Skip to main content

View Diary: Energize America - A Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security (Fourth Draft) (311 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We have tried (4.00)
    to absorb the proposals from Apollo Alliance, Sen. Reid and a number of others into a coherent and comprehensive whole.

    We are totally open to incorporating new suggestions/acts/proposals into that document if they makes sense - and someone hopefully provides the relevant wording and numbers.

    This is a work in progress - the input from everybody is welcome - and taken into account, as hopefully many of you have noticed. Indeed this is what we think makes the strength of this method, i.e. the fact that each individual proposal can be critiqued, fine tuned, improved by community members.

    In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
    Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

    by Jerome a Paris on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 07:27:26 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Better and bettter (4.00)
      with every draft. I think you've done a great job of making concise arguements about the role of oil in the geoplitical struggles that world faces.

      With as many opinions as there are on this subject, I'm impressed with your ability to package them.

    •  The Apollo Alliance has ... (none)
      ...been an inspiration to several of us working on Energize America. Other inspirations have been Denmark, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the Natural  Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and Hunter and Amory Lovins at The Rocky Mountain Institute.
      •  Earth Policy Institute (none)
        Lester Brown

        his recent book
        Plan B
        is illuminating...

        A simple measure, such as replacing old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs with highly efficient compact fluorescent bulbs would enable the world to close hundreds of coal-fired power plants. Replacing nonrefillable beverage containers, such as aluminum cans, with refillable bottles can cut energy use by up to 90 percent. If all U.S. motorists shifted from their current vehicles with internal combustion engines to cars with hybrid engines, like the Toyota Prius or the Honda Insight, gasoline use could be cut in half. Cutting carbon emissions in half is less a matter of technology and more a matter of political leadership.

        Not only do we need to stabilize population, raise water productivity, and stabilize climate, but we need to do it at wartime speed. The key to quickly shifting from a carbon-based energy economy to a hydrogen-based one is to incorporate the costs of climate change, including crop-damaging temperatures, more destructive storms, and rising sea level, in the prices of fossil fuels. We need to get the market to tell the ecological truth.
        --Lester Brown, "Plan B"

        alliances of (almost) every type are necessary

        btw, fantastic job jerome, meteor, dtower!

        11.8.05 - the tide, she turnin

        by ksingh on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:37:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Brown is right on some counts ... (none)
          ...but he's wrong about aluminum cans. When you add in the costs of transporting and cleaning bottles roundtrip through the system, lightweight recycled aluminum cans consume far less energy. Remember, recycled aluminum cans take less than 1/10th the energy to produce as raw aluminum.
          •  You may be right (none)

            here's some of what Brown says:

            Another policy initiative that can greatly reduce materials use is the banning of one-way beverage containers, something that Denmark and Finland have both done. Denmark, for example, banned one-way soft drink containers in 1977 and beer containers in 1981. Canada's Prince Edward Island has adopted a similar ban on one-way containers. The result in all three cases has been dramatically reduced flows of garbage to landfills.

            The environmental costs of beverage containers vary widely. A refillable glass bottle requires less than one fifth as much energy as a recycled aluminum beverage container, assuming the bottle is refilled 15 times, which may be a conservative estimate.56

            (56. Based on John E. Young, "Refillable Bottles: Return of a Good Thing," World Watch, March/April 1991, p. 35.)

            There are also large transport savings, since the containers are simply back-hauled to the original soft drink bottling plants or breweries. If nonrefillable containers are used, whether glass or aluminum, and they are recycled, then they must be transported to a factory where they can be melted down and refashioned into containers and transported back to the bottling plant or brewery.
            -- Lester R. Brown, Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth (W.W. Norton & Co., NY: 2001).

            Finland has a stiff tax on nonrefillables that has lead to 98-percent container reuse for soft drinks. These actions reduce energy use, water use, and garbage generation. A refillable glass bottle used over and over again requires about 10 percent as much energy per use as an aluminum can, even if the can is recycled. Cleaning, sterilizing, and relabeling a used bottle requires little energy, but recycling aluminum, which has a melting point of 660 degrees Celsius (1220 degrees Fahrenheit), is an energy-intensive process. Banning nonrefillables is a win-win policy initiative because it cuts both energy use and the flow of garbage.
            --Lester R. Brown, Plan B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble (W.W. Norton & Co., NY: 2003).

            I do like Brown. But like most of us, he may be wrong on occasion.


            11.8.05 - the tide, she turnin

            by ksingh on Wed Dec 14, 2005 at 02:37:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site