Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
How the Energy Dice Were Loaded
Editorial, New York Times
The names of some of the corporate big shots and industry lobbyists who helped shape the deliberations and conclusions of the super-secret Cheney energy task force in 2001 are now beginning to surface, thanks to a former White House aide who provided a list to The Washington Post.
It’s interesting to discover that Kenneth Lay, Enron’s chairman, was favored with two audiences. But the rest is sadly familiar. The task force, which developed a national energy policy, had all the time in the world for the big energy producers — some 40 meetings with the oil, gas and coal companies and their trade associations — but barely a moment for environmentalists. It’s hardly surprising that its report favored producers of fossil fuels at the expense of conservation and alternative fuels.
What this list really does is remind us how and why this administration has squandered six years that should have been devoted to finding innovative answers to the big questions of oil dependency and global warming.
(23 July 2007)
Related editorial from Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Energy Policy: No-bid thinking.
Veteran House Democrat Guards Turf on Energy
Edmund L. Andrews, New York times
He just turned 81, his voice has become frail and his hands often shake uncontrollably. In recent weeks, he has walked with crutches because of leg pains. But make no mistake: Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan has not mellowed.
As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, first elected to Congress in 1955 when Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, Mr. Dingell has probably fought more fights, intimidated more adversaries and pushed through more legislation than any other Democrat in the House.
But House Democratic leaders, hoping to pass an “energy independence” bill this month, have had to delay taking the measure to the floor for weeks. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies want a hefty increase in fuel-economy requirements for cars, light trucks and S.U.V.’s, but they are finding that it is not easy to maneuver around Mr. Dingell, who wants a smaller increase that would be less painful for Detroit automakers.
The power struggle pits a towering committee chairman, long accustomed to running his own show, against the first female House speaker, who has her own ambitious agenda.
When Ms. Pelosi, of California, created a new committee on energy independence and global warming in January, Mr. Dingell attacked it as a potential encroachment on his turf. Though she assured him the new panel would have no legislative authority, he remarked that it would be an “embarassment” and “as useful as feathers on a fish.”
Behind the scenes, Mr. Dingell fumes that Ms. Pelosi and other comparatively young House leaders are trying to dictate his schedule and his priorities. He grumbles about colleagues who are too “ideological,” too impatient and too unrealistic about the costs of slowing global warming. He implies that Ms. Pelosi cares more about being “green” in California than about blue-collar workers in Michigan.
(20 July 2007)
Energy policy may be Mr. Dingell’s turf, but it is our earth. -BA
Record Failures at Oil Refineries Raise Gas Prices
Jad Mouawad, New York times
Oil refineries across the country have been plagued by a record number of fires, power failures, leaks, spills and breakdowns this year, causing dozens of them to shut down temporarily or trim production. The disruptions are helping to drive gasoline prices to highs not seen since last summer’s records.
These mechanical breakdowns, which one analyst likened to an “invisible hurricane,” have created a bottleneck in domestic energy supplies, helping to push up gasoline prices 50 cents this year to well above $3 a gallon. A third of the country’s 150 refineries have reported disruptions to their operations since the beginning of the year, a record according to analysts.
(22 July 2007)
Long, detailed article.
No to nukes
Editorial, Los Angeles Times
It’s tempting to turn to nuclear plants to combat climate change, but alternatives are safer and cheaper.
—
JAPAN SEES NUCLEAR POWER as a solution to global warming, but it’s paying a price. Last week, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake caused dozens of problems at the world’s biggest nuclear plant, leading to releases of radioactive elements into the air and ocean and an indefinite shutdown. Government and company officials initially downplayed the incident and stuck to the official line that the country’s nuclear plants are earthquake-proof, but they gave way in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Japan has a sordid history of serious nuclear accidents or spills followed by cover-ups.
It isn’t alone. The U.S. government allows nuclear plants to operate under a level of secrecy usually reserved for the national security apparatus. Last year, for example, about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled at a processing plant in Tennessee, forming a puddle a few feet from an elevator shaft. Had it dripped into the shaft, it might have formed a critical mass sufficient for a chain reaction, releasing enough radiation to kill or burn workers nearby. A report on the accident from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was hidden from the public, and only came to light because one of the commissioners wrote a memo on it that became part of the public record.
The dream that nuclear power would turn atomic fission into a force for good rather than destruction unraveled with the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. No U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear plant since 1978 (that order was later canceled), and until recently it seemed none ever would. But rising natural gas prices and worries about global warming have put the nuclear industry back on track. Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be part of any solution to climate change because nuclear power plants don’t release greenhouse gases.
The enormous cost of building nuclear plants, the reluctance of investors to fund them, community opposition and an endless controversy over what to do with the waste ensure that ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process — far too slow to make a difference on global warming. That’s just as well, because nuclear power is extremely risky. What’s more, there are cleaner, cheaper, faster alternatives that come with none of the risks.
(23 July 2007)
