NJ Clean Energy Program and Energy Master Plan

lfurman (0.00 / 0)

This is interesting, as is the series of stakeholder meetings New Jersey is holding. But what you wrote is a little jargon-y. Can you adapt it more as a post? I'll email you how to insert a text link, which might make that easier.  

It's not a particularly snappy signature, but here's what I think we need in the next NJ Democratic State Chair.  

---

by: Rosi Efthim @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 01:56:22 AM UTC

The laws of Thermodynamics (0.00 / 0)

It's quite simple.  Coal, oil, and nuclear convert energy stored within natural resources by generating heat.  This adds heat to the earth's ecosystem, with a net increase in temperature of the ecosystem.  Wind and solar capture energy that would naturally be turned into heat anyway - either by the friction generated by the wind or the incident heat being provided by the sun.  So wind and solar  are "natural" with no net increase in global heat-producing phenomena, while coal, oil, and nuclear are "unnatural" introduction of excess heat into the ecosystem.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 20:53:36 PM UTC

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

That's entirely inaccurate. Coal, oil, wood, release carbon into the atmosphere when they release their stored energy.

The law of thermodynamics dictate that the earth must lose as much energy as it recieves from the sun in order for the temperature (average heat) to remain constant.

The issue with fossil fuels, is not so much that they 'generate heat' in as much that they release carbon into the atmosphere during oxidation and that carbon release may in fact alter the ability of the earth to cool.

Taken to the theorectical end, solar energy 'captured' by solar panels and not released to atmosphere adds to total energy on the planet. Similarly, windmills take energy out of the atmosphere as well (and store it in some manner). Energy is constant and can't be created or destroyed. All we are capable of doing is altering the rate of absorbtion or loss to space.

Having said that, nuclear energy does not contribute to warming or 'add heat' to the earth. The issue is it produces highly toxic waste. (depleted uranimum) and or heavy water.


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 13:02:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Energy Efficiency (0.00 / 0)

The NJ Clean Energy program, as it stands, is funded by a "Societal Benefits Charge" that we all pay on our electric bills.  While a portion of that money has been used to incentivize renewable energy, another important goal of the program has been energy efficiency.  Research shows that there is nothing that gives one a greater return on investment than dollars spent on making  residential, commercial and governmental facilities more efficient.  This is one argument that is a win-win for the planet and our pocketbooks.  

Yes, the program needs changes.  It has massive administrative costs and doesn't always channel money into the areas that are the most meaningful.  I would encourage Governor Christie and Commissioner Solomon to revamp the program thoughtfully with a continued strong emphasis on efficiency.  

The energy we don't use is cheaper and cleaner than any solar panel, wind turbine, nuclear plant or fossil fuel.

See you there on Friday!  

---

by: lori braunstein @ Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 22:45:13 PM UTC

There is no way that solar and wind (0.00 / 0)

power are remotely as clean as nuclear energy.

The belief to the contrary is one of the nost pernicious myths in the country and for our party represents our creationism.

The Secretary of Energy, who is a Nobel Prize winner in physics knows this, as did many other Nobel Prize science winning Democrats, including Hans Bethe, Glenn Seaborg, and New Jersey's own Eugene Wigner.

Let's be clear on something:   The wind and solar industry are very expensive boondoggles that are designed to do what Democrats should not be seen DEAD doing, subsidizing the rich at the expense of the poor.

I'll be impressed if the wind and solar industries start giving a rat's ass about the waste problem from the gas industry - waste that I note is killing the planet - without which both industries would collapse in a New York second.

The so called "waste" problem with nuclear energy is totally an invention of people who do not understand nuclear science.

I will also be impressed when the security problem associated with oil energy - I note that the major terrorist attacks in the US in New York and Oklahoma both involved diverted oil - results in calls for the banning of the oil industry, which by the way, I support.

The attempts to destroy New Jersey's outstanding nuclear infrastructure is an attempt to impoverish this state, destroy our environment, and give us over to a form of dogma and ignorance that is reprehensible.

Wind power, in particular, sucks.   It's an international disaster, and is being recognized as such in many places around the world, including surprisingly Denmark.

I'm against it.

Nuclear power need not be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else.   It merely needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

---

by: NNadir @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:11:34 AM UTC

Questions (0.00 / 0)

1. There is currently no viable cost-efficient policy in the US for disposal of nuclear waste.  How would you handle the safe disposal of tons of toxic material and ensure that it stays out of the hands of terrorists?  What is the total life-cycle cost?
2. What would the cost be if a Chernobyl-type accident were to occur say at a NJ nuclear plant?  Yes - I know the Chernobyl design is different than our plants, but they also assured us that the BP wells were safe.

When one looks at the "hidden" costs, it is evident that nuclear power is not superior to anything else.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 11:13:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Similarly... (0.00 / 0)

how much waste is produced in the manufacture of solar panels? What heavy metals are involved? (remember those 'green' light bulbs that when broken require the EPA on site to clean up)

It's unfair to demand total life cycle costs from one from of power generation and ignore the costs of others...

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 13:07:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (0.00 / 0)

Agree.  The total LCC must be factored into the equation.  I have not see a reputable (or even disreputable) study that takes these factors into account.  I've heard anecdotally that the cost of gasoline is around $15/gallon when you take into account taxpayer subsidies, environmental cleanup, etc.  It would be good to see a robust analysis of coal, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.  I suspect the cleanup costs for thousands of broken light bulbs is somewhat less than costs for a nuclear meltdown.

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 13:38:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Energy program (0.00 / 0)

The NJ Clean Energy program, as it stands, is funded by a "Societal Benefits Charge" that we all pay on our electric bills.  

---

by: abibaba @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:46:19 AM UTC

Chris Christie will do (0.00 / 0)

what he's told to do by the moneyed interests.
He cares nothing about the general welfare of New Jersey's citizens.
Hmmm, mercury in my sushi?
Didn't the Bush White house declare mercury was good for you.  

Restore democracy and the Constitution for which it stands.

---

by: The Wizard @ Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:59:41 AM UTC