Building together an effective Dem energy policy (I)

As you may have noticed, I've been writing about energy quite a bit these days, complained about the lack of attention it was getting, and then got a lot of it! I'd like to use this position to make things move forward in a concrete way, and use the power of the  community to come up with a message that could be used in a consistent way by Dems on the topic of energy.

As I wrote in my previous diary, I think it would make sense to summarise the policy in a few easily understood points.

We need these to be explicit, on target, and simple.

To get there, I'd like all of you to pitch in. I am providing a first draft below, based on the many suggestions I have found in my earlier diaries and prepared jointly with Meteor Blades and Devilstower (who both intend to work with me in a joint effort on this), and I'd like you to critique this mercilessly, with a view to improving it.

Here we go:

:: :: ::

Democrats have a plan to provide reliable and sustainable energy for all Americans

• The Bush/Cheney energy policy is ruining America
  
• Energy is a national security issue. America deserves a comprehensive policy and strong leadership
  
• Diversification and conservation must be encouraged
  
• A smart energy policy will create jobs and prosperity
  
• We need measurable goals
  

:: ::

Democrats have a plan to provide reliable and sustainable energy for all Americans

We acknowledge the seriousness of the energy situation. We care about all Americans and will guarantee that higher energy prices do not penalize unfairly our economically weakest citizens. We propose simple measures (Mileage Credit Act, emission trading, Renewable Portfolio Standard, Home Improvement Credit Act [...]) that will yield immediate results by making it possible for Americans to make smart and informed choices. We will fund R&D in technologies that are not yet mature and will make it easier for our companies to find the smartest ways to bring them to the market. We are planning for the future, for a healthy, competitive, safe and diverse America.

The Bush/Cheney energy policy is ruining America

Under Bush, billions of dollars of giveaways to Big Energy have sunk the budget. Yet energy prices have gone up across the board. Lax enforcement or reversal of rules that protect the environment are ruining our children's future, and our relations with a number of key energy suppliers around the world have soured out of hubris or incompetence. Global warming is becoming more obvious by the day. The administration is ignoring this very real energy crisis, relying on the same "solutions" that have left Gulf Coast residents helpless and abandoned; reckless and wasteful spending on "other priorities," cronyism, neglect of the environment, and short-term fixes - all behind closed doors.

Energy is a national security issue. America deserves a comprehensive policy and strong leadership

Diplomacy, homeland security, and the economy are all connected through our energy policies. America is importing 60% of the oil it burns, from places like Iran, Venezuela or Russia. We are sending growing amounts of money to regimes that are hostile to us or to their own populations. Increasing prices are threatening the competitivity of our industry, our jobs and our prosperity. Dependence on oil and its concentrated infrastructure is making us vulnerable to unpredictable - but frequent - events like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Oil and gas production is likely to peak in in the not too distant future while demand - and competition for the remaining resources - from China, India and others is increasing rapidly. Doing nothing is not an option.

Diversification and conservation must be encouraged.

We cannot live without our cars - Americans deserve to have more choice: more fuel-efficient vehicles, safe and reliable public transportation, or walkable communities with nearby shopping and work opportunities. Conservation efforts will be encouraged, via programs to help Americans save on their utility bills [link to more detailed proposals to be provided] and encourage them to use more efficient cars [link to DT's Mileage Credit Act]. All alternatives to hydrocarbons will be encouraged simultaneously: renewable energies (via Renewable Portfolio Standards), clean coal (with tightened emissions rules), nuclear (with appropriate standards), biofuels. We trust our engineers and technicians to innovate and take the leadership in the technologies of tomorrow, and help American companies stand at the forefront of this movement.

A smart energy policy will create jobs and prosperity.

Conservation is the cheapest energy source, and it is all in America. Simple improvements on our homes, cars and industrial facilities can yield great returns, if our capacity for innovation and hard work is properly encouraged and focused, Renewable energy will offer America permanently cheaper energy, a better environment for our children, local, well-paying jobs, and the lead in vital technologies for the future.

We need measurable goals

Our goals are simple, and we commit to putting in place the policies to reach them:

• 20% of our electricity from renewables in 2020
  
• 20% reduction of our consumption [imports?] of oil and natural gas by 2020
  
• 20% reduction in our carbon emissions by 2020

Democrats take this vital issue seriously and offer responsible long-term solutions.

:: :: ::

This is meant as a statement of principles, and will need to be backed up by more detailed presentations on the analysis of the situation and the concrete proposals to be made. We should discuss these at a later stage, once we agree on this general document.

So, what do you think? Do you feel anything is missing, or that there is too much? Do you have better wording? A different way to present ideas? The floor is yours. And if you don't have suggestions or comments to bring up, do rate the ideas of others to give them more weight. I will try to make sense of all of your input to provide a new version, and we can start again until a reasonable number of us are reasonably happy.

My only request: provide positive input, i.e. if you don't like one point (or any), propose an alternative. We will use this input to prepare a new version (or several ones) for further discussion. Once we feel we have something that works, we'll try to push it to the outside world.

•  Tip Jar - Sept. 30

  Please contribute. Even if it is to propose change the order of two words. Even if it is to provide your own full version.

  The more input, the better it will be in the end. and do not hesitate to rate the suggestions you like!

  by Jerome a Paris on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 04:24:25 AM PDT

  •  Imported Oil sources- include Saudi Arabia

    I would like to see a change in the three sources of imported oil that you mention, (now Iran, Russia, Venezuela)

    Change that to:   Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran

    Americans are slow to catch on, but many actually know that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Bush's oil crony.

    Iraq is a major problem for America, and it is all Bush's fault, this needs to be emphasized repeatedly.

    Iran is a religious theocracy (much like Bush wants for America) and is viewed negatively by Americans.

    Venezuela has a democratically elected government, the focus should stay on the dictators and theocracies as unreliable sources of oil and the oil money is used by them to fund terrorism.

    Cut terrorist funding, drive a Prius.

    by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:03:30 AM PDT

  •  Great Job Jerome

    Great job.....

    Conservation at both a personal, government and corporate level is very important for several reasons.

    1. It saves energy!!!!
       
    2. It gets people thinking about there energy consuption on a daily basis.  It educates them on what they are going to the world around them and it will perhaps lead them to find further savings.
       
    3. It can be a cheap program to run.

    I have a pet peeve, walking downtown and seeing every light on in a office building on a Saturday night.....why would a company allow this?

    I think many countries in the world have some very simple and effective conservation plans.....for example create a government run inspection agency for energy conservation..

    They come into an office or an industry and evaluate what can be done and the company is provided alist of changes it can make.  If they make those changes the cost are tax deductable...set goals for individual company's and provide them with training to inact them, if they reduce there energy consuption by 20% or some other number, they get another tax break.  There are a bundle of programs out there both publically and privatly developed to feed off of.

    For people, make energy efficient home upgrades tax deductable....charge a gas tax for a hummer give a gas credit for the purchase of a prius etc etc etc ect etc etc.

    I think if you create programs that provide incentives and rewards even if they aren't that significant people will be more inclined to conserve.....

    Ask Businesses to advertise a car pooling program, if you car pool you get a free parking spot....the cost of the parking spot is you guessed it...tax deductable....people that don't car pool have to pay:)

    by Mikecan1978 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:30:46 AM PDT

    •  Republicans love there tax breaks:)

      SO this may be something they would buy into....

      There is value in everything in the world, land gold, stocks etc everything can be traded, however the air we breath, the lakes we swim and other non owned parts of the environment often have no monetary value...yet they are the most valuable reasources on the planet.....we have to give them value,  make it profitable to save these reasources.  

      by Mikecan1978 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:39:08 AM PDT

    •  Just an addition.....

      These are example that I think would fit well into your plan......

      talking points if you will something to provide an anchor to your goals and broad policy.....anyone speaking about the plan you put forth should have a dozen of these types of things in there pocket.

      by Mikecan1978 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:53:57 AM PDT

  •  Educate Educate Educate

    "The Bush/Cheney energy policy is ruining America"

    This should be changed to
    "The Republican energy policy is ruining America"

    This should be an easy sell to anyone who was school age during the Carter Administration. We had great dialogues going on in my grade school during this time. Almost everyday we discussed conservation and every month we had projects re what we could do at home to help conserve. We need to bring these policy ideas back into our educational system and the only way to do that is through federal funding and mandates.

    by coconutjones on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:43:46 AM PDT

    •  Agree, Bush/Cheney will be replaced

      And their replacements will also be greedy members of the crony capitalism club that is ruining our country and the world.  Cheney could stroke out at any time with those weak knees, and Bushy could always choke out on a pretzel or ride his bike while drunk.

      Hammer home the message:

      Republicans are ruining America!

      by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:49:57 AM PDT

      •  don't wrestle lame ducks

        I agree... focusing something as critical and long-term as energy policy on Bush/Cheney is counterproductive.  They're lame ducks... nearly crippled now, and will be gone with no heirs in a few years.  If you want to claim sustainable energy policy as a Democratic platform, you need to go after Republicans in general with it, not just Bush.

        And it also means Democrats need to get out of the gasohol subsidy ghetto and find some REAL long-term sustainable alternatives.
        

        by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:28:57 AM PDT

      •  Absolutely correct it should be framed on

        Republicans as a whole and not making it a Bush and Cheney situation.

        Everytime I watch the bills being debated and voted on it is almost always Republicans voting straight line lock stock and barrel on bills one after another that seriously undermine the public's quality of life.

        We can not expect to defeat the Republicans that will be up for re-election if all the blame is placed on Bush and Cheney.
        
        In general the energy proposal as put forth is fairly good, however I would love to have seen more weight put into the Biodiesel sector and the mention of hydro electric damns for generating electricity.

        With a combination of Biodiesel, Wind, and Solar plus Hydro electric damns would or could virtually eliminate our dependence on oil based energy.

        Electrical generating damns have proven for decades to be an economical and safe polution free way of creating energy. There are many places still available where such damns could be built if we are willing to stop killing everything with enviromental issues.

        I am not advocating that enviromental issues are not important or should be forgotten. I am simply  making the statement that in all areas we are going to find ourselves having to compromise in ways that may not have been viable before.

        by eaglecries on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:59:26 AM PDT

        •  dams kill the fish, wreck the eco-system

          Why do you buy the Repug frame that we have to "stop killing everything with enviromental issues." ?

          This is a false choice, there are plenty of sustainable energy generators that don't have the negative impacts that dams do.

          "Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water" will tell you all you need to know about the "benefits" of hydro-electric dams.  Every single useful river, and many that are not useful, has already been dammed by the damned Army Corp. and their tame congress critters of both parties.  A true environmental disaster, and inviting targets for the terrorists of the world.

          Read the book, then let me know what you think about hydro-electric power.

          by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 11:46:44 AM PDT

    •  Thats right

      Start a young age:)  lets create a new generation of greenies!!!

      I like that idea, have it part of science class....a large part.  encourage recyclable food containers for lunch etc etc

      by Mikecan1978 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:50:01 AM PDT

      •  Apollo Alliance has good ideas

        Check out their web page:
        http://www.apolloalliance.org/

        They seem like a natural ally in Jerome's campaign to educate the masses.

        Impeach Bush- rebuild America
        Impeach Cheney- encourage conservation
        Jail DeLay- end corruption in government

        by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:01:03 AM PDT

  •  20 20 20

    That's my favorite part. It's memorable, it's quick and it's short.

    Here's my take on "policies:" First you get elected, then you implement whatever you want.

    To get elected, you need simple and short messages that seem to make sense when repeated in a bar or by the water cooler by average, uninformed Americans. The idea itself must contain its own backup; you shouldn't have to know more than one line to be able to extemporize about why it's a great idea. Think: Contract With (On) America. Not: Bill Clinton's endless laundry lists of random programs, which he carried off through force of personality alone.

    So, I'd keep two lines of discussion separate. One, what policies would be best? That is an important discussion, because you need to hit the ground running after election, and because you need some reality-based grounding for your "contract" ideas. But the "contract" is a distinct discussion. Don't confuse the two.

    by Smallbottle on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:50:05 AM PDT

    •  for our children's children's children

      My subject is a good one-liner start for energy policy.  Make it clear that we're talking about SUSTAINABILITY, something that will last humanity through the generations, not just stopgaps for the next decade.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:30:42 AM PDT

    •  20% reduction in oil imports? No chance

      I am SO glad you're doing this, and I completely agree that this is a critical issue -- both for our country, and for our Party.

      Having said that...

      The goal of a 20% reduction in imported oil strikes me as both impractical and politically un-smart.

      Our overall demand for oil is growing -- and while we can try to reduce the rate of increase, it's unlikely that we can halt growth in demand by 2020.

      Meanwhile, domestic production is decreasing -- and even if we drilled in ANWR, etc, we still couldn't replace even 20% of our current imports, let alone our imports required by 2020.

      What this does, though, is to play into the demands of the drillers.  

      The number one way to reduce the percentage of oil we import is to drill more in the US.  I don't think this is a good plank for us to stand on.

      by nbutter on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:04:16 AM PDT

      •  I'd simply strike it

        with respect to your request for alternatives, in this case, i'd simply eliminate the line.

        I think that getting 20% of our energy from renewables covers the policy changes that would get us towards a reduction in demand for foreign oil.

        In reality, if we were gettting the SAME absolute level of oil imports in 2020 as today, it would be a big, big change -- it would mean that we were obtaining our growth from non-foreign sources (most likely renewable, with some nukes) -- and that would be huge!

        Now, if you need a third bullet, I would suggest making it a relative goal, not an absolute goal:

        "Reduce the proportion of our energy derived from foreign oil by 20%"

        Maybe this is more achievable?

        by nbutter on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:09:59 AM PDT

        •  Actually...

          We could build all the nuclear plants you want, and it won't save a drop of oil.  We don't burn oil to make electricity (okay, there's a tiny percentage used mostly in back up generator and "campus" facilities, but you get what I'm saying).  

          If you want a reduction in oil, it has to be addressed directly.  All the nukes, solar panels, and windmills in the world won't help.

          by Devilstower on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:23:17 AM PDT

          •  I believe you are wrong to a degree

            They will indeed help but they are not the bigger issue which will need to be done to really reduce our dependence.

            The big issue is reducing or even nearly eliminating the need in transportation and heating.

            There is one way that the latter could at least see a huge improvement.

            That would be through a different version of the Hybrid vechicle.

            The change would be in creating Hybrids which used biodiesel instead of Gas or oil based auto fuel. Same thing could be done for home heating.

            Biodiesel can be made much cheaper to create by using the right raw materials instead of corn based raw material. Plus the more demand there is and the more that it is used the cheaper it becomes to create it.

            by eaglecries on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 10:10:41 AM PDT

            •  Fair point

              ok, nukes don't reduce oil imports.

              20% reduction in oil imports by 2020 is still impractical at best, methinks...

              by nbutter on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 11:51:42 AM PDT

      •  Oh, it CAN be done

        If you have the stomach for it.

        Bring back the 55MPH speed limit
        That would be an immediate 10-15% savings.

        Require that all companies with more than 100 employees have at least 15% telecommuters
        There's another 10%.

        You could do other things: high tarrif on truck shipments, subsidize E85 fuel, etc.

        Of course, I think what Jerome is calling for (and what I would want as well) is something a little less drastic: gradual improvements in fuel efficiency, public transportation, and conservation all adding up to a 20% drop over the next 15 years.

        by Devilstower on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:20:54 AM PDT

        •  55 MPH

          May or may not make the difference you think.

          Since Katrina, I've had my car set to show its real-time mileage.  It gets better mileage at 70MPH than it does at 55 MPH.  I can't even begin to guess how the physics for that works, but it's been consistently better at the 70 MPH from mountains to seacoast and back. And no, it's not an automatic, so it's not downshifting when it gets down to 55, or anything weird like that.

          By paying attention to the real-time mileage, I've increased the average mileage of my car from 25 MPG to 27.4 MPG - in a 1997 Volvo shaped like a brick.  Not bad.  It's not the bio-diesel hybrid I dream of, but by sticking with an existing car and improving my mileage, I'm probably doing more good than if I were to buy a newly manufactured hybrid.  I'm not sure where the energy-cost break-even would be for buying a new car (when you include all the energy used to manufacture and transport it) vs keeping my old car, but if I can keep messing around to improve the mileage, it may be a long way out.

          I do know, though, that I'm going to stick to that magical 70 MPH on the highway that seems to give the most distance per dollar as long as I have this car.  

          Of course, your mileage may vary... ;-)

          by mataliandy on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 11:17:00 AM PDT

          •  Why do you think that is accurate?

            If you are in the same gear, your statement is ludicrous.  So since it flies in the face of Newtonian physics, look for error in your measurement system.  Drag on any car is greatly increased since it is proportional to velocity squared.

            drag is proportional to velocity squared, and:

            55 x 55 = 3,025

            70 x 70 = 4,900

            So you claim "Better" fuel mileage with 62% more drag?  Unbelievable.

            Look to your driving habits, accelerator on and off, braking, the wind direction, temperature, etc. to explain the difference IF your on-board computer is working properly.

            Then if you really want to save gas, buy a Prius. My computer shows 61.1 mpg for the last 150 miles, and it checks out pretty closely when I record the gas at each fill up.

            by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 11:55:33 AM PDT

            •  Like I said

               can't even guess at the physics, but perhaps there's something other than wind drag involved?  For example, maybe the air/fuel ratio is better or something at 70 than 55, or maybe the 187,000 mi catalytic converter is doing weird things.  I really, don't know, but, UM, the fact that I need to fill up the tank less seems to give credence to the improved mileage my car claims to have since I've started experimenting.

              How much energy does the manufacture and transport of a new Prius use vs the extra gas I'm using at an average 27.4 MPG instead of 50ish that a Prius might provide (I live in the mountains and word has it that hybrids don't do as well here, so perhaps 45 is closer)?  This isn't snark, it's a serious question.

              What's the energy use break-even point if I cause the manufacture of a whole new car instead of using the car I already have more efficiently?  If I'm even going to consider shelling out mucho dinero for a new car, I need to know whether that switch is actually going to do what it's supposed to do.

              by mataliandy on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 03:09:30 PM PDT

              •  More input from hubby

                "Mr. Mataliandy" claims that engine efficiency is a function of the RPM, and tends to peak toward higher RPM.  So, in terms of my car, 2900 RPM burns fuel more efficiently than 2000 RPM.

                The peak efficiency will differ for different engines in different cars.

                by mataliandy on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 03:21:04 PM PDT

      •  I think it could be done...

        Nearly 70% of petroleum is consumed by the transportation sector in the US.  With technology that exists right now, the average fuel efficiency could be increased by something approaching 100% by switching to lighter vehicle construction, smaller cars, much more emphasis on diesel and widespread use of hybrid technology.  If plug-in hybrids were to be widely adopted, the potential for a several-fold improvement exists.  However, a big shift to higher efficiencies would likely be offset by more driving unless fuel prices were kept high.  

        by mojo workin on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 10:01:23 AM PDT

        •  Switch from long haul trucks

          to trains. That would help a lot. Trains can run on diesel or other fuels (coal would be horrible, but possible), they're pretty flexible that way. Trains can haul a lot more than a truck. A LOT more. They can stop along the way and unload cars, pick them up on the way back.

          So if you were shipping to Philly from the midwest or west coast, you could have one train haul freight for anywhere along the route, and drop off/pick up along the way.

          That has to be better than one truck load at a time.

          Convert/retool as many trucks as possible to biodiesel. That would help too.

          The means we need to start constructing biodiesel plants now. NOW.

          by mmacdDE on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 12:45:30 PM PDT

          •  Trains aren't quite so simple

            There are only so many miles of track extant, building more through places they are needed could be quite a problem and very expensive.  

            There is already a great deal of freight moving by rail, including intermodal shipments (trailers that stack on a set of wheels and then get pulled by a regular over the road semi) and the cost per mile is substantially lower than using a truck.  BUT it takes 1-3 days longer in transit and is subject to congestion at the relatively few unloading points.  It also is more susceptible to service disruptions (lots more roads than rails in the country) and can cause product damage (whole lot of shaking goin' on).

            I personally think that higher fuel costs may lead to a reversal of the mega-warehouse model.  More manufacturing sites in more places with smaller output equals less transit.  With diesel at $2.79/ gal it makes sense to ship things from China to Florida.  How about at $4?  $8?  $10?  At some point the financial benefits of mass production get eaten up by transit times and transportation costs.

            by WI Deadhead on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:26:21 PM PDT

      •  20% less imports by 2020 probably inevitable

        Re "The goal of a 20% reduction in imported oil strikes me as both impractical and politically un-smart", it is likely that the decline in production on the backside of Peak Oil will equal or exceed 20% by 2020 (15 years from now), whether or not this policy is implemented. So the Democratic Party can adopt this policy for free.

        I advocate using all available incentives and regulatory changes to boost and facilitate increased biodiesel and ethanol production ASAP. (And don't tell us about Pimentel -- he has been thoroughly discredited by multiple studies; biodiesel and ethanol, especially cellulosic ethanol, do pass the energy ratio test.)

        by dwellscho on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 01:18:05 PM PDT

      •  20% is actually too mild

        I think people who make comments like this do not understand 1) just how much oil the US uses compared to the rest of the world and 2) how much greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced in order to avoid catastrophic global warming.

        The United States produces almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of Western Europe, which has roughly 400 million people.  Granted, we are significantly less geographically compact, but it still seems more than reasonable to reduce our oil consumption by 20%, leaving us using only maybe 50% more per capita than our European friends.  Since 2/3 of the oil we use goes to cars, all we would have to do is increase the mileage of the average freeway vehicle by 50% (which can easily be done with existing technology) and we would fly past the 20% goal, without even reducing driving (which we should also do).

        In order to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at about 20% more than current levels by 2100, we will need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.  With other extremely populous countries like China and India experiencing strong economic growth, it is reasonable to assume that the United States will need to reduce its GHG emissions my more than 80% over the next half-century in order for the world to achieve the overall 80% reduction.

        Check this out.  It's a java applet that allows you to see interactively, based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models, what reductions in GHG emissions are necessary to achieve various stable atmospheric levels and temperature combinations.

        by taliesin on Sat Oct 01, 2005 at 02:31:03 PM PDT

  •  A tip of the chapeau/sombrero to you 3

    J a P, Meteor, DevilsT: Thank you for this effort and for this excellent draft.  I like the positive tone. The options are realistic.

    The people who respond to these energy diaries tend to be energy buffs.  We think about where it comes from and its risks and benefits.  We know that everything we do all day depends on energy generation and that it has its price.

    But most people only notice that their very existence in the modern world depends on it when the electricity fails or you can't gas up when you want to.  The people in intensive care in New Orleans died because the generators finally ran out of juice.

    A lot of people have magical beliefs:  "Hydrogen will solve everything, and it's everywhere, and it's free!"

    Historically it has taken about 50 years to transition to a new energy resource.  

    So a very important plank has to be education.  Conservation classes starting in elementary school.  An energy-awareness program in the media.  An examination of each energy resource and its risks and benefits.  This will all make people smarter consumers of energy.

    by Plan9 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:23:57 AM PDT

  •  FWIW

    I'm not an important voice on this site, never the less I think you should be given Front Page status. Or at least have one of the FP'ers place your energy diaries on the front page. IT'S THAT IMPORTANT!!!

    by SteveLCo on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 10:46:35 AM PDT

    •  Just recommend, no need to FP n/t

      by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 11:57:38 AM PDT

  •  Energy policy cannot be divorced from

    land use policy and patterns of development.

    James Howard Kunstler (in "The Long Emergency") calls our present suburban sprawl development pattern the greatest misallocation of resources in history. It has created our utter dependence on the automobile and our belief that cheap gas and easy motoring are our birthrights. Building, outfitting, and servicing sprawl now make up the lion's share of the entire U.S. economy.

    Without cheap gas, suburbia simply doesn't work. People expecting some miracle new fuel to come along and replace the 900 million gallons of petroleum the U.S. uses EVERY DAY without major dislocations are seriously deluded.

    We pay lip service to "alternatives to cars". If you were a transit designer, how would you route buses through a typical aggregation of sprawling suburban "pods"?

    by RobLewis on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 01:07:59 PM PDT

•  Another view on energy

  Hydrogen vs. Octane

  First of all, we have an Octane infrastructure.  As opposed to a Hydrogen one.  Migrating to a new infrastructure would be extremely difficult and not necessarily the right solution.

  The energy density of octane is considerably higher because you get a lot of hydrogen and carbons that can combust with free oxygen (presumably free, neglecting the effects of Nitrogen) that give you a lot of bang for the buck.

  Further hindering a migration is the amount of equipment that people already own that uses octane as a fuel source.  Unless easy retrofits are available (AND THEY WON'T BE), that will prevent hydrogen from being a viable solution.  Let's not forget that hydrogen is also a greenhouse gas.

  Therefore, whatever solution we're going to have will involve the generation of octane.  It may be by gassifying coal, it may be from using a nuclear power plant to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and to electrolize water to outright make the stuff, but we're going to be in the octane (or kerosene or pick your hydrocarbon of choice) business for anything that can't stay attached to the grid.

  The Grid

  I've been pushing Solar Power Satellites for years.  There is a huge amount of information on them on the web.  Frankly, instead of trying to go to the Moon or Mars, we should be building a network of satellites - - this will actually put us in the position of being an energy exporter (when the satellite is not over the US, it is over someone else.  We can sell the power to THEM.)

  Hydroelectric has its issues.  Even wind power has issues in that it tends to interfere with the circulation of heat from the equator to the poles.

  Personally, I like the pebblebed design for a Nuke plant, but I like even better the idea of not polluting at all.

  Beamed microwaves down to a rectenna farm are not dangerous, and you might as well get dual use out of that cornfield.

  Seriously, we need to think out of the box.  There is a lot of information on Solar Power Satellites on the web and even at NASA.

  We also need to find a way to combine sequestering operations with octane/hydrocarbon generation so that our only remaining problem will be one of waste heat.  

  by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 04:37:51 AM PDT

  •  SPS

    SPS is a wonderful idea in theory, but I have a couple of problems with it in practice. First and foremost is the enormous capital costs associated with building the things. The cost per kilogram to LEO is huge, and it doesn't get any cheaper when you move to geosynch, which is the logical place to put them. A square kilometer of photocells (roughly 1 GW of sunlight; somewhat less useful power due to conversion inefficiencies) ain't cheap either.

    Secondly, and relatedly, we have very little experience in assembling space structures that are bigger than one rocket's worth of payload. ISS doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in our ability to do so.

    Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that the technology isn't there yet to make SPS practical. This speaks to a need to develop low-cost heavy-lift boosters and research into robotically-assembled structures (to avoid having to send human work crews out to geosynch). Once we have those building blocks in place, SPS is doable at a useful power level.

    -dms

    by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:50:31 AM PDT

    •  Another SPS problem...

      Environmentally, one has to look very critically at SPS.  We're talking about harvesting solar energy that would otherwise not have hit the earth.  I think this is very worrisome.  I would much prefer a ground-based, DISTRIBUTED outlay of photovoltaics.  A distributed system is a far less attractive target to enemy states, is much better for disaster recovery, and is controlled locally, rather than corporately or by the government.  JMHO...

      by beemerr90s on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:15:07 AM PDT

      •  It's a small effect

        unless we reach the point where terawatts are being beamed down. Some numbers: At Earth's orbit, solar energy density is roughly 1400 W/m^2. The cross-sectional area of the planet is 128,000,000 km^2, or 1.3e14 m^2. We thus get about 2e17 Watts of solar energy incident. The albedo of the Earth, the fraction of light which is reflected, is roughly 30%, so the remaining 70%, or about 1.5e8 gigawatts, is absorbed.

        150 gigawatts of space-based power would thus represent one part per million increase in the energy influx on the planet. Not something to ignore, but I'd spend more time worrying about carbon dioxide levels causing global warming, holes in the ozone layer, etc.

        -dms

        by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:23:44 AM PDT

        •  Why not pursue both approaches?

          The big advantage of doing it in space is that the land remains habitable down here.

          Now, in AZ and southern CA, TX, etc. we SHOULD be putting cells on roofs and the like.

          by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

          •  Photovoltaics don't make an area

            uninhabitable.  I can put them on my roof and live under them without any problem at all.

            by beemerr90s on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:23:09 AM PDT

            •  farming

              but farming is a bit of a challenge, whereas a rectenna farm can be both.

              by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:14:59 PM PDT

        •  Actually

          If we have the larger rectenna farm, there is nothing preventing us from having BOTH Geosync and LEO transmitters, and anything inbetween.

          As the economics change (either in Mass, efficiency, cost of access to orbits) the equation may shift several times between different locations and power levels.

          For that matter, tethers will have a role in orbital placement for later models.  This whole thing can be done incrementally, possibly even on a competitive scale.  Free enterprise anyone?  Collect royalties on the emitters that you put up...
          

          by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:06:23 AM PDT

          •  Ah, tethers

            If we ever get to the point where we can build a beanstalk, most of these arguments become moot. That lets us move essentially arbitrary amounts of stuff into orbit for very very little cost. The mass budget for any sort of beanstalk makes my 2 kton powersat look like a pygmy, though. Beanstalks really require space-based industry; asteroidal mining, comet capture, and the like.

            -dms

            by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:13:42 AM PDT

      •  But it combats global warming

        half kidding!

        In principle I think we should favor local scale technology, rather than more large centralized systems.

        by Cache on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:59:04 AM PDT

        •  Agreed. The fact that solar energy is widely

          distributed is a good thing.  I much prefer the decentralized systems.

          by beemerr90s on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

    •  in general

      This speaks to a need to develop low-cost heavy-lift boosters and research into robotically-assembled structures...

      We really need some "big dumb boosters" (a NASA term from way back) to replace the shuttle system, which is (A) getting quite aged, and (B) has to be the single least cost-effective launch system I've seen for most things.

      Remote assembly could be seen as an extension of numerically controlled automated manufacturing processes currently existing and in use all over the industrialized world.  It's a refinement of stuff that exists.  And a good idea, as long as we get the job of building the systems here.  No outsourcing of this at all - it's a national security issue of the highest order.  Once it's done, then we can think about selling versions to others.

      Still, I think I'd like to see more research go into things a bit less Star-Trek-y at the moment.  While space flight is never going away - and I firmly believe that's as it ought to be - the first steps of the solutions we need right now will have to be take here on the earth's surface.  And perhaps a few beneath the waves?

      by MN camera on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:49:41 AM PDT

      •  like your sig n/t

        by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:50:43 AM PDT

      •  Much less Star Treky than going to Mars

        Or even back to the moon.  Look, this is a low-risk, relatively low-cost, low pollution solution.

        It just doesn't justify Manned Spaceflight.  So what.

        If we're going to spend $200B on something, this would actually get us somewhere.

        by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:57:44 AM PDT

      •  Big dumb boosters

        would definitely be needed in this scenario. To get a few gigawatts back to Earth (and for anything less, it's hardly worth the trouble), we're definitely talking tons, and most likely kilotons, worth of stuff that needs to be lofted. Doing that with a Shuttle will take a long time, and cost more than the power is worth.

        -dms

        by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:14:27 AM PDT

        •  How many countries are in the booster business?

          China, France, USA, RUSSIA.

          You've got an actual competitive market.

          And, with LEO and a careful selection of orbits, this will work.  Again, look at Iridium.

          by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:21:00 AM PDT

          •  Iridium

            The Iridium satellites were a bit over half a ton each, and there were about 60 or 70 of them in the full constellation. A brief Google turns up estimates of about 20 kg/kW for solar cells. Chop that by a factor of ten by using focusing mirrors (and ignoring the mass of those mirrors, the support structure, etc), and that gives about 2 kg/kW. A single 1 GW satellite would weigh in at 2000 tons, or about 30 times as much as the entire Iridium constellation. I really don't think you want to start your SPS system by launching a dozen of these things.

            -dms

            by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:45:30 AM PDT

            •  I meant to add

              that there's a nice discussion of the mass and dollar budgets needed for SPS over at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

              -dms

              by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:47:13 AM PDT

            •  You're still stuck on mass

              There are other designs than a giant array of solar cells.

              by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:36:49 AM PDT

    •  Mirrors...

      You don't need a large array of photovoltaics... just a smaller generator with lightweight mirror s (and the means to deal with light pressure).  

      If they didn't mass so much, you could even do it with a stirling engine, but we wouldn't.

      LEO is vastly cheaper to get to than Geosync and for that matter we've already demonstrated with Iridium that it is possible to loft a bunch of cheap satellites.  Iridium's problem was the business model.  (and the crappy performance specs for the phone, and how Motorola handled their relationship...)

      Finally, we don't have to be in as many orbits to cover the US .. A booster based upon shuttle components is already in the works, and we still have the Delta rocket.

      You really can get a lot of bang for the buck.  And, this is the gift that keeps on giving.  If the satellites are cheap enough, maintainence may not even be an issue.  (This is what the shuttle was designed FOR in the first place.)

      I think you really need to look at the research that's been going on since Sputnik.  We don't have to LIVE in these satellites.  In fact, we probably don't need a manned spaceflight program to put them up or to maintain them.

      by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:55:00 AM PDT

      •  Disagree about orbits

        The problem with LEO is that the satellites move, a lot, relative to the ground stations. That means you need a lot of ground stations and many satellites, to get any sort of reasonable duty cycle. Not to mention, satellites with fairly sophisticated beam tracking systems to hand off megawatt-range microwave beams from one ground station to the next.

        Geosync, on the other hand, lets you build your space-based infrastructure incrementally. Build one sun-sat and one ground station. When you have the need and the money, build a second pair, etc.

        And actually, geosynch isn't that much more expensive to reach. The hard part is getting in orbit at all; the delta-v required to reach high orbit is a small fraction of the delta-v needed to get into any orbit at all. You can also take your time, using a low-thrust ion drive or something to transfer orbits, if need be.

        If your construction is fully automated (and I agree that that's the right way to do it, but that's another toolbox that needs to be developed), the actual orbit is irrelevant to ease of construction.

        -dms

        by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:10:36 AM PDT

        •  Geosync is 20,000 miles away

          Whereas LEO is only 400 miles away.  Power strength falls off with the SQUARE of distance.  Forget Geosync.  You're talking about Duty Cycle?  Let's talk about efficiency.

          Besides, there is a premium on Geosync orbits.  They're not cheap and they are a limited resource.

          by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:18:31 AM PDT

          •  Inverse square law

            The 1/r^2 effect means that your one rectenna farm has to be bigger, that's all.

            Let's crunch some numbers. Assume that we want to deliver 1 GW of baseline power to the US (by baseline, I mean always-on). Let's say that a 1 GW LEO satellite needs a rectanna array 50 meters on a side, for a total collection area of 2500 m^2. However, in order to keep this array lit 24 hours a day, you are going to need something like 6 1 GW emitters in LEO. Probably more, since the US is far enough north that a LEO station in equatorial orbit will have a very limited field of view, and inclined orbits mean that you need many more satellites to provide the same degree of coverage. Alternatively, you can build a single emitter and a whole array of ground stations, but (a) geography will limit the coverage and (b) ground transmission losses will eat you alive.

            Compare with geosync. I build one emitter in space. It's a factor of 50 further away, so I need 2500 times the collecting area to get the same amount of power back. Fine. My rectenna array is 2.5 km on a side. That's not cheap, but I make the money back because I've only had to build a single emitter in space. Even if you scale everything up by a factor of ten in linear size, a 25 x 25 km array is something that could be built for a few gigabucks, cheaper than adding another orbiting emitter to the system. The goal is to minimize the amount of construction in space; we know how to build big things on the ground.

            -dms

            by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:37:29 AM PDT

            •  Philosophy

              I guess it depends upon the cost of an emitter.

              I'm of the "lots of cheap little emitters in LEO" opinion, and it lets me sell power around the world.

              And you're of the "a few expensive big emitters in GEO" opinion.  You're requires construction abilities in space (which is a royal pain in Geosync) and mine doesn't require construction in space at all.

              Both should be explored.  Both might be viable.  I'd like to find a way that demonstrates progress and am of the opinion that a demonstration project with cheap, little emitters that can be scaled up has a lot more salable potential than the big one.  I also like being able to sell power to people living under the orbits as a form of US Foreign policy.

              I think we're violently agreeing here. :)

              by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:32:27 AM PDT

              •  Fair enough

                I'm not going to be dogmatic enough to claim that GEO is the only way to do SPS. It's just that my reading on the subject has convinced me that it's the best way. You obviously disagree.

                We agree on goals, but differ on methods. In any event, the necessary prerequisites to do either approach are largely the same.

                -dms

                by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:40:09 AM PDT

                •  Who do we beat over the head?

                  Or, does one of us have to write a diary with pictures and arrows and pimp the daylights out of it to get attention?  (Obviously we talk about both methods, current research on generation, reasons that a space elevator helps the process, etc.)

                  Or, do we ghostwrite it and persude someone like Jerome or Devilstower to submit it?

                  by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:53:51 AM PDT

                  •  Interesting idea

                    I'd certainly be willing to co-author a diary with you. Send me an email (dmsilev (at) uchicago.edu) and we can try to put something together.

                    -dms

                    by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:05:25 AM PDT

    •  You are thinking of this in the wrong framework

      First the orbital position would be at the geo sychronos point, approximately 23,000 miles above earth.  Low earth Orbits decay and cause lifting and positioning problems, ie service visits to fix thrusters and provide fuel.  The structure has to be signifcantly stronger for low earth orbit to adress stress of gravitation pull, decay and trace atmosphere.

      SBS is not costly in real terms.  I have seen estimates as low as 9 billion bucks with output energy equal to 20-30 coal fire plants.  Even if the cost was 30 billion that is the same as 30 weeks of fighting in Iraq.  The big difference would be the money would be in our economy, in developing this energy dream - jobs and the multiplier effect of the investment would be very beneficial.

      A consortium in a public private partnership with utilities and the federal government make this investment cheap in the long run.  It mayeven be possible to internationalize the effort with Japan or other energy starved nations.

      It is attainable and not that difficult technologically.  Certainly it will cost less in lives lost for oil wars, and useless destructive spending.

      by Brother Dave on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:11:12 AM PDT

      •  Well,

        If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I agree with you that geosynch is the logical and sensible place to put an SPS. I disagree, however, that this is something we can do economically right now. The cost of launching stuff into orbit is just too high.

        The Shuttle has a cargo cost of about $10k/kg. More rational rockets are, of course, significantly cheaper, but currently bottom out at a few thousand dollars per kg. Let's say $1k/kg launched to LEO, and ignore the cost of transferring to a geosynch orbit and assembly. Upthread, I posted an estimate that a 1 GW station would mass at least 2000 tons, or 2 million kg. That's 2 billion dollars worth of cheap-rocket launch costs, to get a gigawatt into orbit. By the time you've finished buying all of the solar cells and other support materials and have moved the whole thing into a useful orbit, the cost has (conservatively) doubled. 1 gigawatt is about the equivalent of 3 or 4 fossil-fuel plants, so your 30 or 40 plant-equivalents would be a 10 GW SPS system, with roughly 40 billion dollars in construction costs. That's too expensive; other forms of power (like nuclear fission) are far cheaper, even after paying the auxiliary costs.

        If we can get the price to orbit to a few hundred dollars a kilogram (or preferably lower), than SPS becomes attractive. Until that happens, it's just not economical. The one unavoidable prerequisite for a practical SPS system is cheap access to space. Support research into better 'big dumb boosters'.

        Linear accelerators and mass drivers are also worth looking into for cargo shipments, but I haven't heard of any even vaguely serious plans to build a linac big enough to throw stuff into orbit.

        -dms

        by dmsilev on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:25:37 AM PDT

        •  The mass question

          If you don't do the whole thing with the current generation of solar cells, life is a lot different.  Again, there are mirrors, and there is also a printing technology for solar cells (less efficient, but MUCH less mass).

          It does come down to mass, clearly.

          by polecat on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:35:54 AM PDT

        •  $40 Billion

          Is not too much if the funding was 50% comercial and 50% federal.  This is a strategic consideration for the country and is easily less expensive than the war in Iraq and the future war with Iran - the coming shortages resulting after peak oil.  The sun is the least cost best solution in the end.

          by Brother Dave on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 03:01:16 PM PDT

  •  Article on Space Solar

    My school's dean (a physicist by training) wrote an article that seems to address this topic:

    Steve Fetter, "Space Solar Power: An Idea Whose Time Will Never Come?" Physics and
    Society, Vol. 33, No. 1 (January 2004).

    I must admit, I haven't read it. [I just discovered it on his curriculum vitae last night.]

    Thanks,

    Russ
    

    by magicrusslc on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:57:30 AM PDT

    •  And I responded :-)

      Actually, Steve's article in P&S was in response to a brief letter of my own, wondering why physicists weren't looking into space solar power a bit more. The editor kindly warned me his article was coming and we had considerable back and forth before he published it, but I think he still misrepresented a number of things.

      Anyway, if you want to read the article and response, here they are:
      Space Solar Power: An Idea Whose Time Will Never Come? by Steve Fetter
      Earth vs Space for Solar Energy, Round Two by Arthur Smith.

      Basically, the points of disagreement are on
      

      • Market conditions for intermittent power (terrestrial solar) vs continuous baseload power (space solar)
        
      • whether solar modules for space use are intrinsically much more expensive than for terrestrial
        
      • practical limits on specific power (kW per kg) of space modules
        
      • the potential for improvements in launch costs and solar module costs

      I think we can both agree that solar R&D applicable to both markets deserves a lot more funding... and if that's there, it wouldn't hurt to spend a bit of it looking into the space options too.

      by apsmith on Thu Oct 13, 2005 at 10:03:59 PM PDT

  •  The one thing ...

    about using energy beamed down by satellite, that has always bothered me, has been the possiblity to turn them into energy beamed weapons very easily.  I don't think this can be overlooked.

    by WuChier on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 10:12:40 AM PDT

  •  Flying electric generators

    Flying electric generators are a more practical way of achieving much the same results as solar power satellites. Power 24/7 (though amount varies with time), except in large storms which tend to take out power distribution anyway. As much power as you want at less than 2 cents per kWhr. Production models could be ready to deploy in a few years with some investment. It costs a lot less energy and money to loft a generator to an altitude of 2-6 miles than 22,000 miles. And, the generator lifts itself - no rocket needed. Basically, these things are a cross between a kite, a helicopter, and a wind turbine and would require restricting 0.25% of US airspace to meet 100% of our electric usage. Sounds farfetched at first (though not in comparison to SPS) but isn't as crazy as it sounds (prior comments by author). Environmental impact would be very low. Buildings kill far more birds than wind turbines. The amount of energy in the atmosphere in the form of wind is staggering. Almost all of the energy they take out of the air gets converted to heat at some point which ultimately gets converted back to wind, with a some being radiated into space (because the heat has been concentrated resulting in higher temperatures and more radiation). The effects could actually offset global warming some as global warming leads to increased winds. 43 groups of 600 generators (20MW) provide all US electricity.

    by whitis on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 04:19:09 PM PDT

•  Trying to slowly digest your recent work.

  One comment: what do you propose to do, assuming some success with the public, about the clamors for reorganization, new energy czars or poobahs or whatever, restructuring with DHS and all the rest?

  You see where I'm going. Bush's reshuffling of the deck chairs hasn't done much about the approaching icebergs. I'm thinking just leave everything more or less as it is, implement policy, and if bureaucratic, administrative changes are needed, address them as they arise.

  Less panic, more calm action as opposed to the frantic colored lights of the Bush mob.

  by melvin on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 04:40:09 AM PDT

  •  Calm action begins here

    There are no blinking lights and sirens here.  This is our strategic effort that Jerome tackles here versus our tactical effort.

    The policy platform that Jerome has drafted to which we will contribute is at least 1.5 years away from inception in terms of regulatory change and tax policy (assuming we win back a majority in Congress).

    Full inauguration will another 2 years after that assuming either a substantive 2/3rds majority in Congress and/or a win of the White House.

    There's the possibility that moderate Republicans can be won over, but that will not happen until the back of the current "culture of corruption" in Congress has been crushed, not merely deterred.

    We're also cognizant that personal economic decisions and practices will effect immediate change on the market -- a tactical approach -- as well as policy, with greater ease than trying to push this through Congress now.  

    Most of us are clear-eyed about the prospects and the challenges ahead.  It will be a long, hard slog, but we also know that it will be far more difficult if we wait to begin laying out the groundwork required until there is a need for blinking lights and sirens.  It could be too late if we wait that long to talk strategy.
    

    by Rayne on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:07:30 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      I was assuming this is being seriously debated 3 years from now.

      by melvin on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:17:58 AM PDT

      •  Swing vote needs this sooner rather than later

        There are far too many swing voters and reforming Republicans who've complained they don't know what we stand for.  We need these people on board ASAP so that they can help evangelize the rest of the Republican party (as much of a stretch goal as that is).

        Discussion and debate must begin now so that the message is crystal clear by February 2006 and the beginning of the election year.  Swing and reformed voters must see us and this policy as their only real choice.

        by Rayne on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:24:17 AM PDT

    •  The urgent thing

      is to se the terms of the debate. This is too important an issue for it to be played by Republican rules (more drilling, less regulation, right to the "American way of life", etc...)

      Republican policies are ruining the country

      is a slogan that should not apply only to energy but which applies particularly well there. It could act as a rallying slogan.

      by Jerome a Paris on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:28:00 AM PDT

      •  Debate internal, not external

        Got your back on that, as you can see in my response  above.  (I hate this about threaded conversations, so non-linear at times.)

        But I think the debate should be internal within the ranks of progressives, not external.  We have a broad enough range of perspectives that we should be able to tighten this down to near-perfection.

        If we do an effective job internally, beginning now as you say due to urgency and due to timing as I've said, no debate will be necessary outside.  Un fait accompli, n'est-ce pas?  It will be the defacto choice of the majority of Americans.

        We also have an ugly but real ace in our pocket that will do much of the heavy lifting for us.  Many, many swing voters will be naturally converted this winter as heating costs become untenable, let alone the cost of gasoline.

        Progressives need only point out when swing voters complain about costs, Hey, I voted for better energy policies in 2004. Are you going to do better in 2006? in 2008?

        by Rayne on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:48:32 AM PDT

•  Building an effective Dem energy policy...

  ...is like helping the German Socialists in the 1930s to control inflation.

  The issue is very real, but is dwarfed by other considerations.

  by Lupin on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 04:46:14 AM PDT

  •  I strongly disagree

    This is, and will be, one of the two most important issues on the planet. It is also a key part of solving the other issue, the continued threat to world peace by an increasingly desperate administration. If the American Democratic party cannot provide a solid, united, and defensible platform and real leadership on this and other issues, there is, as you allude, the very real possibility of the US sliding into Fascism.

    by Chris Kulczycki on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 04:55:52 AM PDT

    •  quite right

      I readily admit you're very likely right and I'm wrong / way too pissy; there are days where I just don't see the goddam end of the tunnel, that's all.

      by Lupin on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:31:59 AM PDT

  •  I think it's more akin...

    to eliminating crippling war reparations in the '20s.

    If we don't deal with it now then all hell will break loose down the road and we will be at least partially responsible.

    Most of the 'more important' stuff that has been talked about here recently, like endless maundering on about the supreme court, has achieved nothing.

    Energy policy is great for a couple of reasons:
    

    1. Most reasonable Americans of all parties realize that something needs to be done.
       
    2. The Republicans are obviously failing in their energy policy.  (Gas up 50% under their watch.  War for oil failing dismally.  Massive giveaways to energy companies achieving nothing.  Average vehicle MPG down, etc.)
       
    3. Democrats aren't obviously tied down to really stupid policies yet.
       
    4. It is an actual, real, vital issue.
       

    by Retyef on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:14:28 AM PDT

  •  Actually, I think it organizes

    most of the issues that are causing us problems. It might not directly affect health care, but it surely affects foreign policy, transportation policy, household economics, the environment.

    by lecsmith on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:23:29 AM PDT

    •  As this diary shows it effects healthcare too

      This link shows an idea Obama has to tie healthcare relief to the auto industry in exchange for better mileage.

      A great way to tie universal healthcare, energy, and the economy into one great democratic idea.

      Instead of piecemeal tho, this should be being presented as part of the the democratic "Apollo" plan.

      by Sherri in TX on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:55:04 AM PDT

      •  Kudos to Obama

        I was going to dairy that one yesterday, but I'd used up my allotment. Darn it.

        You have to give the man dibs for:

        1. thinking outside the box
           
        2. making the connection between energy and health without making it seem too heavy handed

        Among people who have heard Obama's plan, I can't help but think that every time GM complains about health care cost, they're going to remember this idea.

        by Devilstower on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:35:31 AM PDT

        •  Obama's philosophy

          His notions about overcoming polarization and name-calling--in other words, not buying into the Rove strategy of anger and divisiveness--can all be applied to discussions about energy.

          It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.  

          The presentation of the Dem energy policy should reflect the attitude Obama expresses in his diary today.  Instead of playing to the extremes, we should come up with a pitch that will resound with the millions in the middle who are working hard, have kids, each parent holding down two jobs, barely getting by, worried about rising utility bills this winter, in debt....

          by Plan9 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 09:27:41 AM PDT

          •  Hear, hear n/t

            by mateosf on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 10:42:28 AM PDT

  •  Lupin, I disagree slightly on this one

    This is like helping the German Socilaists fight inflation in the early 20s.

    There is still a chance that it is not too late.

    by Jerome a Paris on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:34:14 AM PDT

    •  Indeed

      You're absolutely correct and I'm wrong and was being way too snarky. I don't mind fessing up to it.

      My post had less to do with your good intentions, and the necessity to get our collective heads out of our asses on energy, than my zero confidence in the Democrats to be anything else but a Weimar-like castrated opposition.

      I did recommend the diary, as always. Keep us the good work.

      by Lupin on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:30:29 AM PDT

•  Question Time last night

  On the BBC last night Question time took up the topic of environmental conservation, and the inherent problems therein. One of the big points as a way to pass the buck was to say that 4, even 8 years isn't long enough to implement an effective energy policy.

  Certainly, Blair's recent form has been indicative of a bit of an about-face. There's a great deal of talk about what is being said by politicians and how long term solutions are necessary, but really if we are going to change things, we need to do it from the ground up. It is not the fault of the politicians that the population is so consistently wasteful. Certainly some programs and restrictions on the corporate world are in order, but the refusal to walk anywhere by most Americans, and the willingness to waste huge amounts of electricity are the root problems here.

  My question is, where is the action for and of the people?

  Bismark once said God offers protection to fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Too bad for us, Bush hits three out of three.

  by ukben on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:01:16 AM PDT

•  Jerome, not only will a smart energy

  policy create jobs and improve our environment, but wouldn't we be creating methods and technologies that we could sell to other countries concerned about the same thing?

  by lecsmith on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:18:42 AM PDT

  •  I like it

    Instead of being dependent on Saudi Arabia, we BECOME the Saudi Arabia of alternative energy.  (Just leave out the theocracy and the uhhhh, blowing things up.)

    The Toby Keith/NASCAR/drool set likes the notion that the USA is #1, so perhaps it could be marketed to them that way, while the rest of us appreciate it simply for its merits.

    by skralyx on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:37:51 AM PDT

  •  Yes, exactly

    Go to a wind farm in the United States right now, and take a look at the windmills.  Where are they made?  Odds are, in Europe.

    While the old energy industry is getting billions from Bush, alternative sources are getting a relative pittance.  The result is that the US is now becoming dependent on foreign sources, not only for our oil, but for the technology we need to break free of oil.

    Only with a major focus on this area can we reverse this, develop rather than buy our own infrastructure, and become an exporter of this technology to others.

    by Devilstower on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:10:42 AM PDT

  •  That's what Wes Clark said early on

    before the party toned him down (shut him up?). Develop new energy technology, export it, add jobs in the US. It's still a great idea that would change the world, literally.

    by cotterperson on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:21:28 AM PDT

  •  Frame: Democrats = Clean Energy Entrepreneurs

    Exactly. This will lead to prosperity, and not just because of boring things like conserving wisely, taking prudent precautions, and being responsible. We will actually be able to innovate and invent not just new technologies, but new industries that will make Americans a lot of money. Al Gore and plenty of others have been saying this for a long time.

    That argument should appeal to a whole different segment of voters and eat into the Republican base. It has the added advantage of being true.

    Corporatist cowboys like to be given free rein, largely based on the contention that they are the brave risk-takers who drive the engine of progress and democracy. But in the area of new environmental technologies, with a few notable exceptions, they've been gutless, dragging their feet, holding us all back.

    The question must be asked of Corporate America: Just why aren't you joining the rest of us in rising to this challenge? Don't you think you can succeed and prosper? Just what is it about American ingenuity and perseverence that you don't believe in?

    We need a new kind of entrepreneur for a new century. Democrats can foster this entrepreneurship far better than Republicans can, because Republicans are beholden to old-style corporate cronyism.

    This fits nicely in a larger frame: that Democrats believe far more in the core American values -- democracy, freedom, accountability, entrepreneurship, etc. -- than Republicans do.

    by Sharpner on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 08:57:32 AM PDT

    •  You want business to do it

      you have to give them incentives.

      Give them big tax breaks on new energy R&D. Give them 5 yr tax breaks on profits from AFFORDABLE alternative energy technologies, provided the profits don't fall outside a percentage cap. Give car manufacturers incentives to meet beefed up CAFE standards. Give them (and the buyers) a tax break or credit on fuel efficient trucks and SUVs.

      Give people in older houses a tax credit to replace their old furnaces and AC, and possibly old appliances like washers, refrigerators, hot water heaters, etc. And PUBLICIZE it. Right now, a lot of that stuff exists, but nobody knows about it.

      Make the stuff affordable, and give the companies a way to make more money on THAT than on what they sell now, and you'll have it tomorrow.

      And people will BUY them.

      by mmacdDE on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 12:56:30 PM PDT

•  And notice how your columns have

  influenced my byline.

  by lecsmith on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:19:20 AM PDT

  •  Heh

    once the memo is ready, you can link to it!

    by Jerome a Paris on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:34:58 AM PDT

•  Links to references please.

  Can you provide links to your suggestions?

  "emission trading, Renewable Portfolio Standard, Home Improvement Credit Act [...]"

  I agree with your statement. But if you include the above options as solutions, I'd like to re-read or read what it is exactly before I put my voice behind it.

  Thanx.

  by Cyphrus42 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 05:41:42 AM PDT

•  Rebrand the

  current energy policy from 'Bush/Cheney' to 'Republican'.  Every facet of this ongoing disaster should be branded Republican.

  Agree with adding the Saudis as suppliers.

  by yellowdog52 on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:17:47 AM PDT

  •  Support this

    When you're the number one brand, you don't mention the competition.

    When you're the number two brand, you mention them as a lesser alternative.

    We surely have a number one brand in our ranks as far as leadership.  Nix the Bush/Cheney brand.

    We may be number two by demographics of the last election, but as Avis said, we try harder.

    by Rayne on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:20:43 AM PDT

  •  Disagree on Bush/Cheney vs. Republican..

    because we should provide some 'safe mental ground' for moderates republicans and independents who wish to join this effort.  Republicans are not evil people and Republicanism is not an evil political party.  What has happened to the Republican party by the neocons and fundies is, indeed, criminal.  But I'd rather hand the rotting corpse off of the necks of Bush & Cheney, so as to drive an even bigger divide between them and 'responsible' republicans.  In other words, lets make this more about Americans and less about our political parties.  See my comment down thread for specific recommendations.

    by Doolittle Sothere on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:36:59 AM PDT

    •  Shorter:

      "McCain in '08!"

      by Smallbottle on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:53:28 AM PDT

    •  Brand the Repugs as bad

      This worked quite well for Reagan, the smiling idiot president, when he kept spouting off about how "Liberals" were responsible for all ills.

      Shift people away from the Repugs by pointing out how ALL Republicans have enabled Bush.  Even one of Maryland's best congress critters, Wayne Gilchrest, has enabled Bush by voting for DeLay and the other criminals who run the Republican party.

      Attack ALL Republicans- get moderate representatives like Wayne Gilchrest to go independent- take away the Repug power to corrupt.

      by MD patriot on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 06:56:35 AM PDT

    •  respectfully disagree

      Linking this to Republican policy allows us to discuss our energy policy at all political levels. This is an issue that needs to be address not just by Presidential candidates but also by local and municiple gov't, state gov't, and congressional candidates.

      We must have dialogue, if it offends Republicans then so be it. Ma