President Obama called on the federal government, the nation’s largest energy consumer, to its increase energy efficiency and to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent by 2020. According to the White House if the targets are met they “would reduce federal energy consumption by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year, according to a statement from the White House press office. That would save $8 billion to $11 billion in energy costs through 2020.”
If the government can save $8-$11 billion of taxpayer’s money, it should be commended for such efforts. There are a few questions to ask.
1.) If the plan is going to save this much money, why isn’t the government already doing it? Maybe they are, as chair of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality points out in her examples of agency actions. For instance, “The Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, GA has signed a 20 year contract to burn methane gas from a nearby landfill, providing 22 percent of its energy needs, enough energy to power 1,200 homes.” If the taxpayers will save $8-11 billion, that should be the headline of the story – not the cut in greenhouse gas emissions.
2.) Will the plan actually save money? Reducing energy intensity in buildings, reducing consumption of electricity and water, minimizing the generation of waste and optimizing the number of vehicles an agency’s fleet could very well reduce the federal government’s energy costs. Further, there are trade offs to energy-efficient projects, especially when mandated by the government including higher up front costs, reduced performance and unintended maintenance costs that could significantly reduce long-term savings. For instance, one attempt to use natural light for heating end up costing $5,000 per year in window-washing fees.
3.) If renewable energy is economically viable, why isn’t there more in the market? President Obama’s executive order also calls for “increasing agency use of renewable energy and implementing renewable energy generation projects on agency property.” There’s a reason renewable energy provides a very small fraction of the country’s energy needs. It is intermittent and more expensive. Increasing renewable energy production to meet a GHG reduction target would likely end up costing taxpayers money.
4.) Will it affect military preparedness? The good news is it most likely won’t. Obama’s executive order includes language that says, “The head of an agency may exempt law enforcement, protective, emergency response, or military tactical vehicle fleets of that agency from the provisions of this order.” The agency may also exempt activities and facilities that are in the interest of national security as well as submit additional requests to the president. That’s not to say the military and law enforcement is exempt from improving energy-efficiency and saving taxpayer dollars. Heritage defense analyst Mackenzie Eaglen notes that “The U.S. Air Force has set a goal to run all of its aircraft on synthetic fuel by 2011. This type of fuel costs $30–$50 less per barrel and burns cleaner without compromising performance.”
There’s one other way the federal government can reduce its energy use, reduce its carbon dioxide emissions and save taxpayers money. Make it smaller.
With respect to renewable power, it's not as clean as you might believe. One form of this power is Concentrating Solar, and there are already a number of plants operating in the U.S. The mirrored dishes concentrate the light to a focal poit to boil a compound to a molten state and this is then used to boil water to steam to drive a conventional turbine/generator.
To be eligible for the Govt. subsidies, they have to provide that power on a 24 hour basis. The generator size is calculated on how much steam can be generated, and a huge plant (like Arizona's Abengoa Solana plant) can feasibly generate 260MW of power. As soon as the Sun goes down that compound decreases from its molten state, so to make that last longer, then that Nameplate capacity is somewhat reduced. Still it only lasts a few hours after sunset, and will not come back up to steam producing molten state until mid morning. To produce the 24 hours of power, then a conventional Natural Gas (Methane) fired plant takes over the driving of the generator.
This way, the plant can (feasibly) produce 150MW of power for the full 24 hours. That Natural Gas component drives the generator for up to 12 hours, producing 1.8 Million KWH of usable power to consumers.
The Natural Gas emits CO2 at the rate of 1.33 Pounds for every KWH, meaning that this supposedly renewable plant emits 1,200 Tons of CO2 EVERY DAY, or around 440,000 tons of CO2 each year, provided the Sun shines flat out for every day, Summer and Winter.
So, a renewable power Solar Concentrating plant will also be well and truly subject to the EPA's CO2 emissions regulations, and also subject to the Cap And Trade Tax, no matter which way you look at it.
(Calculations from the U.S. Govt website, The Energy Information Administration, where there are two methods of calculation, those being that one I used here, 1.33 Pounds for every KWH, and the second being for every 1,000 cu ft of natural gas burned producing 122 pounds of CO2, both calculations giving the same end result)
Sorry to take so much space.
Tony.
this whole scam is dangerous and life threatening. the people didn't elect this type of leadership…or did they?
Perhaps we need to shut down Congress, after all it appears that all they have been doing is generating hot air and overspending. With all of those mouths flapping I know they must be generating massive amounts of excess CO2.
Not that the Big O and his czars and czarinas would bother to look at it but the actual German experience with "renewable energy" is quite instructive when it comes to the cost of propping up energy technologies that don't stand a chance in a free market.
See the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaft sforschung report titled Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies:The German experience
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/German...
Excerpt from the abstract reads as follows:
"…the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security. In the case of photovoltaics, Germany’s subsidization regime has reached a level that by far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000)"
This article makes the most important point you will hear, speak or read today. One that personnifies the problem that most people have with Global Warming Alarmism. It seems we have fallen into this pattern behavior where we look to the government to solve every new problem presented to us. And the government happily obliges, allocating themselves blank checks to be written on our finances and freedom in return. But wait…THE GOVERNMENT WORKS FOR US AND IS SUBJECT TO OUR DEMANDS, not vice versa. If we are going to cripple businesses that provide us goods and services we need by forcing them to meet rigid environmental guidelines, then WHAT ABOUT THE NATIONS BIGGEST EMPLOYER? THE GOVERNMENT?!
We are all shareholders in the government. We all know them to be wasteful, bloated, overpaid fat cats who have enjoyed raises, stability and comforts beyond what anyone in the private sector has, AT THE COST OF A $10+ TRILLION DEFECIT.
So why the F is it THEY who are telling US we need to cut back, have less, moderate, reuse, recycle, etc, etc, when their reputation for abuse, consumption, excess and inefficiency is well known and seldom argued.
We need to stop this charade. We need to MAKE them lead by example. Not vice versa. WE TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT TO DO, IN CASE YOU FORGOT, not vice versa. WE need to REQUIRE THEM to reduce excesses, waste, consumption 50% by 2020. WE need to REQUIRE THEM to go green, prepare for the hard cuts, do more with less, and stop having children. THEY after all are the ones on the free ride financed by US!!! WE MUST BE THE ONES TO LAY DOWN THE LAW, make them stop spending, make them turn off the lights, and TAKE AWAY THOSE RAISES. WE ALL HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS TODAY.
If you really truly believe in "being green", reducing consumption and excess, and keeping big bloated bureaucratic mega-corps from gobbling up resources, THEN THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE YOUR PRIMARY TARGET. I was never much for 'Green' until today. But given this new perspective, I'm going full-bore, and I have my sights set on the biggest and worst fat-cat laden, bloated, waste-machine ever created: THE US GOVERNMENT.
Congratulations Senator. You will be getting your first set of marching orders today. If things aren't ship shape by November YOU'RE FIRED!!!!
Great points. We absolutely can and absolutely should impose cap and trade on our government. The permits can be issued and traded in the private sector for the enrichment of the public. That way this scam could actually help our economy. Giving the government money to impose financially restrictive policies on private businesses is plain stupid. They take our money and use it to promote policies to take more of our money. Meanwhile we could get exactly what we want by imposing their own policies on THEM. And there really is nothing stopping us. If our government COULD save 8-11 billion annually by being more energy efficient, but aren't, even as they run up trillion dollar deficits, shouldn't we be running them out of Washington with torches and pitchforks as we speak? Is this so crazy of an idea? What has happened to this country?
I am all for the government using less energy, and they can stop by quit flying their friends and families around everywhere they go. They should be put on a commercial aircraft, and buy their own seats. And for those of you that say and believe that they are too important to fly commercial because they might be hurt or killed. Well that is the beauty of the American governmental system, they are all replaceable, and they should all fly coach. I know it won't cut down on GHG much, but it will save money. For the GHG, i am all for nuclear power, we have the breeder reactors, we just need the 'NADS to build the powerplants.
tony from oz wheres your facts about this it has been disproven about climate change global warming crap and trap you must have alot of money to throw away i say that because obamas epa and climate whatever he is going to charge you obscene amounts of money from you and america i don't even have an extra dollar to even think about going there with obama lies. sorry to say you have been sold a bill of no goods but you will get charged anyways say bye bye to any kind of life after obama gets done with us you to will be out in the streets with the rest of us and obama does not care about any of us and that includes you so sad to say but true