Bush's first energy rule: efficient enough?

[jpak]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0825/p03s03-usgn.html

Long accused of dragging its feet on raising energy-efficiency standards for products, the Bush administration has proposed its first such standard.

Its proposal attracted little attention, since it didn't mean better dishwashers or more fuel-efficient cars. Instead, it deals with transformers - those ubiquitous gray canisters that hang from utility poles and could save the nation billions of dollars if they were upgraded.

The question is how extensive the upgrade should be. Besides saving an estimated $9 billion in electricity costs, the Bush administration standard, unveiled Aug. 4, may also eliminate the need to build 11 new power plants over a 28-year period, the Department of Energy (DOE) reports. They would also reduce pollution and boost the reliability of the nation's electric grid.

But instead of celebrating the proposal, energy and environment advocates say DOE has opted for "a very weak proposal" - one that fails to save additional mountains of energy and pollution that a slightly tougher regulation would achieve for about the same cost. The tougher standard would save much more than the DOE proposal over 28 years - about 120 billion kilowatt hours of electricity - or enough energy to power 10 percent of US households for a year, they say.

<much much more>

[jpak]

1. This is a really important issue

If the most efficient transformers were used...

<snip>

...consumers would save $11 billion...and eliminate the need for 16 power plants.

If those power plants were all coal-fired, as is the current building trend among utilities, the tougher standards would mean 75 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas and 20,000 fewer tons of smog-forming oxides each year, over and above the DOE's proposed standard.

<snip>

[JohnWxy]

4. This is something that everybody can support - 16 less power plants

less coal burned, less CO2. www.congress.org - email your Congressmen, senators and then try the media (you can email them too)(maybe they will mention it).

[skids]

2. Well, at least...

...when the dollar plunges and the price of everything skyrockets as China gets sick of holding dollar bonds, they will not be able to try to blame the doubling of appliance prices on any ongoing product efficiency standards. :eyes:

[JohnWxy]

3. DAMN! READ THIS ARTICLE THEN GO TO WWW.CONGRESS.ORG

The return on investment for efficiency improvements is better than FOR most new technology investments and certainly it's QUICKER.

After you read this go to www.congress.org and email senators, congressmen, newspapers. They make it easy. You just type in your zip and your Government Reps pop up. You type in what you want to say in an input field and the site will send the email for you.

I know, ... you think it won't make any difference. But if enough people send emails on this issue - we CAN make a difference. (You have to believe that.)



Great post. Recommended.

[hatrack]

5. And it only took them five years and seven months - SUPER!

Interesting post, though - any bets on which standard they'll adopt - tough vs. lenient?

Yeah, that's what I thought too. :eyes: