The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Jamie Friedland's picture

    Baby Steps: The Senate Eyes a Renewable Electricity Standard

    Just finished my second post at Change.org's environment page:

    At this point, we’ll take what we can get. This is the resigned tune being sung by many environmentalists and clean energy advocates as Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Neb.) unveiled a proposal to implement a national renewable electricity standard on Tuesday. And, amazingly enough, it looks like the votes are actually there.

    You can read the full post here, but I want to highlight the last paragraph:

    Finally, I’d also like to take a moment to highlight the quality of criticism against a renewable energy standard.  You read above that a 15 percent by 2021 standard will have virtually no impact on the energy market.  Yet the energy experts at the conservative Heritage Foundation are sounding the alarm with their analysis that this basically symbolic law would “kill a million jobs and cut a trillion dollars from the national income by the end of the decade.”  Booga booga!

    We have to raise the level of political discourse if we are to have sensible governance in this country.  Former President Clinton said yesterday that he thinks we may be entering a "fact free" period in politics.  Such a world might make for nice sound bites, but real problems need real solutions.  And I'm not saying that a weak RES typifies real solutions, but we need to have honest debate about matters of such importance to our country.  Let's at least not blatantly lie.  Yes, I'm looking at you, Heritage Foundation.

     

    Comments

    The Atlantic had an article on RES/RPS:

    Debate rages over which energy sources to include in the standard. Supporters of a straight RES want to stick to the traditional renewables of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and, in some cases, hydropower. Supporters of a "clean" rather than "renewable" energy standard want to include nuclear power, carbon capture-equipped coal plants, and natural gas. In order to obtain a satisfactorily strict standard, Democrats may have to compromise on this point.


    I read that Ohio already counts "advanced nuclear power generation," which probably isn't fusion, as eligible for RES credits. Admittedly it is hard to increase the percentage without burning something. It can take two or three thousand wind turbines to replace one Pennsylvania coal-fired plant. But I can't get behind nuclear fission when we can't even keep our bridges from falling down.

     


    Yeah, exactly what is "renewable" or "clean" poses more problems.  Including nuclear etc as a compromise to get a "satisfactorily strict" standard effectively negates the strictness that made it satisfactory.  Expanding the definition is as bad as setting the sights too low.