<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s focus on solutions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/focus-solutions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/focus-solutions/</link>
	<description>Join the energy conversation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 01:57:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Berg</title>
		<link>http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/focus-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-1748</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Berg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/?p=1012#comment-1748</guid>
		<description>Great comments, Dave. I recently retired from El Paso Electric Company (EPE) and now consult on climate change issues. At EPE, less than 10% of the energy it produces or purchases annually comes from coal. Almost everything else is from nuclear and natural gas. EPE&#039;s carbon footprint intensity in 2009 (for CO2) was 0.29 U.S. short tons CO2 per MWh, less than half the national average(0.67). If all electric utilities carried such an impressive intensity level, our nation (and the world) may not even be concerned with carbon emissions. In addition to the fear that pricing carbon and setting up a cap-and-trade program will be complicated and subject to gross or subtle manipulation by unscrupulous opportunists (including the very lawmakers pushing for its passage), it seems grossly unfair that no consideration is proposed for those utilities, like EPE, who have carried a low carbon footprint for decades. EPE also serves an area that continues to experience tremendous organic customer growth (roughly double the national average), and such is not considered either in any of the various proposed legislative efforts being discussed. There seems to be no voice of reason in Congress and your point is well stated - we don&#039;t really want government dictating to us on this matter, no matter which branch it may be. Sadly, and perhaps more significantly, my rough calculations indicate that it could cost our nation more than a trillion dollars to modestly reduce emissions by 20% under any of the proposed plans by 2020, which would, according to some scientists, not even begin to have a positive effect on the global climate, the ozone layer, or long-term temperatures. I don&#039;t hear ANY legislator talking about that reality or about the climate &quot;benefits&quot; we can expect in return for the burdensome costs they are proposing. I do beleive that the best hope for our future is to evolve into a nation that relies more heavily on nuclear and natural gas sources for eledctric power, with coal still playing a key role. By the way, for all of the hype, those of us in the industry realize that renewable energy, especially solar and wind, will likely never be capable of producing inexpensive, reliable basleoad energy and we must stop deluding ourselves otherwise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great comments, Dave. I recently retired from El Paso Electric Company (EPE) and now consult on climate change issues. At EPE, less than 10% of the energy it produces or purchases annually comes from coal. Almost everything else is from nuclear and natural gas. EPE&#8217;s carbon footprint intensity in 2009 (for CO2) was 0.29 U.S. short tons CO2 per MWh, less than half the national average(0.67). If all electric utilities carried such an impressive intensity level, our nation (and the world) may not even be concerned with carbon emissions. In addition to the fear that pricing carbon and setting up a cap-and-trade program will be complicated and subject to gross or subtle manipulation by unscrupulous opportunists (including the very lawmakers pushing for its passage), it seems grossly unfair that no consideration is proposed for those utilities, like EPE, who have carried a low carbon footprint for decades. EPE also serves an area that continues to experience tremendous organic customer growth (roughly double the national average), and such is not considered either in any of the various proposed legislative efforts being discussed. There seems to be no voice of reason in Congress and your point is well stated &#8211; we don&#8217;t really want government dictating to us on this matter, no matter which branch it may be. Sadly, and perhaps more significantly, my rough calculations indicate that it could cost our nation more than a trillion dollars to modestly reduce emissions by 20% under any of the proposed plans by 2020, which would, according to some scientists, not even begin to have a positive effect on the global climate, the ozone layer, or long-term temperatures. I don&#8217;t hear ANY legislator talking about that reality or about the climate &#8220;benefits&#8221; we can expect in return for the burdensome costs they are proposing. I do beleive that the best hope for our future is to evolve into a nation that relies more heavily on nuclear and natural gas sources for eledctric power, with coal still playing a key role. By the way, for all of the hype, those of us in the industry realize that renewable energy, especially solar and wind, will likely never be capable of producing inexpensive, reliable basleoad energy and we must stop deluding ourselves otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Object Caching 458/564 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.truebluenaturalgas.org @ 2012-05-21 12:49:06 -->
