjoying declining costs and increasing economies of scale. Nuclear power turned everything upside down."
--snip--





further reading http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/5217