We'll get more natural gas out of the deal, and we need that as a transition fuel.  And the big prize is the Eastern Gulf, not the East Coast.  But if we don't open the moratorium areas, we'll still be able to get the natural gas we need (hopefully) through imports.  It will just be more expensive.

Bipartisan solutions are not a bad idea.  Or rather moderate, meet in the middle type solutions aren't bad.  It is better that we build a consensus than pass partisan driven solutions.  Partisan solutions are subject to the governing majority of that party, and can disappear once that majority disappears.  Especially when you have such  large, massive change solutions, this is important.  Otherwise, you plant the seeds of your own eventual electoral demise.

You have to have nuclear if you want to reduce CO2 emissions.  You have to have base load generation.  That's mandatory for reliability of the grid.  And we can put the waste safely somewhere, it's just a matter of the country overriding the interest of some NIMBYs.  Else you are relying on natural gas plants.  Though they produce a good deal less CO2 than coal ones, they still produce it.

On the renewables, they are not environmental issue free.  Only wind is.  Geothermal produces toxic gases and pollution (though this can be mitigated depending upon how the plant works).  Hydro takes up a lot of land, and fundamentally changes the natural ecosystems of the areas we locate dams in.  Solar (save PV cells on an existing roof) takes up a lot of space, and that has an impact on ecosystems too.  Then there is the fact that not all of these renewables (or the best generation areas) are located close to the Northeast.  That means distribution and High Voltage transmission cutting across the country doesn't present a neutral impact.

I think you discount technology.  There is a lot out there.  It just needs to make that final leap to commercial production.  10 to 20 years from now, the landscape will be completely different in transportation, electricity generation, transmission and distribution.  If we need to make a compromise to help us get there, why not?

for power generation. The question is whether there's enough natural gas available.  I strongly doubt it, given (in part) that the largest natural gas reserves in the world are in Russia and Iran. No thanks.

you are for coal w/ ccs?

"The question is whether there's enough natural gas available.  I strongly doubt it"

Therefore, do you now then, accept coal w/ ccs?

We are now able to recover natural gas from the Barnett Shale formation under Fort Worth, Texas.  That's 27 trillion cubic feet of gas.  And there are other non-conventional sources that we don't even include in our reserve numbers.  It's not going to last forever, but it will help in the transition to something else.  It will help us reduce carbon emissions while we make a more full transition away from fossil fuels all together.

Not a lot of a barrel of oil, but we also need DuPont, Dow, BASF and other chemical companies to help us figure out how we will make do without oil in all of the other products it's in: films, plastics, pesticides, fertilizers, cosmetics, perfumes, etc...  

I don't believe there's any significant enviro impact of solar thermal, PV, geothermal, or tidal.  As a strong environmentalist, I'm perfectly comfortable with all of those.  And on nuclear, I'm not against it but we have to deal with the nuclear waste issue. Also, it's really expensive to build a nuclear power plant.  Finally, let me just emphasize again that the single best, cheapest source of energy is "negawatts" - energy efficiency, the energy you save by using less of it to produce the same amount of output.  In power generation, the potential is enormous in things like cogeneration and combined cycle.  Let's do it!

" energy efficiency, the energy you save by using less of it to produce the same amount of output.  In power generation, the potential is enormous in things like cogeneration and combined cycle.  Let's do it!"

They already are.  

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_en...

Their statement on geothermal:

The various geothermal resource types differ in many respects, but they raise a common set of environmental issues. Air and water pollution are two leading concerns, along with the safe disposal of hazardous waste, siting, and land subsidence. Since these resources would be exploited in a highly centralized fashion, reducing their environmental impacts to an acceptable level should be relatively easy. But it will always be difficult to site plants in scenic or otherwise environmentally sensitive areas.

And on solar:

The large amount of land required for utility-scale solar power plants-approximately one square kilometer for every 20-60 megawatts (MW) generated-poses an additional problem, especially where wildlife protection is a concern. But this problem is not unique to solar power plants. Generating electricity from coal actually requires as much or more land per unit of energy delivered if the land used in strip mining is taken into account. Solar-thermal plants (like most conventional power plants) also require cooling water, which may be costly or scarce in desert areas.

In some parts of the desert, which is not hospitable to most life, land is cheap and the sun shines year round.

Seems like a good spot to build a huge PV farm.  

The real obstacle is the cost of PV and that there are still gains to be made there, not land.  Currently PV technology only harnesses 11-18% of the energy it is exposed to.  So, more efficient PV will give us more bang per square km.

FYI, I use to install PV for a living.  So I am a huge proponent as a result of my experience with it.  I would have an array on my house if the ROI wasn't 20 years.

My research says about 3KW-4KW system complete for around $30k in materials plus another $10-12k in labor.  Am I close?  

In the open power market, peak capacity is valuable.  Currently Dominion charges a flat-fee and the high expense is spread out evenly onto all customers.  

If they introduce real-time pricing or some more dynamic pricing model, customers with pv solar generation could simply supply the grid with its unused electric at market rates.  This could shorten the ROI considerably.  

What do you think about pv solar roofing under those possibilies?  

If you do some of the labor yourself you can get that down some, but $30-40k is about right.

Net metering laws need to be changed in all states so that pv owners simply tie into the grid, and the power company pays them whatever the going rate is for energy should they produce more than they consume.  This will make it possible to not use batteries - since you won't need to store your unused energy - it just goes back into the market.

Once the cost of pv goes down and net metering laws are changed, then you should have a 5-10 year ROI which makes more sense.  Even sooner if there are tax incentives.

the states have till 2011? to proposed how their utilities will offer it.  I know Dominion will like to limit the users to 10KW.  I haven't read all their requirements yet and am not sure if the state SCC has okayed their proposal.  The wait for me and I'm sure most, entails the introduction of their smart grid plan and with it real-time pricing.  If the state allows end-users a fair market price during peak, then yes, it will work sooner I think.  Thx.

Solar thermal is what most utility scale plants are.

Don't want radioactive waste in your backyard? Stop being such a NIMBY and learn to live with it!

Waste from uranium-based nuclear can be alleviated with expansion of thorium-based nucear.  Both operational safety, waste and start-up cost will certainly limit nuclear generation as a base power source, but that just points to coal and alternative resources.  The alternative resource is mass-scale renewables made possible thru the optimizing affect of a smart grid, and secured with expanded natural gas resource capacities.  

For all intensive purposes, everyone is a nimby.  It comes with the turf of expanding the grid, renewable, fossil or transmission or the smart grid.  Therefore its irrelevant, because it will always be taken into account thru policymaking, and whatever is decided and wherever, it will be enforced regulators.  The utilities are just the one's building what people hate.  Its basically irrelevant in the big picture, except that it will cost customers more money in the long run and cause delays.  

build nuclear waste disposal a mile under my house and I would be okay with it.  The disposal process is safe and so far removed from life, there is no danger.  Put in Yucca mountain and be done with it.

Really, is there only one acceptable solution?  And the problem you have with my comments is that I am for diversity and pragmatism?  

What is your solution?  Here is the number we have to work with: 101.6 quadrillion BTUs.  And it's growing.  You need something robust unless you are suggesting we all live in Yurts.  

a few news stories and proclamations w/o substance.  If you return with detail, you're simply ignored.  And then the silliness with ratings.  I got hit with that from the get go.  Its a true shame.  I'm mean some have great enthusiasm, and like a Democratic politican (Bingaman or Boucher) who really knows the issue, they could, along with what they know about the environment, take down an opponent because Republicans and their bloggers are just as in the dark about energy.  Most literally paint me as tough I'm Green Miles part duex.  They might open their eyes sooner though, and I think that is happening now and this may mean they'll beat the Democrats to that position.  But I think I'm done here.  

I did reply to you with a long (sorry) but detailed explanation on our transmission discussion.  Take that post for example - if someone like Feder understood that post, and took it to Wolf in a debate about energy and Dominion's powerline which was all the rage in their district, she would literally blow his socks off.  Keep the flame lit here.