Manchin-led committee puts forth sprawling energy infrastructure proposal

[left-of-center2012]

A Senate committee that’s led by key swing vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) has released a 400-page energy infrastructure proposal that it will consider in a hearing on Thursday.

The package aims to boost nuclear energy, hydrogen energy and carbon capture, which uses developing technology to capture emissions from activities such as burning fossil fuels. It also aims to increase the resilience of the electric grid from threats related to both natural disasters and cybersecurity. And it seeks to up energy efficiency in both residential and commercial buildings as well as industry, manufacturing and schools.

The draft proposal comes as senators work to move forward on infrastructure. The White House is proposing a nearly $2.3 trillion plan that invests in electric vehicles and building upgrades and seeks to establish a clean electricity standard. Meanwhile, a group of bipartisan lawmakers, including Manchin, has indicated that it will work on a separate proposal.

https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/559478-manchin-led-committee-puts-forth-sprawling-energy-infrastructure

[Hugin]

1. I was somewhat, meh...

But, down there in the text they had this.

"Other forms of clean energy such as solar and geothermal are given a nod in the proposal, which would create a pilot program for starting such projects on former mine land."

An interesting nod toward an eventual use for what is currently wastelands. It also explains Manchin's interest.

[Hugin]

5. Okay, I was prompted to do a lookieloo...

The fact they're even talking about these things is a clear sign that elections have consequences.

This committee has decidedly moved from the fossil fuel captured column to a slight skew toward renewables.

Current membership (117th):

Democrats:
Joe Manchin, West Virginia, Chair
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Bernie Sanders, Vermont - I
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Angus King, Maine - I
Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada
Mark Kelly, Arizona
John Hickenlooper, Colorado

Republicans:
John Barrasso, Wyoming, Ranking Member
Jim Risch, Idaho
Mike Lee, Utah
Steve Daines, Montana
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
John Hoeven, North Dakota
James Lankford, Oklahoma
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi
Roger Marshall, Kansas

Last Congress (116th):

Democrats:
Joe Manchin, West Virginia, Ranking Member
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Bernie Sanders, Vermont - I
Debbie Stabenow, Michigan
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Angus King, Maine - I
Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada

Republicans:
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska, Chairwoman
John Barrasso, Wyoming
Jim Risch, Idaho
Mike Lee, Utah
Steve Daines, Montana
Cory Gardner, Colorado
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
John Hoeven, North Dakota
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi
Martha McSally, Arizona (until December 2, 2020) *---- Buh-byeee!

There's also the fact that Murkowski has been moved from ranking member to member. The Senator was replaced by Barrasso. I'm not wonk enough to know the reason or implications of this switch. But, I'm sure all paths lead to some "-ism".

[hatrack]

2. Oh boy - carbon capture!!

Nothing like tethering a national energy policy to the corpse of a dying fuel.

[WHITT]

3. Yikes

1) Nuclear power is NOT 'carbon neutral'.

2) 'Carbon capture' is fantasy.

[frazzled]

4. There is such a thing as carbon capture

And nuclear power is considered to be essential in any overall fossil-fuel reduction effort by the scientific community. We can't just depend on one mode of reduction: all systems must be engaged if we're to get anywhere. So wind, solar, trees, electric vehicles all the way to carbon capture and safe nuclear power.

“Addressing climate change will require investment in technologies that help to limit future emissions, such as electric vehicles, and also the drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere. Nature-based solutions can help with both of these, but we will need thousands of solutions in combination,” says Tom Crowther, a tenure-track professor of Global Ecosystem Ecology at ETH Zürich and the chief scientific advisor to the United Nation’s Trillion Tree Campaign. “There is huge potential for direct carbon capture technology as part of a diverse climate plan,” Crowther tells CNBC from Switzerland via email....

...

There are currently 21 large-scale CCUS commercial projects around the globe where carbon dioxide is taken out of factory emissions, according to the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based intergovernmental energy organization. The first one was set up in 1972. One example in the United States is in Decatur, Ill., where the food processing giant Archer Daniels Midland Company launched a carbon capture and storage project in 2017. It has the capacity to take 1.1 million tons of carbon per year out of the emissions released by a corn processing factory, and stores that carbon a mile and a half underground. For factory carbon-capture, emissions are routed through a vessel with a liquid solvent which essentially absorbs the carbon dioxide. From there, the solvent has to be heated up in a second tower — called a “stripper” or “regenerator” — to remove the CO2, where it’s then routed for underground storage. The solvent can then be re-used in the first vessel or tower, Herzog says

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/31/carbon-capture-technology.html

And from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

To help prevent the worst consequences of climate change, the United States must achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions by or before mid-century. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) supports policies and actions that put our nation on the path to attaining this goal.

Swiftly decarbonizing the electric sector, one of the largest sources of US carbon emissions, is among the most cost-effective steps for limiting heat-trapping gas emissions. Renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures can help dramatically cut the sector’s emissions, and are safe, cost-effective, and commercially available today. Yet limiting the worst effects of climate change may also require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power.

Nuclear power produces very few lifecycle carbon emissions. It also faces substantial economic challenges, and carries significant human health and environmental risks. UCS strongly supports policies and measures to strengthen the safety and security of nuclear power.

...
Many of nuclear power’s risks can and should be substantially reduced, regardless of whether new nuclear power plants are built. Since its founding, UCS has served as a nuclear safety watchdog, working to ensure that US nuclear power is adequately safe and secure. Our recommendations include better enforcement of existing regulations, expedited transfer of nuclear waste into dry casks, strengthened reactor security requirements, and higher safety standards for new plants. We advocate the continued prohibition of reprocessing and a ban on the use of plutonium-based fuels. We also support continued research and development of nuclear power technologies that are safer, more secure, and lower cost.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-global-warming

[WHITT]

7. Eh

There is such a thing as carbon capture

Nothing scalable, therefore meaningless.

Nuclear power produces very few lifecycle carbon emissions.

Weasel words.

Transporting the uranium ore to the uranium processing plant is NOT "carbon neutral". The uranium processing plant is NOT "carbon neutral". Transporting the processed uranium to the uranium rod manufacturing plant is NOT "carbon neutral". The uranium rod manufacturing plant is NOT "carbon neutral". Transporting the uranium rods to the nuclear power plant is NOT "carbon neutral". The mining, creation, and transporting of the MASSIVE amounts of concrete and cement involved in the construction of nuclear plants is not only NOT "carbon neutral", it creates MASSIVE amounts of carbon.

All of this is on top of the fact that nuclear power is THE MOST EXPENSIVE manner to generate electricity, and there is STILL no explanation of what will safely be done with all the nuclear waste for the next 2,000 years.

[frazzled]

9. Solar, wind, and EVs are not carbon neutral either

The manufacture of these technologies entails a significant carbon footprint. Yet over their lives, all of these, including nuclear, produce far less emissions, and are thus are part of the climate change solution.

As for scalability, that is an issue across the board. To get there fast enough, all sectors must be engaged simultaneously. How long will it take for all vehicles on the road to be electric (and using fully renewable electricity), and how long for all the buildings and skyscrapers in our large cities to be solarized.

Purity never gets you anywhere. In the short term, we need nuclear as part of the solution. And we only have a short time.

[WHITT]

11. Nope

The manufacture of these technologies entails a significant carbon footprint.

No, they don't.

Yet over their lives, all of these, including nuclear, produce far less emissions...

Indeed, nuclear produces low emissions, AFTER the MASSIVE amount of carbon produced to get there. Then you still have the issues of nuclear being THE MOST EXPENSIVE MANNER to generate electricity, and can we store the nuclear waste on your property for the next 2000 years?

[frazzled]

14. Same with EVs

Manufacture has greater carbon footprint than for gas-powered vehicles. Lithium-ion battery manufacture and recycling fraught with issues.

Nothing’s perfect ... yet, and may never fully be so. But we can’t wait for some utopian future. We have to do what we can do now.

[Hugin]

15. With the fact in hand that the only primary power sources* on Earth are...

1) Solar (Which is also the result of a nuclear reaction, but, we'll neglect that for now.)
2) Other nuclear reactions caused by atoms, which are by percentage a small part of the make up of the Earth.

* Geo-thermal may be an additional source of primary power due to the immense pressures within the Earth.

Everything else, wind, water, lightning, fossil fuels, & etc originates from one of those two sources and are essentially means of the storage and transfer of power.

I keep waiting for the counter proposals. Nothing ever materializes.

Pixie dust?

[Hugin]

17. One more potential primary energy source to add... Tidal.

Tidal energy comes from the gravitational cycles the Earth experiences due to interactions with other celestial bodies. The majority of which are due to the Moon and Sun.

[Volaris]

10. I'm on your side with this.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. The devil is in the details - I'll reserve judgement until I see them

Just remember, regardless of what this Gang of 21 comes up with, if it doesn’t pass muster with Budget Committee chair Sanders or the Congressional Progressive Caucus, it ain’t going nowhere.

[Hugin]

8. Sanders is on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Which is the source of this proposal.

However, I have no idea of his buy-in.

[WHITT]

12. Bernie

is also Chairman of the Senate budget committee.

[dsp3000]

13. we need nuclear- it's a necessary evil

it also creates tons of jobs at the same time.

[WHITT]

16. Two Years Ago

I could have stated that there were more jobs in solar and wind, than there were in oil & gas, natural gas, coal, timber, and nuclear, COMBINED.

Today, there are more jobs in solar alone, than there are in oil & gas, natural gas, coal, timber, and nuclear, COMBINED. In addition to wind.