Green Energy Infrastructure Investment Bill of 2008

[Torie]

Why not levy a tax on disfavored energy sources (what sources are disfavored and why?), and let the market decide what to pursue as alternatives? Government is not the best vehicle for parsing what alternatives are most reasonably calculated to generate the most bang for the buck , from either research or production. I have a bias against overnment micro management.

[Torie]

3.   Estimate of Impact. It is estimated that the cost of generating capacity is approximately $56 per MWh for wind, $60 per MWh for geothermal, and $110 per MWh for large-scale solar facilities. As provided for in Section 1, this bill will directly lead to the generation of 3.01 × 108 MWh of electricity, or approximately 1.03% of the current Atlasian demand of 2.93 × 1010 MWh.

-----
The numbers for section 3 need to be updated though, that is the only thing that I can see necessitating change.

Here are the updated numbers per the amendment:

3.   Estimate of Impact. It is estimated that the cost of generating capacity is approximately $56 per MWh for wind, $60 per MWh for geothermal, and $110 per MWh for large-scale solar facilities. As provided for in Section 1, this bill will directly lead to the generation of 2.12 × 10⁸ MWh of electricity, or approximately 0.72% of the current Atlasian demand of 2.93 × 10¹⁰ MWh.

What is the source of all of those numbers?

[Torie]

I want nuke plants in the mix. No nukes, no vote.

[Torie]

Well, there is the clean energy issue, and then the economies of scale issues. I don't really see how the economies of scale would work here. It is not that the size of individual locations would be increased. What is the evidence that there are greater of economies of scale to be had by building more solar panels[?] The money is not going to research, but to construction. [is it not]?

On the other hand, if the issue is clean energy, nuclear energy is clean. I don't mind spending some money on research, and demonstration projects with the three listed sources, but if the thrust is construction, to generate more energy, nuclear power should be part of the mix. It is the one proven source as compared to the other three, that has the demonstrated capability generating a lot of energy, and making a really material difference in reducing the use of fossil fuels for power generation.

So with all respect, I don't think I am being irrational.

[Torie]

Abstain. I understand nukes can be in a different bill, but I am ambivalent enough on his proposal as it is. I will not vote no however, in deference to CK.

[Torie]

Nay. When in doubt, vote no, particularly if it involves spending money.

[Torie]

It looks like I am getting my butt kicked on this one. Oh well.