Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
Saw this article and thought you might be interested because it's another States versus Feds issue. The interesting part is that the disagreement is not along political party lines but along regional lines. It looks like those of us who get cheaper energy now won't enjoy that if the Feds take over renewable energy transmission and we all have to bear the cost burden for everyone else.
http://www.pennenergy.com/index/arti...132858165.html
"Talk is underway in Washington to allow the federal government to overrule state transmission decisions, using its eminent domain powers."
"Recent discussions on Capitol Hill aimed at boosting federal authority to site transmission lines showed the fight will not be based along party lines as much as upon regional differences. At a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, members of both parties asked how their states would benefit. Republicans John Barasso of Wyoming and Bob Corker of Tennessee questioned the fairness of allocating costs nationwide. Giving greater power to the FERC could disrupt a system in the Pacific Northwest that already works well, said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D- Wash. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said his state's experience has not bred a lot of confidence in FERC. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, termed "federal coordinated approach" an oxymoron."
Is this just another way for the feds to erode state's rights?
|
Politicizing electrical supply is like politicizing drilling for oil,....NIMBY. No one in the "pristine" areas want to have a nuclear power plant, or see those "horrible looking windmills" (ala Ted Kennedy),...but they surely don't mind using the energy and the federal government sledge hammer to get more electrical supply. As long as America has the NIMBY attitude about energy, either petroleum or electricity, the federal government will be the pawn of long term policians' political whims and politicians' personal agendas.
Obama's Cap and Trade will have an adverse effect on electrical generation, dramatically raising the price of electricity generated by fossil fuels. There is government resistance to nuclear-generated power because of "safety concerns", wind generated power because of asthetics, and outright administration hostility toward coal power generation. That doesn't speak well for existing, local, successful power grids who may be forced to send locally generated power through a federal grid to some areas never considered for service initially.
Wind generation could be successful in the Northeast, southwest, and middle portion of our country, and nuclear generation is possible ANYWHERE. There are nuclear plants that have operated for decades without incident, and have produced energy for millions of people without carbon emmissions.
This is an interesting excerpt from a nuclear power generation site:
Fuel for the Comanche Peak plant is uranium dioxide, enriched to about 4.5% uranium -235. The fuel is fabricated in small ceramic pellets and the pellets are clad in zirconium tubes or fuel rods. The fuel rods are bundled together to form fuel assemblies. Each pellet of uranium fuel produces as much heat energy as 149 gallons of oil; 157 gallons of gasoline; 1,780 pounds of coal; or 19,200 cubic feet of natural gas. There are more than 18,000,000 fuel pellets in each reactor.
Luminant - Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant
It's time tell the NIMBY folks to "stick it"!! If your area is too "pristine" to have a nuclear plant, windmills, or some other mode of generating electricity, then it is probably too pristine to have humans occupy it. It's not acceptable to sit in your "paradise" while others provide you with energy which you refuse to produce on your own because of your locale.
Don't let the feds bow to political pressure of long-term political hacks who are pushing the federal grid idea at the expense of others. It's time to reassert states' rights.