There are important things we need to do with our national energy policy.
I believe that we need incentives to conserve — though conservation will not deal more than partly with our problems.
I believe that we can, and should, use contemporary technology to safely and cleanly make use of our coal reserves, and to use nuclear energy. I believe that such production needs to be regulated carefully — but not out of existence.
I believe we need to further research other energy sources — but not bet the farm on them.
I believe the best way to get clean, plentiful energy is an open, prosperous market and economy.
But whether I believe those things, or believe that we can save the world through wind power, or that drilling up ANWR is the only way to be safe and secure … none of this has anything to do with the power failure in the Northeast.
Indeed, power plants were taken offline during the failure.
The problem was not insufficient energy resources. It was deficiencies with power grid design and maintenance. A thousand nuclear power plants, or oil fired plants, or windmills, wouldn’t have made any difference. Drilling in ANWR wouldn’t have made a difference. Increasing fleet mileage requirements wouldn’t have made a difference. Relaxing coal plant emission standards wouldn’t have made a difference. Signing the Kyoto Treaty wouldn’t have made a difference.
It is irksome in the extreme that the blackout is thus being used to push forward everyone’s favorite energy policy. Not power policy, but energy policy. And, since the GOP are the folks in charge (though I’ve no doubt the Dems would be doing the same in their own place), it’s they are who are being most successful in driving their agendas forward.
Feh.
The Montana forum article had some bad info in it. There are (off the top of my head) 10 different grids in the US. the Grid we are on consists of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Navada, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, and tiny piece’s of SoDak, Texas and Nebraska.
if by an “open, prosperus market and econemy” you mean deregulation…thats what has caused the problems that we have been seeing over the past several years.
Let’s see, a map of the grid here
The white house and Tom DeLay killed this two years ago.
FY02 energy and water bill – 6/25/2001
FARR AMENDMENT: Electric Power Grid Improvement Loans
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
Total cost: $350 million
Authorize the Secretary of Energy to make loans and loan-guarantees for the purpose of improving existing electric power transmission systems, reliability or capacity. These loans must be repaid in full within 25 years, such that the long-term cost to the government is zero.
BACKGROUND:
– GROWING DEMAND NOT MATCHED BY GROWING TRANSMISSION CAPACITY: Over the next 10 years, the Department of Energy predicts that demand for electric power will increase by 25%, requiring more than 200,000 megawatts of new capacity. However, under current plans electric transmission capacity will not be nearly enough to keep pace.
– CALIFORNIA’S PATH 15 ALREADY PROVES THAT BOTTLENECKS ARE A PROBLEM: Path 15 in California consists of two 84 mile 500 kilovolt transmission lines between the northern and southern parts of the State. There is complete agreement that Path 15 is a major bottleneck that contributes to blackouts in the State, costing the consumers $222 million in 2000 alone. The one-time cost to fix the Path 15 problem is $250 million, which would increase transfer capacity over Path 15 by approximately 1500 megawatts. The Secretary of Energy himself testified, that constructing the 3rd Path 15 line within the existing pathway would increase system reliability, reduce the likelihood of blackouts, and lead to greater competition and lower prices.
– EXISTING BILL UNDERFUNDS EFFORTS TO ADDRESS BOTTLENECKS: The supplemental bill before you today includes $1.6 million, not requested by the Administration, for the Department of Energy to study the power grid problem. While that’s a positive first step, the fact is that the project has been studied for years and there is consensus among all parties that upgrades are desperately needed – and needed now.
– AMENDMENT WOULD DEAL WITH ENTIRE GRID: This amendment is designed to deal with all of the major power grid vulnerabilities.
the final version, prior to it’s death was 600 Billion for the entire US. grid.
oh well. Better to stand tall and look tough instead of taking care of things when you have the chance.
Sorry Million….
1. The basic point remains that this was not an energy problem, but a power problem. Dealing with it via a power bill (such as the one above) would be appropriate; trying to sell the whole energy policy bill of goods along with it is politics at its typical worst. (And I assume, without knowing the details, that was part of what sank the 2001 bill listed above.)
By an “open, prosperous market and econemy,” I mean that we’re not going to come up with cleaner technology by trying first to roll our economy back to 1980 consumption levels and then trying to make it better.
I believe that basic utilities and services need to be regulated. Competition is good, and its successes will be greater than in an noncompetitive, fully regulated environment — but its failures will be greater, too, and for basics like water and power, I don’t see the opportunities as anywhere matching the risks.
The problem is how to provide an incentive for improvements in a regulated environment, while keeping the system as reliable as possible.
This site is just plain fun.