Red, Green, and Blue

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

This is a guest post by Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection

That old wilderness magic was in the air in Seattle a few nights ago.

Republicans and Democrats, business leaders and environmentalists, hunters and vegetarians gathered at an outdoor retailer to celebrate the Wild Sky Wilderness in the north Cascades. Earlier this year, legislation designating the 106,000-acre Wild Sky was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president.

Just as the authors of the Wilderness Act intended, protecting the Wild Sky Wilderness was a great American cause beyond the dividing lines that crisscross American society. Read the rest of this entry »

This is a post by Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection

“Go on and write me up for 125
Post my face, wanted dead or alive
Take my license and all that jive
I can’t drive … 55!”
-From “I Can’t Drive 55,” Sammy Hagar, 1984

From its birth during the grim days of mood rings and the OPEC oil embargo, the 55-mph national speed limit experienced an unhappy existence - reviled by drivers and ignored more often than obeyed.

Fighting 55 was an easy sell for state politicians, especially Western governors presiding over rural states where long drives through empty country are part of everyday life. In 1987, when Congress allowed states to raise the limit on rural interstate highways to 65 mph, several did. In front of motorists egging him on, Nevada’s then-Governor Richard Bryan personally switched out the hated double nickel on an I-80 speed limit sign outside Reno. Bryan, a Democrat, topped off the photo op with imprecations against what he called East Coast speed limits. And a good time was had by all.

Eight years later, the national speed limit was euthanized by the 104th Congress and 55 vanished from the nation’s consciousness. Twenty somethings who hear Hagar’s song on the radio today may be excused for wondering what the old rocker was screaming about.

But maybe not anymore. With high gasoline prices, the old idea has been dusted off. Read the rest of this entry »

Campaigners are pressing the British government to impose a “windfall tax” on energy companies following record profit announcements in the past week from Shell (£7.9 / $15.5 billion) and British Gas parent firm Centrica (£2.97 / $5.8 billion).

Energy companies have become flush with cash following high margins from record oil prices and a government sponsored carbon permit give-away used to justify a consumer price hike.

• >>More on Energy from Red Green and Blue

Despite campaigners and Labour politicians describing recent profits as “grotesque” and “indecent”, and calling for additional taxes on recent gains to subsidize increasing household energy costs, there are several reasons why energy windfall taxes are fundamentally wrong, with the potential to worsen, and not improve the current energy crisis:

Read the rest of this entry »

Each year, US nuclear power plants prevent 700 million tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. In order to equal that achievement by reducing emissions from personal automobiles, the owners of 96% of the cars on the road today would have to agree to never drive again. Why then, are so many people in the “Environmental Movement” so firm in their opposition to nuclear power?

I used quotes and capital letters to emphasize a point - I recognize that there are individual people concerned about the environment who have a more open mind and are willing to accept the notion that nuclear power has a place at the table in any discussion about our reduced carbon energy future. The officially recognized groups and spokesmen for The Movement seem unimpressed and continue to firmly oppose nuclear development. The remaining arguments end up being cost, waste and nuclear weapons.

Cost is an issue for another day, but the arguments against nuclear power on the matter of waste and relationship to nuclear weapons rest on shaky ground that is beginning to give way. More and more people, including some in responsible leadership positions, are beginning to realize that the tired arguments originated in the 1970s no longer apply. They actually never did.

There are about 55,000 tons of used nuclear fuel resting quietly in cooling pools and dry storage containers on the sites where the fuel was initially used. That may sound like a large amount, but compared to the fact that a single 1000 MWe coal fired power plant can release 45,000 tons of waste to the atmosphere every single day, 55,000 tons of used material after 50 years of nuclear plant operation seems vanishingly small.

You may have noticed that I have carefully avoided calling that slightly used material “waste”. Unlike the gases, ash and soot released to our common atmosphere from coal, oil, gas and biomass fired power plants, the materials left over from nuclear fission reactors are sealed in corrosion resistant cladding and look a lot like they did when they first entered the reactor. Inside those tubes, the material is still mostly solid uranium dioxide - only about 4-5% of the initial material has been converted into other elements.

Essentially all of the remainders from nuclear plant operation could be recovered and reused; some of it would best be used as feedstock for future reactors, other parts should be segregated and used in other material applications for long life batteries, catalysts, and irradiation source materials.

Both of the remaining US presidential candidates seem to be open to the idea that used fuel should be recycled and reused. That is a welcome position since it looks like there will be a number of new reactors under construction soon and they will provide a ready market for the recycled fuel. There will need to be a bipartisan effort to establish rules that do not change with political winds, however, before private industry will invest in the system.

ALL of the used fuel has been carefully stored away in a form that is easy to control and easy to keep segregated. It does not take up much space, does not cost much to watch (compared to the heat value that it provided), and it has never hurt anyone because the people that watch it understand the simple concepts of time, distance and shielding.

As a life time procrastinator, I am actually encouraged by the fact that while we continue to debate and pontificate about the pros and cons of long term disposal, the natural process of radioactive decay continues to make the fuel easier and easier to handle. That process can reduce the cost of recycling, when we finally get around to it.

Perhaps those of us who are advocates of the increased use of nuclear energy as a clean, emissions free source of reliable, low cost power should thank the people who have prevented the used fuel from being too hastily moved or recycled.

Not only do we have a growing volume of seasoned raw materials, but when we finally do get around to building facilities, we can do so using up to date methods and the lessons learned from the first generation facilities in other countries. The democratic process really does favor the patient.

Related posts

US Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy
Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change
75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030
What Do You Do About the Waste? Recycle and Reuse.

The British government, oil producing countries and oil companies are all to blame for high oil prices, according to a recent UK poll.

With the government taking most of the blame (38% of those polled placed the blame on Whitehall), it seems that few people acknowledge the fact that increasing consumption of a finite resource sold on a volatile world market is the real reason for high prices at the pump.

Of course, taxation makes up a significant percentage of the retail price of fuel, which is something that governments do have influence over. To this effect, Conservative party leader David Cameron has proposed a sliding scale for value added fuel tax which decreases as crude oil prices increase, shielding the consumer from global oil market shocks.

However, taxation is ultimately irrelevant to the long term future of oil prices, as prices will inevitably rise as demand in an increasingly affluent world continues to outstrip increase in supply. It is in this respect that Western governments need to face up to the necessity of implementing long term policies to reduce and eventually eliminate the world economy’s dependence on oil.

Solutions for the future?

Reducing, or indeed increasing fuel taxes won’t achieve this, and neither will drilling for more oil or encouraging people to dive fewer miles in more efficient cars.

The only real solution is the development of technology that can offer similar practicality to fossil fuels and provide this to billions of consumers at a low price (in many places a pint of oil still costs less than a pint of beer), and this technology will only be developed and become viable as oil prices increase, letting the market do its work by reducing the comparable cost and risk of new investments.

Perhaps, therefore, the best thing that governments can do in this case is to leave the issue alone – governments have a poor track record in successful market intervention, with many current drilling and tax reduction proposals likely to only prolong the pain and increase damage to the environment.

The British are right to blame their government, although maybe we should blame them for doing too much, rather than too little?

Other posts about oil prices:

• “McCain Credits Bush for Drop in Crude Oil Prices, White House Basically Replies: ‘Wasn’t us.’
• “Bush Administration Proposes ‘Fire Sale’ of Rocky Mtns. For Oil Shale Development”
• “New McCain TV Ad Blames Obama for High Gas Prices”

Photo Credit: j-cournelius via flickr Under a Creative Commons License

With a rapidly dwindling popularity rating, and under severe pressure from voters as UK petrol (gasoline) prices exceed $8 per gallon, Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s labour government has recently canceled a proposed increase in fuel taxes.

With the postponement of the 2 pence per liter fuel duty rise, fuel duty in the UK today is 17% lower in real terms than it was under the previous conservative government, who made a series of above inflation increases as part of a policy to reduce congestion, pollution and green house gas emissions. Recent crude oil prices have offset the need for tax rises to achieve these goals. Read the rest of this entry »

With the executive ban on offshore drilling officially lifted by President Bush, the deciding factor now lies with Congress and the legislative ban that must also be lifted in order for drilling to occur. If this were to happen actual prices at the gas pump would not immediately decrease. The White House openly states there is no “quick fix” for the price of oil however starting now can help in the future. More politicians are openly expressing their support for allowing offshore drilling and exploration.

Florida Congressman, Jeff Miller (Rep.) was previously opposed to offshore drilling. He has recently stated it may be time to lift the ban and begin to use the resources available to us. In an NPR news article dated July 14th Congressman Miller is quoted, saying:

“I think when the public begins to change their tune … then elected leaders need to be paying attention as well. The breaking point seemed to be $4-a-gallon gas,”

A fiscally conservative group of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition are also in favor of opening new areas for drilling. A recent CNN Opinion Poll and a Gallup poll show that American’s want to drill. Why? Do people really believe that the price of gas would decrease immediately? Are we, as American’s, tired of purchasing foreign oil?

While the debate about drilling domestic oil continued this week, Al Gore presented an aggressive energy plan for America. A 10 year plan Mr. Gore likened to the Apollo Moon Project, stating that it may seem impossible but it can be accomplished. Mr. Gore emphasized:

“Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind,”

Can we combine efforts? Offshore drilling and Mr. Gore’s 10 year goal are both things that will take time. A balanced approach is necessary to accomplish Energy Independence and to decrease (or end) our dependence on oil. Domestic drilling is not the answer, however, it is part of the process.

Related Posts:

• Al Gore’s Call for 100% Renewable Energy Within 10 Years
• Potential McCain Running Mate Florida Governor Charlie Christ has Green Cred - Is it deserved?
• Bush Lifts Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling, Why it Matters and Why it Doesn’t

Photo Credit: Nantaskart! via Flickr Creative Commons License

Solar energy promoters and marketers have been getting spun up in the blogosphere this past weekend based on a couple of stories that ran in the mainstream media on Friday, June 27, 2008. The frenzy of concern has been generated because the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), announced, via a press release issued on May 29 and updated on June 12 that it would be producing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate the “environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with solar energy development on BLM-managed public land in six western States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

As described by the press release, the BLM would require about 22 months to produce the necessary studies to complete the PEIS. During that time, the Bureau would seek public comment, focus on the impacts that would result from the development of 125 applications it has in hand already, defer any new applications, and create a framework for approaches that would best allow the Bureau to mitigate the effects of an expected continued flow of applications after that study period.

Read the rest of this entry »

Robert Bryce, the managing editor of Energy Tribune is one of my favorite energy thinkers. He is a throwback journalist with an inquiring mind who asks hard questions and really thinks through the answers. He has recently written a book titled Gusher of Lies.

I have not yet had a chance to read the book, but I recently listened to a Tavis Smiley show interview with Robert where he talked a little about one of the topics discussed in the book - the use of natural gas as a vehicle fuel.

This topic caught my interest as my energy obsessed brain began weaving several threads into a new pattern. One thread is the growing disconnect between the cost per unit energy of natural gas compared to diesel fuel in the United States. Another thread is a story that has been playing on my drive time radio station about the challenges that local school districts are facing as they prepare their student transportation budgets in the face of rapid increases in the cost of diesel fuel. The final thread is my continuing belief that new nuclear power plants have a role to play in alleviating our current energy crisis.
Read the rest of this entry »

On June 22, 2008, Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister, spoke to a crowd that included the representatives of 27 oil producing countries. His primary message was that the current price of oil was not sustainable since it was high enough to cause economic hardships and a move to alternative energy sources. He was careful to point out that the alternatives to oil included nuclear power and that his country was making preparations to enable a large scale nuclear development program.

He also mentioned that at least 15 of his fellow European Union states were considering new nuclear power developments.

“Our commitment to the biggest expansion of nuclear power in Europe is now clear and definitive,” Brown said in his speech. “Fifteen of 27 European countries are now engaged in nuclear power.”

Oil ministers have a longer and deeper memory of energy related history than most casual observers; it is in their professional interest. During the 1970s, a number of nations, including France, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea made a strategic decision to replace oil burning power plants with nuclear fission reactors.

Read the rest of this entry »