Progress Illinois

After killing a clean coal bill in June, electric utility Commonwealth Edison lifted its opposition to a similar measure yesterday, leading the Illinois House to easily pass (86-5) a measure that could lead to construction of a new generation of clean-coal power plants in the Prairie State. According to Crain's, "the bill would require utilities and power marketers to buy 5 percent of their electricity from facilities like the 600-megawatt plant proposed for Downstate Taylorville, which is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by separating carbon during the coal-burning process for later burial." Both House Speaker Mike Madigan and his daughter, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, support the measure, claiming this technology will save consumers money in the long-run.

But there are still a lot of steps between yesterday's vote and the actual development of new plants. First, the Senate must pass the same measure. Then the testing begins:

Like earlier versions, the House-passed bill would require Taylorville plant developer Tenaska Co. to conduct a detailed cost study before the bill’s provisions take effect. The Legislature then would have to vote again to move forward with the project after seeing the study, as well as critiques of the document by state utility regulators.

The state would foot the bill for that study, which is projected to cost between $10 million and $18 million.

Why is there so much trepidation? As Crain's notes, "the carbon-sequestration technology is expensive, and its feasibility has yet to be proven."

Continue reading »

Today, the Tribune editorial board gets really excited about T. Boone Pickens, the former oil man who's pushing a new proposal to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. I saw Pickens' first TV spot over the weekend. Have a look:

I have to admit, the first 50 seconds of the ad impressed me. I liked the emphasis on the "transfer of wealth" and thought this line was solid: "This is one emergency we can't drill our way out off." That was followed by Pickens' mention of harnessing wind power, which is fantastic.

But then he proposed "using America's abundant natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper alternative to foreign oil."

Oh, T. Boone.

Here's the Tribune's summary of the so-called "Pickens Plan":

He proposes replacing the 22 percent of electricity the nation gets from natural gas with wind energy. That would free up that natural gas to become an alternative fuel for cars. He says cars running on natural gas could cover 38 percent of U.S. transportation needs.

Climate Progress' Joseph Romm explains why this proposal is problematic:

Seriously, though, it’s great that gazillionaire TBP is talking up peak oil and joining the wind power bandwagon (see “Wind Power — A core climate solution“). And it’s great he plans to spend tens of millions of dollars pushing this idea and delivering the mesage that $15 billion dollars for the wind production tax credit is peanuts compared to the $700 billion this country is going to spend on foreign oil this year.

But if you want to displace oil, the obvious thing to do is use of the wind power to charge plug-in hybrids (see “Plug-in hybrids and electric cars — a core climate solution“), multiple models of which will be introduced into the US car market in two years. Indeed, with electric utilities controlling the charging of the plug-ins, they can make optimum use of variable windpower, which is mostly available at night time. That would be win-win-win.

The Pickens Plan, however, is based on the utterly impractical idea that “Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel.”

Uhh, never gonna happen, T. Boone. Never. The most obvious reason is the gross inefficiency of the entire plan.

Read Romm's whole response. He goes on to explain why the government is never going to spend the money necessary to convert to natural gas vehicles and why such a conversion would do little to curb greenhouse gases.

It's not often that you see a school district come up with a plan to cut costs and help the environment at the same time, but that's what's happening in New Berlin.

According to the State Journal Register, the school district there is considering building a wind turbine to help power its elementary school, a similar project was already approved in the nearby Petersberg Porta school district:

The Petersburg Porta School District expects to cut average monthly power bills of $25,000 for the junior and senior high schools to $5,000 to $10,000 a month when a wind turbine is switched on next spring, said School Superintendent Matt Brue.

The Petersburg district, which has an enrollment of 1,250, also is installing a geothermal system and a small solar project.

Brue said the turbine would supply about 80 percent of demand for the all-electric high school and middle school. Districtwide savings from alternative energy are projected at $400,000 per year. [...]

Only about a half-dozen public school districts statewide — there are a little more than 870 — are using wind energy, but the executive director of the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation in Chicago said the list is bound to grow as natural gas and electric bills continue to increase.

As we noted earlier this week, wind farms are becoming increasingly popular in Central Illinois as the cost of energy rises.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center indicates that Americans are beginning to become more supportive of the idea of domestic oil drilling. Driving this shift in public opinion is the idea -- advanced by numerous Republicans -- that increased drilling on U.S. lands will quickly put an end to high gas prices at home. But it's not be that simple.

In an interview today on WRHL's Michael Koolidge Show,16th District Democratic congressional candidate Bob Abboud pointed out why -- contrary to suggestions by his opponent, GOP Rep. Don Manzullo -- drilling is not a quick-fix. Abboud, a nuclear engineer, is running as an energy pragmatist and he raises some very practical concerns. Here's what he had to say:

Internal mp3

ABBOUD: The real question that I ask is: “What does it do for you?” If you look at drilling crude -- crude is a globally traded product. So anywhere that you drill -- whether domestically or on the other side of the globe -- it doesn’t necessarily say that that crude is going to wind up here in the United States.

The second problem is we’re running at essentially 100 percent refinery capacity here in the United States. We have virtually no spare capacity. And so, you know, you can work and create all kinds of new supply of crude, but it’s certainly not going to create new supplies of what you really use and that’s gasoline, diesel fuel, and ethanol.

A recent Time article backed up Abboud's first point:

[T]he U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production.

As this election cycle continues we will hear more and more about domestic drilling as a cure-all to our energy woes. It's good to see Democras such as Abboud taking that myth on from an economic (as well as environmental) standpoint.

Continue reading »

During an appearance on WLS' Don Wade & Roma last Wednesday, Rep. Mark Kirk asserted that China has been drilling for oil just off American shores -- in the Cuban-controlled section of the Gulf of Mexico. But as we noted, that claim is blatantly false. In fact, it had been earlier used by Vice President Dick Cheney, who then had to retract his statement. Apparently that wasn't enough to keep Kirk from peddling it days later. Have a listen:

Internal mp3

Yesterday, Ellen of the Tenth live-blogged a teleconference Kirk held with constituents and, lo and behold, the GOP congressman apparently repeated the China drilling claim. From her post on the call:

More on gas prices. Open up areas off Am shorelines to oil drilling? (That question is misleading--see why by looking at my recent post on why that is not the real question -- and he's making reference to the already proven false comment about China drilling offshore Cuba again--unbelievable).

Unfortunately, there's no audio of the call, so we can't check Kirk's exact language.

Today, the Seals campaign put out a statement calling on Kirk to retract his assertion about Chinese drilling in the gulf. From their press release:

"For weeks, Mark Kirk has engaged in tired scare tactics to justify his support for environmentally destructive drilling," Seals Communications Director Elisabeth Smith said. "Once again, he has shown how far he is willing to go to enrich the big oil companies that have funded his campaigns. Mark Kirk owes it to his constituents to apologize for these grossly misleading comments after even Dick Cheney acknowledged this information to be false."

It should be noted that Kirk isn't the only GOP member of Congress repeating this garbage to his constituents. Reps. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) and Sam Graves (R-MO) have also been caught repeating the claim, despite Cheney's retraction.

Conservative bloggers, various GOP members of the Illinois congressional delegation, President Bush, and John McCain have all called for more oil drilling to lower gas prices in the short-term. We did our best to beat back this shaky contention, but alas, we're only bloggers. There has to be some expert out there who can prove us wrong, right?

Not quite. According to The Huffington Post's Sam Stein, it was impossible to find any economist -- from the left or right -- willing to back the proposition that offshore drilling could have a short-term impact on the market dynamics:

The Huffington Post took on the task of finding an expert who thought that Americans would, within the next decade, receive relief at the pump from McCain's plan. Querying the entire scope of the ideological spectrum -- and putting aside the debate over whether or not offshore drilling was sensible policy -- the consensus seemed to be that if the presumptive GOP nominee was persuading voters that he could help decrease their gas bill, he was either living in a political fantasy or being disingenuous.

Maybe Rep. Mark Kirk read Stein's piece. After calling for more drilling off the coast of Cuba, he and Rep. Judy Biggert released an energy proposal yesterday that doesn't include a single mention of additional drilling.

(h/t David Roberts)

Last night's House vote on the war supplemental bill will frustrate some progressives. Broken into two amendments, the first focused on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Congress agreed to fund to the tune of nearly $162 billion through the first part of FY 2009. The second half of the bill dealt with domestic spending and progressive House leaders were forced to make some concessions on that front as well. Members of the Blue Dog coalition forced Democratic leaders to offset the cost of increased veterans' benefits but balked at an actual proposal to do so -- a tax increase on individuals with incomes above $500,000 a year or couples making over $1 million -- leaving unresolved the question of how those education benefits will be funded. And while Dems pushed through a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, they were forced to retain a requirement that beneficiaries work at least 20 weeks to be eligible for benefits, thanks to dishonest arguments put forth by GOP opponents.

But not all was lost. As part of the second amendment, $400 million was devoted to science research, potentially staving off at least some layoffs at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and Argonne National Lavorator in Batavia, IL. Rep. Bill Foster was a major supporter of the measure and said he has received assurances from the White House that it will not be vetoed by Bush:

"The scientific community was hit hard by the funding cuts that were included in the omnibus bill last year," Foster said in a statement. "As a result, scientific research in general and Fermi in particular have suffered tremendously."

Backyard Conservative joins the chorus of Illinois Republicans -- along with John McCain and President Bush -- calling for more oil drilling to lower fuel prices:

This is what the American people want: Drill here, Drill now, Pay less--where we have proven reserves!!!

Lift the ban on offshore drilling on the Outer Continental shelf, far from our beaches, but rich with oil. New technology is least intrusive, protecting coral reefs and habitat.

But what effect will offshore drilling have on gas prices? Dean Baker does some back-of-the-envelope calculations:

According to the NYT, the Energy Information Agency estimates that the total amount of oil in the offshore zone in question is about 16 billion barrels. If we assume that it would take about ten years from the day of authorization to get to peak production and that most of the oil is pumped out over 30 years, this would translate into a bit over 1 million barrels of oil a day.

That would be equal to about 1 percent of world production in a decade. If we assume a long-run demand elasticity of 0.3, this would imply a drop in world prices of approximately 3 percent. In today's prices, we would be looking at a drop in the price of a barrel of oil from around $135 to $131. If this were passed on one to one in gas prices (this is long-run story), we might expect to see a drop in the price of a gallon of gas from around $4.00 to around $3.92 a gallon.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration backs up Baker's work. Last year, they released a report suggesting that drilling on the Continental Shelf wouldn’t have “a significant impact” on gas prices until 2030.

Continue reading »

Another day, another instance of Rep. Mark Kirk twisting the facts.

Last week, we noted his falsehoods about the uninsured population in America. Yesterday, we thoroughly debunked his bogus claim that the federal unemployment insurance benefit extension he voted against would lead people to cash in after two weeks of work.

Then, during an appearance on WLS' Don Wade & Roma Morning Show today, Kirk falsely asserted that the Chinese are drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba. Listen here:

Internal mp3

Vice President Dick Cheney made the same claim last week in front of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, adding that "even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply."

But the assertion that the Chinese are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico -- first put forth by George Will -- is completely false.

Jorge Piñon, an energy expert at the University of Miami’s Center for Hemispheric Policy, told The Miami Herald that “China is not drilling in Cuba’s Gulf of Mexico waters, period.” The Congressional Research Service agrees.

After being called out on the mistake, Cheney backtracked last Wednesday, saying: "It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there."

Why then, Rep. Kirk, are you still peddling this trash a week later?

And then there's this ...

Since Barack Obama stepped onto the national stage, public officials from John Ashcroft to Ted Kennedy to Mitt Romney have mistakenly referred to him as "Osama." Today, Mark Kirk added himself to this illustrious list. However, I think it goes without saying that he picked a most inopportune context.

Listen to Kirk express his support for a policy "where if we see Obama there's a shoot-on-sight order":

Internal mp3

Obviously, Kirk meant to say "Osama." But geez ... talk about a gaffe.

Continue reading »

Treated more or less as a novelty during his successful campaign for Congress, Bill Foster's background as a particle physicist is playing an increasingly important role in his representation of the 14th District. Specifically, Foster's scientific background has strengthened Democratic efforts to drum up federal support for Batavia-based Fermilab, one of the Department of Energy's national science laboratories.

The Daily Herald recognized his support of the facility in an editorial over the weekend:

Foster joined other Illinois members of Congress and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin two weeks ago in proclaiming the U.S. Senate had approved $250 million in funding for energy, helping to assure Fermilab in Batavia could continue its research and retain staffing that was threatened by budget cuts late last year. Now Foster will push the concept among his colleagues in the House in hopes of approving the bill, which earmarks $100 million for the Department of Energy's Office of Science and another $150 million to the National Science Foundation.

Foster himself worked at Fermilab before entering politics. Not only has he championed the lab in the halls of Congress, he also recently spoke with physicists in Batavia, pushing them to more clearly communicate the "health, security, and economic" importance of their projects to lawmakers in Washington.

Beyond the general promise that scientific advancement holds for the entire country, Fermilab is a pressing issue in the 14th District. The lab is planning to lay off some of its 1,900-person workforce due to recent budget cuts.