"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."Almost exactly five years later:
-- Vice President Dick Cheney, as quoted by USA Today, May 1, 2001
"Conservation isn’t going to solve anything."
-- Dominion North Anna Nuclear Information Center Coordinator Mike Duffy, as quoted by C-ville, the Charlottesville weekly newspaper, May 2006
3 comments:
In fairness to both of them, you have omitted the context of their discussion.
Cheney also said "As a country, we have demanded more and more energy. But we have not brought on line the supplies needed to meet that demand,"
In the big picture, it was realized that the nation has this HUGE demand for generation and transmission. In this regard it is true, conservation and efficiency will not stave off neither.
In the article, the next paragraph was this, "The plan was called "shortsighted" and "leaning too heavily to the oil side" by Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Ill., a member of the House subcommittee on energy. "We need to conserve energy and explore alternative fuels such as ethanol and clean-coal technology."
I agree while the existing energy infrastructure is heavily dependant on fossil fuels, conservation and efficiency is an excellent idea as far as reducing the overall energy footprint. And since more generation plants and transmission lines will be needed, its a good thing to make the existing grid efficient, before private property is ceased for these future projects.
With regards to the Dominion rep, here's his full quote: “We can’t rely on any one power source,” says Information Center Coor-dinator Mike Duffy. “Solar and wind definitely have their niche, but we have to think about how to generate power 24 hours a day. Conservation isn’t going to solve anything. We’re talking about places like the Pentagon and the Norfolk Navy Base,” not to mention Dominion’s largest customer, Fairfax-based America Online. Currently, America derives about 20 percent of its energy from nuclear; 50 percent comes from coal, 18 percent from gas, 7 percent from water and 2.2 percent from renewable energy like wind and solar."
Again he's speaking of the big picture. In Virginia then and now, you can't expect efficiency and conservation programs to stave off generation and transmission forever. Expansion in population, and commerce & industry will eventually and inevitably require more energy.
Sure there are plenty of things that can be done, but you can't force the public and corporations to conserve. Outlawing the products of incandescent bulbs is good, but should a law prevent households from running their heat during the winter @ 72*f their A/C during the summer at 70*f all day-n-night?
In 2003 or 4, the DOE reported that if every business in America changed their incandescent bulbs to CFL, 21,000 MW of demand would be removed from the load.
Also, a DOE study in 2001 stated that industry wastes 40% of the electricity it consumes, in that the energy is not used in its process.
This goes back at what was posted on Drudge with regards to Al Gore electricty consumption. Despite his participation in green power switch, his energy footprint like wasteful industry, is placing the demand on the overall grid for more electricity. If everyone did what he did, we would still be back where we were yesterday, since there is now not enough generation from renewables.
In response to Rep. Costello's comment about alternative energy solutions, being that renewables have their niche, each state cannot be forced into a renewable portfolio if no other viable energy source exists for them at the moment. And as for technology and advances to reduce the energy footprint made from fossil fuels, do you not believe the DOE has already done what it can to make these advances a reality in the future. If the EPA 2005 was passed in the 90's, we could have an affordable solar pv solution for every household by now. But since it wasn't we'll have to wait till 2015 or 2020.
Dan, you say, "If everyone did what [Al Gore] did, we would still be back where we were yesterday, since there is now not enough generation from renewables." That's one way of looking at it. Another is that if everyone did what Al Gore did, the renewable energy industry would be booming with billions of dollars in new investment.
WBIR-TV reports Gore paid an extra $432 a month for solar and wind power. That works out to about $5,000 a year.
If every household and business did what Al Gore did, power companies would be shuttering their coal-burning plants because demand for dirty power would disappear. Solar and wind power facilities would be springing up all over the place.
I'd say that makes Al Gore a pretty good role model.
My point wasn’t exclusive to Al Gore (notice I didn’t respond to your Gore post.) Conservation has to be applied by all and across all sources of electricity, unless it is our own you produce. Reducing one’s carbon footprint really doesn’t underscore the issue (outside of automobiles). Reducing one’s overall energy footprint is more like it, and technology will eventually reduce the nation’s carbon footprint. To be fair to the debate, I don’t think Cheney nor Dominion purposely wants to increase C02 emissions; and what Al Gore wants us to do, can not solve what technology led by the U.S. Department of Energy has to do.
Post a Comment