Independent Voters Can Help Make Reliable Energy a Campaign Issue
By Bob Morris | 06/11/2012 | Activism, Energy and Water, Issues | 25 CommentsThe electrical grid in the U.S. needs upgrading, not just because it’s aging but also so it can handle increasing amounts of renewable energy. As a country we are transitioning away from coal and towards renewables, with natural gas temporarily filling the void left by coal plants that are shutting down. Nuclear energy can produce prodigious amounts of power. But more than a few nuclear power plants are way past their prime or experiencing serious problems. Where will our new energy come from? We need a national discussion about this brought to the forefront yet it is unlikely to happen because the two parties are so polarized. However, independent voters can and should make energy a major issue for both presidential candidates.
General Electric is a major manufacturer of wind turbines. They expect many of their suppliers will go out of business due to the expiration of production tax credits at the end of this year. This will hurt the wind energy industry badly and thousands of jobs will be lost. GE expects to go from two hundred suppliers to three in their attempt to stay ahead of this implosion in wind energy.
The US is supposed to be a leader in renewable energy. However, as a country we lurch back and forth between championing renewable energy and attempting to kill it. Our energy policy is a victim of the hyper-partisan politics affecting the entire country that dictates if one side is for something then the other must automatically be against it. Our politics of energy are so divisive and fluctuate so often that it’s difficult to discern just what our policy actually is. You can’t encourage renewable energy with years of tax credits under presidents of both parties then stop the credits abruptly without serious repercussions.
The emergence of independent voters as a force to contend with hopefully signals an end to the endless bitter fighting that afflicts our politics. America needs arrive at a genuine consensus on energy then move towards implemention. Scotland has mostly done this and expects to be 100% renewable energy within a decade. We could certainly do that here too, but first the quarreling needs to end. Independent voters working together can help end the divisiveness because they are not captives of either party.
More than anything else, electricity keeps the country operational. If the power goes out, then everything stops until it comes back on. We need steady, reliable power. Even agriculture and or water supply depends upon it.
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation just released a report saying that California, Texas, and New England could face reliability issues this summer, with the possibility of rolling blackouts. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California went offline indefinitely a few months ago, which means 2 gigawatts of power will need to be found someplace else. Reserve margins are low in both Texas and California. New England has interconnect problems.
Given that the US has a bipolar energy policy veerly madly from one extreme to the other and our grid badly needs upgrading, energy should be a major campaign issue for both presidential candidates. But it isn’t. We need real, genuine discussion of the power problems facing us. Independent voters are not beholden to either party and can lead the way by demanding that both presidential candidates discuss energy in a meaningful way.





Leave Your Comment →
25 Comments
Dan Richards
06.11.2012
@danrich
The problem is, that to many are pushing for the solar grids, which are unsustainable systems. They produce too little and take up to much area to generate energy. Even if we advanced solar power, it will still be only a drop in the bucket at best. What is being fought against the most by the environmentalists is wind and wave technology. Both of which produce many times more energy than solar, and much more feasible. Technology is developing that will increase this even more, and require even less generators and develop environmentally safer systems. Using wind turbans instead of the big blades may be an area that may pay off, and is being worked on. We need to get people to back off from attacking everything in sight to prove their point ; which makes no sense in the first place. Nuclear energy is a time-bomb and a consistent threat, even the spent rods are a long time threat.
Bob Morris
06.11.2012
@Bob_Morris
I have to disagree about wind. Lots of environmentalists (and GE) are pushing hard for it. But the expiration of production tax credits for wind means that wind industry is about to get clobbered.
Scotland is experimenting heavily with wave technology. The ocean is a punishing place but there area few tiny wave farms operational now.
Stephen Salkin
06.11.2012
Individual solar on residents. If there was solar power n every house in the US there would be no need to build more Nuke power plants.
Dino Sanfilippo
06.11.2012
Wind, each city should invest in wind turbines to power government buildings… and produce them in the U.S.! Lead by example.
Gary McCorvey
06.11.2012
All forms/sources of energy should be explored. One of the MOST important issues to me is energy independence from foreign countries.
Justin Buell
06.11.2012
Energy shouldn’t even be a political issue.
Andrew Kurywczak
06.11.2012
all of the above and then some
Antoinette Miller
06.11.2012
Biomass fuels to run power plants, wind & solar. All of those. I live where wind would work extremely well, others would benefit more from solar. Depends on where you are. Forget nuclear. Have we learned nothing?
Knobby Kabushka
06.11.2012
If all the big energy subsidies went to power houses, with solar, personal wind turbines, geo thermal heating, etc. just think how clean this country would be… – http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/half-germany-was-powered-solar.html
John Weavers
06.11.2012
NO NUKES!!!!
Nicole J Hyke-Cintron
06.11.2012
Wind is powered by coal people!
Chris TheBruce
06.11.2012
We just could not vote for the Presidential candidate of choice in the CA primary! How about fixing that too… Yes, these needed to be issues we being to the forefront. The updating of the grid itself is also a daunting task…
Keith Pyron
06.11.2012
They should find an efficient way to use BS, that way Congress could power the world!
Chris Thornton
06.11.2012
We should use every resource available. Wind, solar, coal, oil, recycled bio fuels. We should get rid of the ridiculous EPA regulations and drill where ever oil is found. The gov should quit dumping millions into failed companies like Solyndra and instead give tax incentives and let the free market decide.
Antoinette Miller
06.11.2012
@ Nicole J Hyke-Cintron
Wind power is NOT powered by coal. Where did you get that info from? There are wind turbines all over my neck of the woods and they are powered by the WIND. There’s not a coal powered energy plant within 100s of miles of those turbines. Wind power is an ALTERNATIVE to coal.
Rockey Pittman
06.11.2012
Hot air from the Whitehouse. Enough energy to power thd big Apple for a whole year!
John Vasilakis
06.11.2012
Right on Rockey! Although I would have said all of Washington, not just the White House.
Nicole J Hyke-Cintron
06.11.2012
Wind turbines are run with electricity which is fueled by coal!
Ed Bedwell
06.11.2012
Renew the nuke licenses. Carbon free 24/7 reliable and cost effective
Nicole J Hyke-Cintron
06.11.2012
Have to use all energy sources. Anyways wind is the most subsidized energy-with tax payer dollars=MOST EXPENSIVE. Ethanol is creating a world food shortage. Nuclear, natural gas, coal and oil are cheaper and we have more then the middle east of all! I agree in taking care of our environment, but when wind is not reliable your back to using coal.
Greg Bard
06.11.2012
The most intelligent thing we can do is keep offshore oil in the ground until Saudi Arabia runs out. The “drill baby” crowd are a bunch of complete morons.
Bart Ping
06.11.2012
Nicole: Wind turbines are turned by the wind. There is NO coal involved. They produce power. They do not expend it.
Bart Ping
06.11.2012
Further, we cannot produce new fossil fuels. Do you really want to wait until we’ve run completely out before we start using alternatives? Alternative fuel sources may be more expensive, but in the long run, we’ll avoid the war and economic catastrophes that would be associated with an energy crisis of the magnitude the the total expenditure of fossil fuels would create.
Steve Amacher
06.12.2012
I’ve worked in the power industry for over 25 years. Solar and wind power are good as supplemental energy, but neither can be used as base load generation and both are only economically feasible in certain areas of the country. The only real options we have with today’s technology is coal, natural gas, and nuclear. There are issues with each of these. The best option is to have BALANCE between them! Over the last several decades we have invested billions of dollars in pollution controls for coal plants. We should not throw away this investment. However, we should close older, dirty, inefficient plants. Natural gas prices are currently at historic lows, but it has always been a volatile commodity. The new generation of Nuclear plants are much safer and do not rely on backup power or operators in an emergency. We need to invest heavily in this area. Waste storage is the biggest issue. I believe the solution there is to use old salt mines. The waste does not have to be stored for millions of years as some would like for you to believe. It can be reprocessed for new fuel in a few hundred years.
Bob Morris
06.11.2012
@Bob_Morris
For those you may not know, baseload is the minimum amount of power needed and it needs to be steady. Wind and solar isn’t steady, it fluctuates. The existing grid has trouble handling fluctuating power. These problems are compounded by rooftop solar which is both fluctuating and comes from thousands of locations at once. The grid wasn’t designed to handle widely distributed power either.