Democrats to introduce a climate and energy bill with a utility only cap and trade

[Dana1981]

system - opinions? Harry Reid has confirmed that in 2 weeks, Democrats will bring a bill to the Senate floor which will address four issues key to reforming the energy sector in the United States: responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; promoting clean energy and job creation; limiting consumer prices for energy; and reducing energy consumption.

"Reid said the bill will only aim to cut pollution from energy utilities and power plants, and not from transportation, agriculture or other pollution-emitting sectors of the American economy."

One moderate Republican, Sen Olympia Snowe, said she's open -- but not committed to -- supporting a utility-only carbon cap.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/13/cap-and-trade-will-be-part-of-senate-climate-change-bill/

What do you think about this strategy from the Democrats? Is it a good idea to pair the cap and trade system with energy reform and oil spill response? Is it a good idea to limit the cap and trade to utilities only? Will the bill pass this year?
"As is typical I have to translate it into reality"

Translation: here's how right-wing extremists will spin this legislation.
Expeller - I predicted that a cap and trade bill would probably pass this year. Please stop mischaracterizing my statements.

DrM - utilities are the largest carbon pollutuers, more than transportation.
Silver Bear - I suggest you do a little research on concentrated solar thermal energy.

 

[Silver Bear]

First, this is a much better question then your previous boneheaded question about hate mail.

You used to refer to yourself as having a "masters in science" but then after "Climate-Gate" came to light, you removed that label. If you were a scientist, you would understand that the significant problem the world faces is wind and solar (i.e. "clean energy sources") have only a small fraction of usable energy available when compared with carbon-based energy sources. If you were a scientist, you would know that energy in == eenergyout. i.e. one can get no more energy out of a system than what was put into the system. Carbon-based fuels and nuclear fuels have huge energy stores (i.e. heats of combustion for example); whereas, wind and solar eenergyoutput is extremely low. Thus to replace "fossil fuel" eenergywith "clean energy" will be extremely expensive and inefficient. Moreover, "fossil fuels" are rrenewableenergies given that they are produced by the death of living things and living things have died each day for millions of years. Each day new oil is produced naturally. Until living organisms no longer exist, oil will exist.

For example, would "environmentalists" be willing to cover about 20% of the United States land surface with solar panels and the cables required to connect them so that the U.S. could replace all coal-fired U.S. power plants? Imagine solar panels covering the all land from Seattle, Washington to Phoenix, Arizona. Do you think I am making this up? Let me give you some facts. I am a scientist with 30 years experience.

Currently, there are about 600 coal-fired power plants in the United States. (sourcewatch.org)
The average coal-fired plant is a 500 MW ffacilityresulting in 3.5 billion KWh of energy annually (sourcewatch.org, howstuffworks.com).

The largest most bragged about solar plant in the US is the 14 megawatt Nellis solar energy system in Nevada. This plant resides on 6000 acres and produces 30 MWh annually. It supplies 25% of the energy to the local Air Force Base there. (nvenergy.com). All this in the Nevada sun. Sounds great right? Well, let's look at the facts.

To replace ONE coal-fired power plant with a solar plant similar to the wonderful Nevada plant it would take...

3,500,000 KWh/30,000,000 KWh == 116.667 (ratio of amount of energy produced by each power plant)
116.667 * 6000 acres = 700,000 acres or 1,092 square miles (how much land required for 1 solar plant)

600 coal-fired plants plants * 1,092 sq mi (space required for 1 solar plant) = 655,800 square miles of solar panels and cabling,etc of land. This is the amount of land required to replace all coal fired power plants in the US with solar plants. Needless to say, this does not take into account any growth in energy needs for the U.S. How long before the US would require solar panels covering 35% or 40% of the US to be able to supply the needs of our country? While I believe in cconservation it will NOT solve the problem. I wonder how many people would be willing to give up their computers, ipads, xboxes, HDTV's, air conditioning, etc.

The United States is 3,537,441 square miles. Therefore, 3,537,441/ 655,800 * 100 = 18.5% of the land mass of the United States would be required to replace coal-fired plants in the US with solar panels... and that is assuming that the 18.5% of the land mass receives the exact same amout of sunlight that Nevada receives - which we know is not the case - so it would take much, much more. oh and no, replacing the roofs of our homes and bbusinesseswith solar panels will not work either. Solar is not efficient enought to replace all energy in a home or business. It would typically only replace about 10-20%. As an example, a solar system for a house costs between 30K-50K. The return on investment is between 15-30 years depending on the cost of electricity. Businesses costs are much higher. Who or what business can afford that cost?

Wind power takes up even more land mass than solar. So, the costs of install and maintain this absolutely stupid idea is astronomical and for businesses is passed on to the customer - You and me. Remember, businesses do NOT pay taxes or costs to the business, customers do.

So do you want to pay astronomically higher costs for utility bills and actually consumer goods since malls, shopping centers and server farms like google and yahoo will also have to pay for these higher energy costs to support the theory man-induced global warming? AGW is - as you likely know if you are a scientist and have done any real research - is a hoax. Many people and Universities are getting rich on the theory of AGW. Follow the money or grants to universities, etc. if you want to know why these professors and Al Gore promote this junk science.