Search Results for ‘renewable power sources’
In an interview the other day, Ed Fallon stated “if coal interests want to research clean coal technology and carbon sequestration they, not the tax-payers, should fund the research.” This is a noble statement based on a belief in renewable energy and a green future. Unfortunately it’s not based on reality. The most ambitious goal for renewable energy involves Americans getting 20% from our energy from renewable sources in the next 20 years. So where do we get the remaining 80% of our energy? While natural gas is relatively clean, it is a commodity that cannot be transported across oceans. The U.S. currently gets about 25% of its energy from natural gas. This leaves 55% of our energy to be accounted for and three possibilities, coal, oil and nuclear energy. Fallon has expressed his opposition to coal and also is vehemently against nuclear energy, stating that “When all costs are factored in, nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. More nuclear power plants mean more plutonium, and reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. And there is no real solution to the problem of storing nuclear wastes.” So that leaves one source of energy acceptable to Ed Fallon to supply over half of America’s energy needs, imported foreign oil.
Relying on foreign oil is bad for the environment, bad for consumers already paying high gas prices and bad for the United States as a whole, as it forces our economy to continue to rely on oil imported from the Middle East. Fallon’s opposition to coal seems to be demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of environmentalists opposed to the Marshalltown coal plant, rather than real environmental policy. While no one can argue that coal is the best source of energy for the United States, unfortunately, compared to oil or nuclear, it is probably the least bad of the three. But with increased funding and emphasis on clean coal research, coal will become much more environmentally friendly. In fact, clean coal is a central part of Barack Obama’s energy plan.
Unlike oil, coal doesn’t have to be imported from Middle Eastern nations and unlike nuclear power, it doesn’t produce radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. In contrast, the United States has a plentiful supply of coal. In fact, Iowa’s third district is sitting on significant coal deposits and towns like Melcher-Dallas and Lucas used to be coal mining centers.
A lot of work and research still needs to be done to make clean coal a reality. Ed Fallon seems to think that this work should be left to private businesses, not the government. While this free market attitude is nice in theory, it is not based in reality. Without government funding over the past few decades, the United States has lagged far behind in research in solar energy and wind energy. Stripping government funding for clean coal research would be just as disastrous. In the meantime, Fallon would rather have us import oil instead. With an energy policy based on reliance on free markets and importing foreign oil, Fallon seems to want to continue the George Bush-Dick Cheney energy plan. Such a misguided attitude would be disastrous for our country and disastrous for our planet.
May 27th, 2008
I guess this is what happens in a political world where a few consulting firms call almost all of the shots: Kentucky gubernatorial candidate Steve Beshear just got caught lifting part of Chet Culver’s energy policy text. As the Lexington Herald-Leader documents,
For example, Culver’s plan says: “As Governor, I will challenge the private sector and encourage the development of new power sources, fuels and clean coal technologies by developing new laws and regulations that encourage innovation and the production and sale of home grown fuels.”
The Beshear plan states: “As Governor, I will challenge the private sector and encourage the development of new renewable power sources, alternative fuels and clean coal technologies by developing new laws and regulations that spur innovation and the production and sale of home grown fuels.”
Obviously, neither candidate had any idea that the text was going to be used in multiple places, but it’s a pretty inexcusable mistake on the consultants’ parts. In a world with the Internet, someone in Kentucky might be able to find out what a candidate in Iowa is saying, and vice versa.
Quoting, again, “Beshear’s campaign manager, Jim Cauley, said the campaign saw Culver’s plan for energy online ‘and we liked it.’” Go Chet!
(Beshear is running for the Democratic nomination for Kentucky Governor against several other candidates. The primary is next month.)
April 22nd, 2007
With gas prices soaring to above $3/gal in parts of the country it is no wonder that people are talking about alternative energy. Here in Iowa, of course, we like to talk a lot about ethanol, because we grow a lot of corn, one of the materials that can be turned into ethanol.
The Department of Agriculture announced this week that increased demand for ethanol is driving corn prices up, so at least Iowa farmers can receive some benefit from the high gas prices.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington are considering legislation that would mandate an increase in the amount of ethanol used for fuel. Both Democrats and Republicans from the Midwest are proposing legislation, and while they think that it is useful to both be working on similar proposals, it seems unlikely that any bills would actually pass as midterms approach. There is concern that mandating the use of ethanol might not be the wisest move right now:
“To say that we have to incorporate these huge volumes of ethanol into gas regardless of what they cost is not very good policy if you’re trying to moderate gasoline prices,” said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.
Furthermore, there is speculation that the dramatic increase in corn-derived ethanol costs may actually be contributing to high gas prices. So as a recap, so far we’ve got people saying high gas prices are driving up corn prices and other people saying that high corn prices are driving up gas prices. This economist though says that the only thing determining gas prices is good ol’ supply and demand.
So lets complicate things a little further: according to the same Register article there are also proposals in Congress to end the 54 cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. Places like Brazil are big ethanol producers, but they make it from sugar cane, not corn. However, it is uncertain if this would really reduce gas prices. Not to mention,
Latham, a close ally of House Majority Leader John Boehner, said the tariff cut would be unlikely to pass the House.
Another question that is being debated is how useful ethanol really is. While the debate over gas prices is one thing, the larger issue here is renewable energy. Is ethanol really a viable energy resource? Recent studies coming out of Cornell University have found that ethanol actually takes more energy to make than it produces. Basically that is bad. So even if ethanol could replace a sizable chunk of our foreign oil imports we might be better off looking for ways to power our vehicles with natural gas or coal (the biggest electricity producers in the U.S.).
What a lot of people are depending on in the future of ethanol is that there will be some technology advances. However, those advances are expected to come from finding new sources for ethanol, like plant wastes and wood chips. So what does this all mean? I don’t really know either, but it seems like the benefits Iowa derives from the ethanol industry might not be there in the future. (Maybe we should be focusing on that other renewable energy resource that we have a lot of…wind!)
May 12th, 2006
