Responses to arguments against ACES (update).

[ananda]

These responses might be useful to those wishing to contact
legislators or when speaking or writing publicly or privately.

My MoveOn group is passing these on to people via phonebanking
and a townhall meeting. Hope these arguments help.

Argument: Weatherization of homes represents a tax on homeowners

Response: Weatherization reduces average annual energy costs by $218 per household. * For every $1 invested in the program, Weatherization returns $1.80 in energy-related benefits

http://www.fcaog.state.ut.us/weatherization/weatherizat...


Argument: The bill will raise energy costs, imposing a hidden energy tax of $3,100 per year.

Response: Without counting the economic benefits of energy efficiency, reducing air pollution, fighting global warming, and benefits to farmers, the bill would cost between $80 (EPA) and $175 (CBO). Just the economic benefits of energy efficiency in homes and appliances are estimated to save as much as $4000 per household by 2030.

http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=1845

Argument: Human induced global warming is really a hoax.

Response: The consensus of scientists not corrupted or pressured by big oil and rightwing extremism is that human caused global warming is a serious and critical problem. A good ACES bill not gutted by corporate and special interests will include "comprehensive energy and climate reform which would create standards for increased renewable energy and efficiency while imposing 'caps' on greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.examiner.com/x-11447-LA-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Will-Senate-vote-on-comprehensive-energy-legislation-come-up-ACES

Argument: The extra costs will fall most heavily on the 'little guy'.

Response: If just half the money spent on bailouts and wars were funnelled into climate change protections and green energy initiatives and jobs, the "little guy," meaning most Americans, would benefit in every way.

http://www.examiner.com/x-11447-LA-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Will-Senate-vote-on-comprehensive-energy-legislation-come-up-ACES

Argument: ACES legislation will send more jobs overseas

Response: Contrary to Congressman Boehner's wrongheaded assertion, Congressman Henry Waxman, the chairman of the Energy and Environmental Committee, "states that the legislation will create millions of clean energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas. Wind, solar, geothermal, and other green technologies are, by their very nature, not transferable."

http://www.examiner.com/x-11447-LA-Science-and-Tech-News-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Will-Senate-vote-on-comprehensive-energy-legislation-come-up-ACES
============================

I also have an answer to predfan's concerns. predfan wrote:

"I've been told that there's almost as much electricity lost as is used. For example, if you decide to get up at 2 in the morning and do a spot of welding, the grid has to be able to supply what you need. Whether you need it or not.

Near me is a TVA project which utilizes that nighttime capacity by pumping water up into a mountain reservoir, then releasing it through turbines when the need is greater, I.E. the next day. That's one way of storing that energy.

Another is electric cars. Recharging those batteries during the nighttime hours is effectively storing energy to be used the next day.

Right?"
-----

The arguments in response are as follows.

"The issue this argument puts forth is referred to as "dispatchability." That is, renewables do not tend to be ready and available at all times (only when the wind blows and the sun shines), so you have to maintain backup systems that are dispatchable to come online when renewables are not. In general, this issue will limit the percentage (or "grid penetration") of non-dispatchable renewables. This is a real concern, and here is how it is being and will be addressed in a new energy economy.

First, this concern is based on a transmission infrastructure that is regionally organized and not well designed for integration of renewables. For example, if your small city was 100% windpowered and totally disconnected from other grids (not a realistic scenario), then you would have serious reliability problems when the wind isn't blowing.

However, if we invest in transforming our transmission grid with renewables in mind, we can dramatically improve the grid peneatration of renewables. If we have transmission "highways" where large amounts of renewables are being injected into the system over large geographic areas, the variability of the resource is greatly reduced (ex. it might not be windy in the Sweetwater area today, but it will be windy in Albuquerque or Denver, etc.). This approach, in conjunction with efficiency and conservation, can dramatically reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use, even if we have to have those natural gas and coal plants as backups. In other words, there's no harm in needing fossil fuel backup plants to augment the renewable plants if the aggregate effect is to reduce emissions by 50%+ in the mid-term.

The second solution is electricity storage. Thanks to shortsightedness on the part of our leaders (and the public) and obstructionism by big oil, large battery technology has not improved much over the last 30 years. Pumped water or compressed air represents a physical storage option, but both are very inefficient, requiring a lot of power to convert from electricity to kinetic energy and back to electricity. One solution that is offered by solar thermal is heat storage in large vats of molten salt. Unlike solar photovoltaic (i.e. solar panels) solar thermal collects the heat from the sun's energy and can store the heat, using it later to make steam to run a steam turbine to make electricity. Because you are not converting from electricity to heat and back, the storage is much more efficient. It's still more expensive than the market price for conventional fuels, but the market price for such fuels is totally mispriced (we pay a LOT more than the market price when we use conventional fuels, just not in our power bills or at the pump).

The electric car idea is creative but not really the sollution. All of the cars in Austin, were they switched with electric cars, would only provide a very small fraction of Austin's power needs, and this idea would require millions of cars participating. It is the right idea though: integrating transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial energy use and using electricity as a transportation fuel.

If we really dive into this idea of transforming the energy industry, we will see a massive private infusion of capital into new businesses, research in new technologies, a real Renaissance in the energy business. To look at today's dynamics and numbers and make statements about high costs/technological limits of renewables is akin to having a 19th Century Army successfully plan a 21st Century battle. We need to rely on and believe in the innovation and industriusness that has always driven this country (after all, we were building something like 18 battleships a day during WWII)."


Hope this helps.