Within the $787 billion stimulus spending bill is promoting plug in electric cars but is this realistic given the amount of energy used by most American Households, if we are trying to limit emissions what other renewable energy’s would be most cost efficient without having a more hazardous effect on our environment, there are things worst than CO2 emmissions for instance nuclear power.
The $787 billion stimulus spending bill enacted in February promotes plug-in electric cars for use by the federal government, and eventually, the public.
“Don’t underestimate how this is going to change — the costs of energy go up,” he said, noting nuclear power will play a dominant role in the company’s federally mandated move toward cleaner energy alternatives.
Purpose of these plug-in cars is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and wean America off foreign energy sources.
That sounds good, except it won’t work. America doesn’t have the electrical capacity to make it work, and a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the plug-in vehicles being pushed by the Obama administration won’t decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding electricity, on June 16, Lloyd Yates, CEO of Progress Energy told directors and members of the County Economic Development Council at a lunch in the Crystal Coast Civic Center that while Progress Energy supports the push toward renewable, responsible and sustainable energy, goals must be realistic, measurable and at a minimum cost to end users of electricity.
North Carolina is one of about 30 states with mandatory renewable portfolio standards specifying that electric utilities generate a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, wrote Mark Hibbs, News-Times business editor about Mr. Yates’ talk. Mr. Yates, continued Mr. Hibbs, said Progress Energy must derive 12½% of its power from renewable sources by 2021 and by 2050 reduce its CO2 levels to levels not seen in this country since 1905.
We surmise, as does everyone, that this is doable. We believe, however, that it’s only doable if Progress Energy is given the green light — no pun intended — to build more nuclear power plants.
There are sticking points. First are the costs. Nuclear power plants cost money, tons, because meeting all the environmental safeguards is exorbitantly expensive.
Second, aside from the exorbitantly expensive environmental safeguards, which we know would be met with any new nuclear power plant construction, are the environmental roadblocks that will, if history is any lesson, be thrown up to halt or delay any nuclear power plant construction.
Mr. Yates said Progress Energy added 18,000 new customers in 2008, in a down economy. In a year of economic growth, he said Progress Energy would normally gain 35,000 new customers so infrastructure investment to prepare for continued growth is a must.
Saying concerns over “global warming” and fuel market volatility require new alternatives, including improved efficiency, he said increased reliance on renewable energy sources and construction of nuclear power plants is absolutely necessary. He added that Progress Energy’s goal of doubling efficiency over the next decade means convincing customers to conserve and alter their “electrically intense lifestyles.”
That, wrote Mr. Hibbs, means convincing Americans with “ever-larger homes filled with more and more power-hungry appliances, flat-screen TVs and other devices that drive an American family’s energy consumption to 10 times that of a family in China,” to conserve.
“We have to convince people to use less energy. Customers must change their behavior,” said Mr. Yates, adding, those “who need energy efficiency most can least afford it.”
With all due respect to Mr. Yates, the chance of North Carolinians reducing energy use is very slim, unless, of course, the cost of electricity soars. Otherwise, energy use will only increase.
Like most things emanating from The One, such as his take over of GM and Chrysler motor companies, countless financial institutions and now cap and trade legislation, which we most definitively don’t need, along with government healthcare, the idea of plug-in electric cars comes from his idea of global climate change. That’s a scam driven by ideology and money. Its purpose is to hurt capitalism and suck money from the pockets of Americans, distributing it to others who as we all know are more deserving and smarter than we.
Source
