Note from the Directors: Congressman Bishop will stop by this evening to participate in the conversation in the comment thread to this post. We're glad we can welcome him into the blogosphere today.
Thanks, RedState, for allowing me to occupy a little bit of your valuable e-estate. This is my first real foray into the blogosphere. Since I’m new at this, please, be gentle.
As someone who typically uses only legal pads (having just
barely missed the days of the abacus), I realize it’s past time for
me to finally embrace the 21st century’s preferred method of
political communication. I couldn’t think of a better place to try
out this series of “tubes” than here on RedState, especially now
that you’ve renovated the place. (By the way, it looks
great!).
As a number of my colleagues have demonstrated on this site over the past few days, energy has emerged as the primary issue of the day. The emergence of this issue presents us with a unique opportunity to draw a clear contrast between Republican solutions that promote American energy and the failed, restrictive energy policies of the Democrats. The good news is the public is on our side. Poll after poll shows that Americans are open to responsibly developing America’s energy resources.
As a Westerner, I know that America has ample domestic energy resources, whether it’s the reserves in ANWR, the oil and gas in the OCS, the oil shale resources found in the Rocky Mountain West, the 200-year coal supply, or the virtually untapped nuclear and other renewable resources such as hydro, solar, geothermal, biomass, and wind. The only real question is whether Democrat leaders of Congress have the political will to develop all of these resources.
One other thing people need to understand is that while soaring fuel prices inflict pain on all Americans, it is especially painful for the poor and middle class. For the rich, $4 a gallon gasoline is an annoyance; for those who are surviving paycheck to paycheck (like me), it can be devastating. The energy debate here in Congress has largely missed this element. This is the real “Inconvenient Truth.” Blogs like RedState can help make a difference in how many people hear the facts about the relationship between high energy prices and the poor.
One of the 20th century’s greatest sages, Yogi Berra, once said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” Yogi holds a special place in my heart, but in this instance, I can think of one prediction that isn’t hard: If our Party is to have any chance this November, we need to own the issue of energy – not just dominate the debate – own it. We need to clearly and consistently expose Democrat policies as one source of today’s high energy prices. There is clearly blame enough to share for all, but the Democrats’ decades-long, deliberate opposition to domestic energy production has exacerbated the problem. We need to continue hammering home the theme of the “Pelosi Premium” and continue calling for votes on pro-domestic energy bills. Every time Republican proposals to lower prices at the pump by increasing energy production are contrasted with the Democrats’ scapegoat approach, the public can’t help but realize that the Democrats are unwilling to meet the serious energy challenges of the day.
However, attacking bad Democratic energy proposals is not enough. Our Party also needs to show that we have specific, concrete solutions to these problems. For months, the Republican Leadership has done a good job in framing the issue for the Party and in fostering a broad range of Republican energy proposals. I think it’s time now to fold the broad plan and the various good proposals into one specific strategic energy proposal to take to the American people. This is where I need your help.
Americans deserve to know that at least one party in Congress understands what high energy prices mean for the poor, the rural, and the elderly. Americans also deserve to know that at least one party in Congress supports the environmentally sound development of America’s vast energy resources and has a plan to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign energy and cut energy prices. To that end, I’d like to present to you a couple of ideas to promote a pro-domestic, “all of the above” energy policy that will help demonstrate that Republicans have the understanding and the solutions needed to confront the current energy crisis:
“The American Energy Act”
For several months a number of my Western colleagues encouraged our party to adopt one comprehensive energy bill that fully incorporates the Republican energy agenda. While Republicans had sponsored a number of good energy bills, it was difficult to sell each individual bill to the public. We argued that coalescing around one bill that contained the best of Republican energy ideas was a key and necessary piece to winning this debate.
One early, worthy attempt to do this was H.R. 6384, “The Americans for American Energy Act.” This legislation, based on the principles of increased Production, Conservation, and Innovation, compiled the best energy ideas from the best energy bills in circulation. I am happy to see that our Leadership now agrees with the overall approach of “The Americans for American Energy Act” and that they are planning this week to introduce the “American Energy Act.” This bill, much like H.R. 6384, brings together a wide array of provisions aimed at increasing the supply of domestic energy, improving conservation efforts and promoting new technologies. It supports all domestic energy sources in one, easily explainable bill. I strongly urge the RedState community to get behind this legislation and make sure the public hears and learns of the “American Energy Act.”
“Stop the War on the Poor"
Last week I participated in a wonderful rally and press conference on the Capitol grounds that brought together a broad coalition of civil rights, agriculture, religious, senior citizen, veterans and consumer rights groups. These groups joined with over a dozen members of Congress to “Stop the War on the Poor.” All of us urgently want Americans to recognize that bad energy policies that drive up energy costs equate to a “war on the poor.” Members of the RedState community should research and join this and other energy consumer coalitions as we create a nationwide movement to increase domestic energy production to lower prices and ultimately end the war on the poor.
“Declaration of American Energy Independence”
A group of friends and colleagues recently drafted a “Declaration of American Energy Independence” based on the original Declaration of Independence. Over two dozen members of Congress and hundreds of individuals and representatives from many organizations have now signed the document to publicly demonstrate their commitment to reduce energy prices and make our country less reliant on foreign sources of energy. I hope that you will still go to my website (www.house.gov/robbishop), download the document, print it and send it to friends & family and inundate Congress with this petition.
There are a number of petitions out there that do a similar job, for example, Newt Gingrich has his “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign which I support. I believe these and similar pro-energy petitions will play an important role in creating a groundswell of public support for lower prices and greater energy independence.
“More American Energy Pledge”
I’d like to see the Republican Party and the broader conservative online community begin to encourage all Republican members and candidates to sign a campaign pledge (similar to the ATR tax pledge and the Rep. Westmoreland energy petition) committing to support American energy production and to oppose policies that will increase our reliance on foreign energy. This will again put pro-energy candidates on the record as supporting balanced, human focused, energy policies.
As you can see, some of these ideas are already being implemented. Some of them are still in the “idea” phase. The important point is that I want to start a dialogue with you today about how we, as a Party, can convincingly win the energy debate. Now is the time for increased collaboration.
As one of the leaders of the Congressional Western Caucus, we still want a solution to this issue. Whether the actual bill is the Western Caucus’s Americans for American Energy Act or Leaderships’ American Energy Act, they are both good bills and we want to be involved in their passing.
Undoubtedly there are other ideas out there that are meritorious and would help the cause. Please, let me know about them. Like I said, I want this to be a collaborative effort, not one based on me telling you what to do and how to do it. I sincerely believe that a collaboratively designed energy strategy that combines the best ideas in Congress with the creativity, insight, and technological know-how of the best conservative online activists will result in a plan and a product that will show the American people Republicans have real solutions to our energy problems. Plus, if this effort is successful we also may show some of my colleagues in Congress a new way for Republicans to actively collaborate with the online community in their other endeavors.
While I’m still relatively new to the “internets,” I know enough to understand that it’s somewhat unusual to attempt to create a national campaign strategy openly and online. It’s certainly not how we in Congress have worked in the past. I recognize that times have changed, that politics have changed, and that the way we traditionally work in Congress has to change too. We simply must do a better job of working together with the online community and other conservative activists. We need your ideas and your passion to help move Congress in the direction it needs to go. That’s why I wanted to take these ideas directly here to you. I have no doubt that if an energy campaign of the sort described above is to be successful, online activists such as those found here on RedState need to be not only involved in the campaign, but leading it.
I genuinely look forward to hearing your thoughts and feedback on this approach.
Listen to T. Boone
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (link)
Pickens....we're not going to drill our way out of this... although I'm not so confident about his natural gas plans due to lack of infrastructure, wind on the other hand is looking good.
The only hope in the near term is high prices driving down demand and increasing investment in alternatives that will pay off in the long run. You can be honest, we can take it.
The Oil Man knows best
mbauer July 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (link)
On the surface, I also like T. Boone a lot. I haven't yet put the time in to dig deeper on him.
The most important thing to get from him is a reminder of the advantages of natural gas. A natural gas market favors our natural resources much more. Also, it is a lot cleaner than many other fules.
So tired of this crap
Dave_in_Fla July 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (link)
I'm done with arguing this point with the trolls. From now on I have one answer to these idiots.
BS.
"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."
Hey Dave
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (link)
I've been here almost 3 years now, does that still qualify me to be a "troll"?
What specifically is "BS"? Have you read this yet?
http://www.20percentwind.org/
Why is T. Boone investing $12 Billion in a single wind farm, just to feel good about himself? What about all the other oil companies starting to invest big money in alternatives, are they delusional as well?
You miss the point
Vegas_Rick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (link)
Those technologies are years if not decades down the road. If energy costs keep going up, we won't have an economy robust enough to fund the massive R&D required for those technologies.
Pickens has already spent billions on wind. You think maybe he now has a different agenda?
President Bush eliminated the Executive order last week. Oil is down over $20 per barrel since. Imagine what it would do if congress actually committed to maximizing domestic energy production of all kinds!
All you trolls need to do is apply a little common sense and critical reasoning to see the light. :)
Those who control energy, control society.
Actually
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (link)
Rick, if you read the report you'll see that 20% wind is possible with today's technology by 2030 at a cost of $0.5 cents/kWh - not exactly an economy killer.
Of course Pickens has an agenda, he wants to make money, along with everyone else moving into this arena, just as he did when he went into oil... more power to him. What if he's right?
Yes, I'm sure the $20 drop was entirely due to Bush's announcement. That's fine though open up everything, what will we do 5 years after that when we come to the same place we are now? Short term thinking is not what's needed now.
$.05 per kwh to produce
Vegas_Rick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (link)
once the infrastructure and grid modifications are in place.
I'm not saying we should abandon wind or any other renewable energy source.
I'm saying build a bridge with current energy technology and supplies to get us to the point when we can realistically bring the new technologies on line.
You keep touting wind, but it's got a lot of technological problems yet to be solved.
I'm tired of energy trolls. My reply to any response: bs
Those who control energy, control society.
Read the report
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (link)
0.05 cents/kWh includes building transmission and grid modifications
Read the report
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (link)
0.5 cents/kWh includes building transmission and grid modifications, with EXISTING technology... toodles
Years to produce?
Pi Over Three July 22nd, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (link)
How long will drilling for more oil in ANWAR or the OCS take?
Just because it might take a few years doesn't mean its a bad idea. I just means it will require long term planning - and our long term plans need to include both.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today? Former user of Google I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.
You're correct Mason
Vegas_Rick July 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (link)
I advocate a complete basket of energy development and exploration projects. My problem with the greenies is they don't want a multi-pronged approach to energy independence, they only want to explore those sources that make them FEEL good about themselves as they cruise down the road at 85mph in the Navigator. I say oil, clean coal, ethanol from non-food sources, methanol, sun, wind, hydro, geothermal, tides, bio-fuels and whatever else produces energy that can be used in a practical and realistic manner should be explored.
I simply don’t think we can eliminate any of the possibilities.
Those who control energy, control society.
As I said
Dave_in_Fla July 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (link)
BS
"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."
Why? It's an easy money, you dork!
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (link)
Look at the subsidies to ensure the profit of your wind sharks:
and so on, all in the name of Environment.
Summary: 100% GUARANTEE PROFITS FOR YOUR WIND and the expense of the people.
The biggest crap: Democrats bestow Sainthood to these hypocrites.
Troll are always NOT thinking straight.
Why T Boone invest all his money to Wind?
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (link)
Look at the subsidies to ensure the profit of your wind sharks:
and so on, all in the name of Environment.
Summary: A strikingly 100% GUARANTEED PROFITS FOR YOUR WIND AT the expense of the people.
T Boone must be so happy!
The biggest crap: Democrats bestow Sainthood to these hypocrites.
Troll are always NOT thinking straight.
Yes
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (link)
Wind gets government incentives, just as all forms of energy do (only less than the others)
Luckily, these incentives tend to pay for themselves, leaving a net benefit for the taxpayer.
No, you missed the point
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (link)
We have been paying so much because of wind. It's the major reason why we have to pay higher prices of electricity. And subsidies to wind development? Common. Dave is right! BS!
The fact is that both federal and state governments have been betting the taxpayers' money for wind development since the first Oil Crisis in early 70s.
How many more years does wind technology need to perfect its technology and allow pure market-driven environment work for itself? As a technology forecaster, I would say that this has gone so wrong already.
And the wind developers are asking for more subsidies and assistance from the Government? NO WAY!
I'd say that Government should scrap all those unnecessary subsidies to wind projects and fund more R&D and commercialisation programs on other technologies that are better and far more promising than wind, particularly natgas-fired fuel cells.
Strip away
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (link)
all government incentives for energy and wind is competitive, if not the cheapest. The problem is it's now competing with traditional sources that have much more incentives, so either give wind the same amount of incentive or eliminate them altogether for everyone (PS that pretty much eliminates new nuke plants).
Well
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (link)
You may say that, but may I repeat:
If you invest in (a rational) wind project, your profits are 100% guaranteed. In fact, you'll get additional money if you're an investor with high appetite for tax exemption. In fact, by choosing the right financing scheme, you can shift the project's tax exemption to one of your partners that need the exemption more (e.g., corporate entities with multiple portfolios and business lines).
And I suspect that T Boone is using Wind to evade taxes from his other businesses.
T. Boone was one of my childhood heroes
stickler88 July 22nd, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (link)
And quite frankly, I'm starting to wonder about the Republican party's perception of priorities.
Bashing anything beyond "drill more" is starting to look backwards and out of touch.
Most Republicans
cbs July 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 p.m. (link)
including Cong. Bishop, Sen. McCain, and the House and Senate leadership certainly are not bashing anything beyond "drill more." Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then read the post. Follow the links.
The whole Republican message right now is "all of the above." That includes wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and yes, more drilling. Democrats are the ones who are limiting their options. Most Republicans are supporting all of our energy options.
I was refering more to recent comments...
stickler88 July 22nd, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (link)
One example--the continuing canard that wind turbines are bad because they will somehow harm migratory birds.
Ive heard this coming from people who are ostensibly pro-growth, pro-innovation and anti-CrazyGreen.
I just don't get it.
I hear you, Dave and many times it's really frustrating. <nt>
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (link)
Yeah, listen to T. Boone (not)
stang July 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (link)
WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens says if Barack Obama is elected president, "I think I would be for Al Gore for energy czar."
See story here
Wind has more & bigger obstacles...
Vladimir July 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (link)
...in terms of infrastructure than does natural gas.
"PsychObama, qu'est-ce que c'est?"
Wind has always been problematic
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (link)
Look at the realities about this technology:
On problems
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (link)
There's no reason wind can't have higher capacity factors (i.e. there's no max limit), but economically it makes sense for them to be around 40% or so...the US average is 36%, but some sites regularly see 50%. This is hard to think about for a person used to traditional forms of energy (why isn't it 100%?), but the bottom line is that the cost of energy is competitive with coal and all other sources $0.05/kWh - that's the important number.
True, wind is intermittent, but it's always blowing somewhere, particularly in the midwest, so geographic distribution of farms reduces this concern. And yes there do have to be ancillary plants to account for worst case scenarios but these don't have to oil or coal. The added cost of these is a mere 0.5 cents/kWh - not that big a deal.
The wind is always blowing
Joe_Schmo July 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (link)
There's no guarantee the wind will be constently be blowing close enough to where it's needed to make wind power your number one option. It can only be a supplement. You need to understand the losses in transmitting power over long distances so that you understand that your wind option is in no way a viable main source of electricity.
It can supplement and I'm all for that. T. Boone however is touting it as more than it can ever be.
Joe Schmo's blog
Your right
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (link)
it won't be main source anytime soon, but there's no reason it can't be a major source (i.e 20%, what nukes are now)...
Maybe more like 10%
Joe_Schmo July 22nd, 2008 at 4 p.m. (link)
Again, that's not the only issue with wind, just the one I felt like pointing out. Add to the fact that the wind blows when it want's to, not when it's especially needed, and the other problems with it, you'll be lucky to get a 10% supplement to the grid.
"All of the above" as the Congressman said.
Joe Schmo's blog
20% is practical
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (link)
http://www.20percentwind.org/
Only if the taxpayer picks up 100% of the bill
Raven July 22nd, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. (link)
I've already been into this and was a part of fending off the wind sharks in Blair County, PA. These people are lieing. They do not tell the truth about the construction footprint. They do not tell the truth about profitability.
The taxpayers are asked to pay the entirety of the cost and then some of building the blasted things, through outright corporate welfare, and tax breaks, and eminent domain to snatch the land from its owners. Wind is only profitable with all of these incentives and its the company that makes the money. The taxpayers just lose out on millions.
It's exceptionally bad in PA with so much cheap gas and coal easily accessible and the tech to burn it cleanly.
"It is getting harder and harder to find suicide bombers. And all the really good ones are gone."
And
pjshifty July 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (link)
What kind of incentives did your other power sources receive? Wind is not unique in this respect.
Tax Breaks
Raven July 24th, 2008 at 1:49 a.m. (link)
The newest coal to oil plant we're trying to get built isn't even asking for that. They just want to be a part of the governor's energy program.
We didn't build roads for them. They built the roads themselves.
We didn't pay them to build their power plants, they did.
We didn't fund their fights in the courts. Hell the State of PA was the complainant more often than not.
"It is getting harder and harder to find suicide bombers. And all the really good ones are gone."
Well
pjshifty July 24th, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (link)
good to hear they'll pay for the roads...the federal and state tax codes are littered with incentives for coal mining and energy production. And the CTL industry itself is also asking for more help...
You're wrong.
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (link)
There is so called Bets Law that says that the maximum power that can be obtained from a wind turbine is around 59%. By spending billions of dollars on this technology alone, you've reached a maximum efficiency of only 33%. But most wind farms can only deliver an average of 20-25% capacity factor.
That doesn't include the load following and other ancillary service requirements being shouldered by other conventional technologies such as oil-fired and nat-gas fired gas turbines, coal, and hydro, among others.
Now, all wind developers, because they're delivering "holy" electricity to the people, are asking for subsidies in transmission pricing.
Given the 25% capacity factor, try to subtract around 5% transmission losses, and 6% distribution losses and what will you get? 10% effective delivery of electricity, notwithstanding the fact that wind technology weakens the security and reliability of the entire grid system.
In conclusion: All energy forms and technologies are OKEY if they can be harnessed in the most economical manner, sans pricing distortions caused by "political correctness" of the electricity regulators. AND WIND TECH DOESN'T EXACTLY FIT TO THAT IDEAL.
Ouch!
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (link)
You’ve overreached, how sad for you... I love it when people start making stuff up... now we come to the educational part of our program...
Betz limit (16/27 = 0.592) is the ratio of the amount of power that can be extracted from the wind to the amount of power in the wind... it's a nice factoid, but it has nothing to do with capacity factor!
Capacity factor is the ratio of the amount of energy produced to the amount of energy that would be produced if the turbine was running at 100% power all the time. For reasons that we can go into if you like, wind turbines do not run at 100% power all the time in order to optimize energy capture. The US average capacity factor for wind energy is currently 36%... look it up. For comparison, a typical coal plant will run at around 60% capacity factor.
But, remember the real number that we are interested in is how much does the energy cost? For wind energy that is between 5-8 cents/kWh depending on where you are... and that does include transmission losses, ancillary services etc. This is competitive with all other forms of energy, so why not use it?
Finally introducing 20% wind into the grid will have very little effect on a reliability of the grid and will actually improve security... think about it, would you rather have one large power plant go off-line or a few wind turbines out of thousands... which has a greater impact?
Fool!
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 p.m. (link)
Education part? You're talking to a wrong person when it comes to the technical aspects of power and energy. Wow, you even USED a textbook or webpage narratives to get your info. That's nice.
BUT YOU GROSSLY MISHANDLED YOUR FIGURES ON capacity factors of different plants for the following major reasons:
Due to green energy lobbyists, wind electricity produce is considered "as available" in the power dispatch model of almost all SOs and RTOs. In short, wind is automatically dispatched by the system. This means that wind is highly favored by the grid system. The power it delivers is already the maximum that it can generate AT ALL TIMES.
Coal, oil, hydro and other intermediate and baseload plants produce electricity based on the dictates of the SO and RTOs. These resources are competing in the electricity market based on their price bidding strategy. The SO only allows these plants to be dispatched at a percentage of their capability or they may not be dispatched at all. This means that if you mistakenly bid at a very high prices, you won't be dispatched at all by the market. This is especially true in the case of high-ramp rate technologies like oil fired gas turbine plants which are only dispatched at peak hours.
To ensure the reliability of the grid system, some coal, oil, hydro plant units do not run at all. They serve as standby units to provide spinning and non-spinning reserves, among others. These reserves are necessary to address sudden shutdown of some plants and, most importantly, the variability of the demand. They also address the variability of "as available" intermittent resources particularly your wind plants. In power system planning, you call these standby capacities as Reserve Margin.
EIA statistics on CF have already factored these realities of the grid system and the power market. Thus, the lower CFs of coal, hydro, oil, nat gas, and geothermal are not really due to their technical capability limits BUT MAINLY DUE TO THE DICTATES OF THE MARKET FORCES (i.e., real-time operatinal costs).
Funny, your WIND farms enjoy all the benefits they get while the rest of the proven technologies are disadvantaged by the pricing systems. That's the reason why I said earlier that WIND developers have 100% guaranteed profits from the political correctness of our electricity regulators.
WIND IS LIKE BO, HAVING A WINNABILITY ADVANTAGE GUARANTEED BY THE MSM.
What he said
Joe_Schmo July 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. (link)
And very well covered, to, I might add.
Joe Schmo's blog
Umm OK
pjshifty July 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (link)
I think I agree with you - the system operators will use the cheapest market price for energy...the fuel for wind is free and the cycle cost of spinning them up is much lower than conventionals - the cost of wind is really the up front capital cost of the turbines - so you might as well use them when they're operating - it makes good financial sense (not because of some green conspiracy). This reduces the CFs of other plants because you don't need them, yes. So, what was your point and why does this make wind bad again?
I didn't say wind per se is bad.
Rod_Patrick July 24th, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (link)
First: Let us debunk your idea that Wind is free because it has negligible variable costs.
You have to pay for the price of the ancillary services due to its intermittency.
Wind has a very high capital cost. This is reason why wind is too costly.
You have to pay for the premium of RE Certificates being imputed to it. In case of green pricing, you have to pay for the involuntary premium being passed on by the utility to wind consumers.
You have to pay for all the incentives the wind gets to ensure its 100% guaranteed profits for its developers and owners. Many of these are paid by the convoluted federal and state taxes.
Second: What I am saying is this: It is the electricity regulators that make Wind a very viable project, and not the natural features of the technology and its resource. Let the wind proponents share the risks and burdens of the electricity market just like the rest of other power producers. Remove unnecessary subsidies and incentives to wind developers.
Third: Let me clarify the "as available" status of wind: It means that wind has "priority dispatch" simply because it's intermittent and cannot be scheduled. In short, its low variable cost has nothing to do why it is being dispatched in the market.
Pls. read the comment carefully in its entirety.
Alrighty
pjshifty July 25th, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (link)
Well first I didn't say wind energy was free just the fuel and the cost of ancillary services for 20% penetration is 5 mils/kWh (read the above mentioned report again)...
Also you should read this report on studying 10% penetration in NY, which describes how wind can compete using the same rules as other generators in the day ahead market and still save customers $305 million per year. Sounds like a good idea to me...
And don't forget as wind achieves higher penetration, conventional fuel prices go down as well...not to mention lowering risk for fuel cost increases as well. So it's win-win all around...
T Boone has no windmills on his ranch
Next93 July 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (link)
It's interesting that the Newsweek article pointed out that he has no windmills on his ranch, because he thinks they're too ugly.
Wind is a major red-herring in the energy story. It'll never amount to more than a distraction. Nice for dirt-worshippers to pretend that they're being eco-friendly, but really hard to use for refining aluminum.
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Now Now
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (link)
T Boone is the biggest hypocrite in the energy sector.
Nice work, Next93!
More & bigger
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (link)
I'm not so sure...for wind, transmission is definitely an issue (T. Boone is financing his own thank you very much) and variability can be smoothed through geographic distribution.
Natural gas needs new cars and fueling stations... those seem like more significant hurdles to me, but not impossible.
Pickens is not financing his own
ehosterman July 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (link)
transmission costs. Transmission costs in ERCOT (Texas) are paid by the consumers. See the attached article. The transmission costs for wind power in Texas are going to be somewhere between $3 billion and $6 billion depending on the plan adopted, and Pickens isn't paying those costs, the ratepayers are.
http://www.ercot.com/news/press_releases/2008/nr04-02-08
Yep
pjshifty July 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (link)
And for T. Boone's farm he's decided he can't wait for ERCOT, so he's spending $2B of his own to speed up the process...
pjshifty hey guy, a word of advice
Kyle July 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (link)
if you are going to buy into and live your life based on political slogans you should get a better one than "We can't drill our way out" Cuz I tell you, we sure as hell aint gonna wind and solar our way out.
Those will NEVER, and I mean EVER, be more than a small token amount of our energy needs, ten percent, maybe twelve at best.
Any one who has looked closely will tell you that they just don't have the potential.
You need to learn a little before you fall for the cliche's. The only alternative to fossil fuels that might make a real difference in the near term future is Nuclear.
That's it, nuclear, It is that, plus all the others, PLUS new drilling that is needed, all of it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
Hey guy
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (link)
20% is practical for wind, not sure about solar...but don't listen to me - read the report...
http://www.20percentwind.org/
I don't agree with it
Kyle July 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (link)
Wind has many, many problems not the least is opposition from enviro mentals and NIMBY
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty" Kyle
Huh?
pjshifty July 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (link)
And there's no environmental resistance or NIMBY for nuclear which you favor?...please explain....
I just listened to T. Boone on CNN
pilgrim July 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (link)
Blitzer asked him if he thought additional drilling should be done like John McCain proposes.
T. Boone told Wolf that he thinks we should drill off all of the US coasts and in ANWR. He also thinks we need to build more nuclear power plants. He thinks that we need to get busy and do all that we can to produce our own energy in many different ways so that we are not sending mega bucks out of the country to purchase energy from folks who are hostile to us.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
Let me retract what I've said earlier against T Boone
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (link)
Sorry for calling him as "hypocrite".
Now that he's coming to his senses of supporting oil exploration and development and not just WIND, I'd say that he's just your average investor wanting to maximise the values of his own investment portfolios.
you fell into the Ds and MSM trap
pilgrim July 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (link)
The Ds tried to frame the narrative of the story that T. Boone Pickens completely rejects additional oil drilling in the US. They cherry-picked his 'we can't drill our way out this time' line.
Actually Pickens is not on board with the Ds or with the Rs. Pickens is for Pickens. He wants to promote his Texas wind farm business.
I think even more important than the price at the pump is the idea the the US needs to produce more and more of its own energy instead of relying of hostile foreigners to produce on their soil for our consumption.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
Yeah
Rod_Patrick July 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (link)
you're right pilgrim. Actually I got mad at him because of a nasty news report that painted Pickens as a new champion of the environmentalists and global climate change propagandists.
Pickens must always remember that the success of his wind investments in Texas is mainly due to the excellent wind resources in the area (probably the best in the world), and has nothing to do with the "polically correct" environmentalism dogma by the left.
If he sticks to his business (or maybe expand to oil drilling, which is not bad at all), then I can be friend to Pickens. He! He!
To bring this back to the post at hand...
cbs July 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (link)
it sounds like T. Boone would support the Americans for American Energy Act that Cong. Bishop referenced above. Would be great to get him (and his checkbook) behind that idea in addition to his emphasis on wind.
Again, people need to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party is NOT saying "Only Drill." If you look at the actual proposals they're supporting you'll see that they support all energy sources. That is the balanced, rational approach today. Those of us in the conservative blogosphere need to do a better job of recognizing what the party is actually supporting.
I think you are a little confused...
micscottj July 22nd, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (link)
Our cars use gasoline now. Even if you flipped the magic switch today and provided all our electricity from wind then you would only remove 1% of our demand for petroleum since that is how much of our pertroleum goes into the production of electricity.
If you are saying that all our cars will run on the electricity provided by your magic windmills, then you are delusional. That technology is not even close. Electric cars are a pipe dream. Battery technology is not there and i don't believe it will ever be there for the heavy demands of hauling freight. Trust me, i own a Ford Think and it won't make it over 10 miles on a charge at a max of 25mph and weighs only 1200lbs.
Natural Gas is probably our most viable alternative. Most vehicles can be converted to propane without major redesign and while the infrastructure is not there now, at least it is a real goal and not some magic windmill or magic electric car.
As an aside, i am not sure how easily a fuel injected vehicle can be converted, but older vehicles with carbs on them are very easily converted to allow them to run on either gas or propane.
Read T. Boone's plan
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (link)
wind for 20% electricity and move the saved natural gas over to vehicles as well as drill for more.
In the amount of time it took to migrate the US auto fleet
bs July 22nd, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (link)
to propane (including actually converting the cars AND building a propane delivery network), we could drill ANWR and start production out of any number of other sources.
There is NO single solution to the problem. Wind, nuclear, hydro, solar, AND AND AND new petroleum production are needed...once the economic downturn turns around, consumption will be back on the uptick, and more oil will be needed, no matter what.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ “You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Agreed
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (link)
Lot's of "and's" - the one item I just don't see making a big difference is more drilling in the US, the amount there is miniscule compared with the projected increase in global demand...I'm not against it, per se, but don't see it as a centerpiece... maybe in the Arctic Circle once the ice cap melts.
This is our issue if we want it
Vegas_Rick July 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (link)
I hope you're right Congressman. But my own supposedly Republican Representative, Jon Porter recently voted for the "Use it or Lose it Bill." His constituents can't seem to get him to vote like a Republican, maybe you could give him a little arm twist.
This is our issue if we want it. I get a sense that many Republicans remaining in congress, after the 2006 blow-out, like Mr Porter still don't get it. Republican voters, dealing with the fact of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the threat of Obama, are not enthused about the moderates. We need someone to fight our fight.
Thanks for the post! :)
Those who control energy, control society.
At least your Rep has an R
allison04 July 22nd, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (link)
As a resident of the State of Massachusetts, I don't have representation in either branch for my views. Of all of these proposals, the best I have seen use old military bases for refineries or other "objectionable" uses. This will help avoid the Ted Kennedy (Not in my backyard) objections. We can also add a surcharge to the new offshore and ANWR drilling leases with the surcharge used to support the "alternative energy proposals"
At least your Rep has an R
allison04 July 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (link)
As a resident of the State of Massachusetts, I don't have representation in either branch for my views. Of all of these proposals, the best I have seen use old military bases for refineries or other "objectionable" uses. This will help avoid the Ted Kennedy (Not in my backyard) objections. We can also add a surcharge to the new offshore and ANWR drilling leases with the surcharge used to support the "alternative energy proposals"
Yes sir!
mbauer July 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (link)
Congressman, you are on the same page as us in desiring to use this issue as the victory issue. There have been countless posts here prescribing we use energy as our means of retaking lost seats.
As an engineer I tend to pay attention to smaller labs and what they are developing. I think anyone who has ever hopped that there would be a magic solution to this must assume that some private lab is going to pop the solution out of nowhere.
Well, I think one lab is close to having it. http://www.emc2fusion.org/ These guys may really have fusion figured out and are asking for funding to prove there findings on a large scale.
Oil prices and working class people
jeanie July 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (link)
So glad that someone has finally highlighted the negative effects of high oil prices on the middle and working classes. It seems that our Pols do not understand the huge impact high fuel and heating oil prices have on those with a finite income. The price of heating oil is a major topic wherever I go in the northeast. It's possible to cut down on auto travel, but it's another issue to not be able to keep your home warm during a harsh New England winter.
The strategy I would use
Dave_in_Fla July 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (link)
Congressman Bishop, let me thank you for coming by to discuss this topic with us. I speak for many of us here that it is an honor.
With respect to your request, allow me to offer how I would approach putting this issue in front of the American people. I remember watching the Contract for America event in front of the Capitol in 1994. That was a strong visual message that was sent, having both current representatives and also the candidates stand in front of the cameras and pledge their support for a 100 day legistlative agenda.
While the Contract itself didn't work as fully planned (I think we bit off more than we could chew), I think the political event itself was very effective. I would use the following strategy:
1) Continue the current plan to define a single all encompasing bill that addresses a complete solution to the energy crisis. It should include increased supply, conservation, and technical improvements in equal measure to ensure that people cannot critisize the bill as being one sided with intellectual honesty. They will still disparage it anyway, using their talking points, as has already been done in these comments.
2) Prepare a very tight and succinct summary of the bill that allows the rest of us to understand it. Ideally, it would be something that can be easily expressed in 5 to 10 bullet points and a 30 second TV commercial.
3) Conduct a reprise of the Contract event in front of the Capitol, with all of the GOP representatives and all of the candidates attending to sign a pledge to bring this bill to the floor of the House within the first 2 weeks of the GOP being returned to the majority. It would be even better to make this a joint event with the Senate and having the Senators and Senate candidates make a similar pledge.
4) Use the footage of the event along with the short summary to produce commercials that inform the public of the GOP pledge.
5) Have the RSCC and RCCC make ad buys in the markets where we are either vulnerable or have a chance for pickups. For example, the Orlando and Miami markets will help pick up FL-16 and protect the three South Florida Republicans. Denver will help Bob Schaeffer's campaign, especially since oil shale development is potentially a huge issue for Colorado.
I think that this is a winning issue. While it has been heartening to have so many of our representatives stop by in the last two weeks to discuss this topic, you point what concerns me (and others). We don't see a conherent nation strategy to exploit this campaign issue and turn this election into the GOP success it could be.
"If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country."
Great first post, sir!
cbs July 22nd, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (link)
Welcome, Congressman Bishop, and thank you for the heads up and good suggestions on the energy front. I'm glad you've decided to participate with us on this "series of tubes" and I hope, like you say above, this won't be a one time fling.
If you didn't know this already, we get all sorts of comments here, some, shall we say, of more substance than others. From the looks of things you're likely to become very familiar with the term "trolls" really soon. That's part of the fun of RedState, I suppose.
Three things from your post that I particularly admire: First, thank you for bringing attention to the very real impact high energy prices have on the poor. Maybe people like pjshifty can afford to wait out high gas prices but a lot of people don't have that luxury. Trying to transition our nation's energy policies on the backs of the poor is simply wrong and I applaud you for picking up on this important point. I hope you can use your position to shout this message far and wide.
Second, I love these lines from your post: "I recognize that times have changed, that politics have changed, and that the way we traditionally work in Congress has to change too. We simply must do a better job of working together with the online community and other conservative activists. We need your ideas and your passion to help move Congress in the direction it needs to go." Great points - I just hope you're among a majority of Republicans who feel this way, and not the minority.
Lastly, I appreciate and admire your willingness to enter into a dialogue with us on this and other important issues. I think the sort of collaboration you have in mind is the logical next step of how activists, blogs, new media, and Congress should interact. I just hope those of us here at RedState can live up to your lofty expectations.
Thanks again for your post and I look forward to hearing more from you in the future!
Well I sppose I have to respond
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 5 p.m. (link)
to this one...
Believe it or not I am concerned about energy prices on the poor, but I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that opening up everything will have any impact on oil prices in say the next four years - next election when prices haven't come down, what are you going to say?
This deserves a longer term strategy as has been proposed (and looks good - maybe more focus on nukes as well), but also some honesty about the near term.
One person's honesty is another's idiocy
Vegas_Rick July 22nd, 2008 at 5:11 p.m. (link)
It's all in the facts. You've got an anti-fossil fuel agenda. Good for you. Just because you idiots keep the mantra going: increasing domestic production won’t help, increasing domestic production won’t lower prices, increasing domestic production is a short-term fix… yada, yada, yada… doesn’t make it so.
The price of oil is down over $20 this week. Why?
Those who control energy, control society.
Why?
pjshifty July 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (link)
increasing strength of the dollar and because prices are so high that demand has been reduced...here's some more idiocy for you - the numbers for ANWR - $1.44/barrel reduction (~1%) under the best scenario (more likely $0.75/barrel)...in the year 2025... Whoopee!
Again I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it makes a good centerpiece for policy.
speculators?
bbsci July 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (link)
Because it certainly isn't any change in supply.
Also, I tend to agree with pjshifty... ANWR and offshore drilling combined can supply a few years of current US consumption, spread out over a 10-20 year period, a proverbial drop in the bucket. The only logical solution is a massive drive to shift our entire country away from using gasoline, a modern era space race. Invest in education for engineers, basic research, tax incentives, the whole nine yards; if it takes a trillion dollars of taxpayers' money over a 10 year stretch it would be worth it by greatly reducing the geopolitical importance of the Middle East.
In the meantime we can allow the oil companies to drill to help get us through the next ten years, but we have reached a critical juncture in history where oil is not sustainable within our lifetimes (if you're below 40), something previous generations have never had to worry about. Let's face the challenge head on with the ingenuity America is known for.
"if it takes a trillion dollars of taxpayers' money "
stang July 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 p.m. (link)
You're being awful cavalier with someone else's money there, donchathink?
What happened to your faith in the marketplace and the inventiveness of the American people?
Too much goevernment interference in the market is what created much of this in the first place...and you're calling for more?! Please spare me.
You know what hasn't changed in 3.0, bbsci?
Moe Lane July 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (link)
When I say do something to a commenter, I mean it.
But perhaps the Directors will let you come back.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.I've been usurped!that's where we disagree
cbs July 22nd, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (link)
Congressman Bishop and others are not saying that their energy proposals will immediately drop prices to $1 a gallon, and it's disingenuous to say that they are.
At the same time, I believe it is incorrect to assume that if the U.S. government undertook a radical new approach to energy production (implementing policies like those mentioned in Rep. Bishop's post to develop all American energy resources) that prices would not respond at all.
The fact is, a part of the current price of oil is the expectation of future supply. If the U.S. gov't sent a message to the markets that it was going to immediately begin developing ANWR, OCS, oil shale, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. etc., I'm confident the markets would respond and you'd see a slight decrease in the costs of a barrel of oil. If we kept that pro-development policy up I think we would see lower prices in four years than we would otherwise see.
I agree that a long term strategy is what is needed, but you actually have to start that long term strategy sometime. I think that time is now. Plus, there will be poor people in ten years too. Should we not adopt policies now that will help them out just because the impacts won't be fully felt in the short-term?
Go Nuclear
TravisJFell July 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (link)
Congressman Bishop, welcome to RedState.org and thank you for joining the right/center conversation on energy online.
I recommend you look closely at expanding nuclear energy development. As a story in the WSJ pointed out yesterday, it can take 10-15 years to get through the red tape associated with building a nuclear plant. Thus, only about 20% of our electricity is produced from nuclear energy.
By contrast, the French produce 75% of their electricity from nuclear energy. (The French!?!)
Therefore, I urge you to stand fast against environmentalist scare tactics and take up policies that streamline regulatory hurdles. Let's not lose to the French on this one.
For more on this topic, click here.
Another vote for nuclear
KC July 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. (link)
I looked for the best place to add my two cents to the Congressman. Yes, go nuclear.
The simplest way for the R’s to own the energy debate is to rapidly increase the usage of nuclear energy for electrical power. As a country, when one form of energy becomes abundant we will gravitate towards it. Abundant electricity (with appropriate attention to the distribution grid as well) will allow the electrification of trains, light rail, and plug-in hybrid automobiles. This will vastly reduce our need for petroleum. The competition between electricity and petroleum will be good for our oil industry, the electrical industry, and the transportation industry and overall will be good for our economy and our population.
We should of course drill now, because we need abundant energy to accomplish the above change over. Yes I realize it will take between 10 and 20 years for this, but it will take the same time frame to manage any other major infrastructure change.
Nuclear power has the following benefits:
It is non-carbon based – this will satisfy the current fad of seeking alternatives to carbon based energy sources.
It is cost effective – the French use nuclear power for 80% or their power generation—this clearly indicates the effectiveness of this approach. The French do not have money to waste, and neither do we.
We can solve the waste storage issue; solving this problem is a matter of money and political will.
Nuclear power is wholly controlled within the US; our breeder reactors can make new fuel as needed.
Other forms of alternative energy (such as solar and wind) are not as efficient as nuclear and require back up power anyway. So use them if you wish, but let nuclear be the back up for the reasons listed above.
Nuclear plants are safe and environmentally friendly and can be implemented with all due environmental care. The French are not environmentally obtuse and have adequate concern for their safety to prove this assertion.
I know above thread the issue of wind was strongly discussed. As I said, I have no problem with wind -- I would love to have the subsidies balanced. Maybe then ethanol would be seen for the scam that it is. I realize that politicians can make or break any component of the energy debate and that lobbies exist for every proposal, (including T Bone). Congress needs to have an honest (Oh I hope it is still possible) debate and decision analysis on this issue before we bankrupt large sections of the country.
KC, still living free, or trying to.
Leased land
IndependentfrMI July 22nd, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (link)
Demacratic Congress members say let the oil companies drill on the land they hold leases on. OK, but in Colorado recently the drilling on leased land has been blocked because the land leased by oil companies is land occupied by the ferret. Well here we go again. Can you eat the ferret? Do they have some beneficial effects? Oh that's right they make good pets. Let us remind people, they are rodents! Well if you dry them grind them and distill them in liquid maybe they can be used for fossil fuel. Everyone says do it now and alternatively but not in my backyard. Come to my location and you can put a wind turbine, solar panels, oil well or still for ethanol, if the govt regulators approve first oh course.