Exposing Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Report Hypocrisy

[TrueStory]

The report can be found here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy

or more specific

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

The report has been signed on May 16, 2001 by Dick Cheney:




Excerpts from the report

"Estimates indicate that over the next 20 years, U.S. oil consumption will increase
by 33 percent, natural gas consumption by well over 50 percent, and demand for
electricity will rise by 45 percent."

OK, we'll keep in mind.



"We have a similar opportunity to increase our supplies of electricity. To meet
projected demand over the next two decades, America must have in place
between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants. Much of this new generation will be
fueled by natural gas. However, existing and new technologies offer us the
opportunity to expand nuclear generation as well. Nuclear power today accounts
for 20 percent of our country's electricity. This power source, which causes no
greenhouse gas emissions, can play an expanding part in our energy future."

This is interesting, because we know since June 2000 that there is a natural gas shortage in US and in North-America, so why Dick wants to fuel these new electric plants with gas?
read more:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=578




"For example, about 90 percent of all new electricity plants currently under
construction will be fueled by natural gas. While natural gas has many
advantages, an over-reliance on any one fuel source leaves consumers
vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. There are several other fuel
sources available that can help meet our needs.
Currently, the U.S. has enough coal to last for another 250 years. Yet very few
coal-powered electric plants are now under construction."

OK, we are now even more specific - 90% of the new electric plants will be fueled by natural gas, and possibly the rest 10% by coal.



"Other nations, such as Japan and France, generate a much higher percentage
of their electricity from nuclear power. Yet the number of nuclear plants in
America is actually projected to decline in coming years, as old plants close and
none are built to replace them."

Again very interesting. Bush&co starts project for making new atomic bombs, however there are no plans for new Atomic plants. If I could decide, than I would dismount the atomic bombs, and I would use the Uranium and Plutonium in Atomic plants - but perhaps I have a wrong way of thinking.




"There are a number of reasons why nuclear energy expansion halted in the
1980s. Regulatory changes implemented after the Three Mile Island incident in
1979 lengthened the licensing period to an average of fourteen years, resulting in
large cost overruns. Increased public concern about the safety of nuclear energy
after the accident often resulted in active opposition to proposed plants. As a
result, the last completed nuclear energy plant in the United States was ordered
in 1973."

Again interesting approach. There was an incident on Three Mile Island, therefore no more Atomic power plants considered, but the existing Nuclear energy plants are operated at maximum or above maximum capacity and everybody hopes no problems will arise.





My understanding is that in 1999 the difference between the red and blue lines should be 70, however I can see only 20 - but again, perhaps something wrong with my graph reading capacity.





This graph is and "Economist trick".
The economists basically have two tricks to demonstrate, that there is no problem with the Energy.
Their first trick is saying that if there is a shortage, than prices are going up, and if fuel price goes up, than it will be economic to drill in new fields. However this is only partly true. To get the oil on the surface you need energy, and if the energy you invest is less than the energy what you can get from the oil brought to the surface, than this won't be economic no matter how high is the oil price.
The economists second trick can be seen on the image above. You can see that as time goes on, we can produce the same GDP with less and less energy. Someone would think we can move further down, using only 10..20% of the energy used in 1970 to produce the same amount of GDP.
I think we can improve substantially our energy efficiency, but if energy shortages appear things will got even worse. Just think about it: in case of energy shortage there will be a lot of people without jobs, and even those with jobs will spend a significant part of their income on energy: fuel, heating, electricity and on goods where there is a need for energy producing them: food, clothes, etc. They will spend less money on products like films, software, computers, etc - basically on energy efficient products.


"Of the approximately 43,000 MW of new generating capacity that power
companies planned in 1994 for construction from 1995 to 1999, only about
18,000 MW were actually built. Although plans have been announced to build
more capacity than the country will need over the next five to seven years, this
new construction assumes market and regulatory conditions that are not yet
assured. Over the next twenty years, the United States will need 1,300 to 1,900
new power plants, which is the equivalent of 60 to 90 new power plants a year"

This is the dark side of the deregulation.


"There are roughly 5,000 power plants in the United States, and they have a total
generating capacity of nearly 800,000 mega watts. (...) Over the next ten years,
demand for electric power is expected to increase by about 25 percent, and more
than 200,000 megawatts of new capacity will be required. However, under
current plans electric trans mission capacity will increase by only 4 per cent. This
shortage could lead to serious transmission congestion and reliability problems."

Another dark side of the deregulation.
by the way here is a CS Monitor news - 94 new coal fired electric plants, in total of 62 GW capacity.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/US/coal_rush_CSM_040302.html
What is the meaning of the previously mentioned 90% of new electric plants will be natural gas fuelled? Is this 90% is referring to the number of electric plants or to the electric capacity?


"After peaking in 1982, coal prices have generally declined. This trend is projected
to continue through 2020, reflecting an expanding shift into lower-cost western
coal production and substantial increases in productivity. While coal is expected
to remain the dominant fuel in meeting increasing U.S. electricity demand
through 2020, energy policy goals must be carefully integrated with
environmental policy goals. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and related
state regulations require electricity generators to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxide."

CO₂ is not mentioned in Clean Air Act Amendments?





At first sight there is nothing interesting on this graph - just represeting costs needed for generation of 1 kWh depending on fuel type. However the represented years suddenly stops in 1998.
Why?
Maybe next paragraph will enlighten us :)



"Nuclear energy is the second-largest source (20 percent) of U.S. electricity
generation. Nuclear power is used exclusively to generate electricity. Nuclear
power has none of the emissions associated with coal and gas power plants,
including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide. Costs of
electricity generation by nuclear plants compare favorably with the costs of
generation by other sources.
...
Currently, no plans exist to construct any new nuclear plants. However, due to
more favorable conditions, the decline in nuclear energy generation has not been
as rapid as was predicted only a few years ago, as evidenced by increased re-
licensing.
Under existing policy, natural gas generating capacity is expected to constitute
about 90 percent of the projected increase in electricity generation between 1999
and 2020. Electricity generated by natural gas is expected to grow to 33 percent
in 2020, a growth driven by electricity restructuring and the economics of natural
gas power plants."

Why would someone state in a report prepared in 2001 what is the projected increase in 1999?
Well, this was the point where I've got enlightened.
This Dick just took the report prepared by the Clinton administration in 1998, and corrected the figures in some places and forgot to correct them in another places.
However the conception is the same as it was in 1998. In 1998 there was no problem with natural gas, it was normal to make a planning for the next 20 years with 90% of electricity generation increase based on natural gas.
In a report signed on 2001 May Bush&co should have addressed the natural gas shortage problem - but I think they had no spare capacity for document editing - they were preparing for a different solution - the war with Iraq.