Senate Passes Bipartisan Energy Bill To Develop New Technologies, Improve Cybersecurity (washingtonpost.com) 52
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post: The U.S. Senate acted in a bipartisan fashion to pass a sweeping energy bill, touching on everything from cybersecurity for power plants to the future of the grid. The bill resulted from collaboration between Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell. The bill, if it merges with House legislation and becomes law, would unleash billions in research and development on new energy technologies, including energy storage, hydrokinetic and marine energy and advancing the electric grid. Many of these initiatives have substantial aisle-crossing appeal, and some could, at least indirectly, help address the problem of climate change. The bill also reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and contains provisions promoting more research on the sequestering of carbon emissions from coal burning and hastening the approval of pipelines and liquefied natural gas exports. The bill, said Alliance to Save Energy president Kateri Callahan, "not only saves homeowners and businesses money and creates jobs, but it also has a huge environmental return by avoiding 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions. Energy efficiency truly is a win-win-win for our country, making our economy more energy productive, protecting our environment and enhancing our energy security."
What's the catch? (Score:1)
Which oligarch comes out on top with this bill? I mean, it's talking about "job creation", so it stands to reason that someone profits massively, right?
And yes, I am a disillusioned foreign observer of American politics.
Re: (Score:2)
We must continue to subsdiz... er, I mean encourage fossil fuel use, because, you know, it's what Jesus and George Washington would want! Remember folks, billionaires need lots of money so they can be protected from the effects of the products they produce.
I would upvote this if i could (Score:2)
Go team! (Score:5, Funny)
The future is now, and simple "win-win" strategies are no longer good enough! We're only going to accept 110%... no make that 120% effort and "win-win-win" results. Of course, if other countries adopt "win-win-win-win" strategies, rest assured we'll be looking at future "win-win-win-win-win" initiatives even more closely. Energy bill bipartisanship FTWWW!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only bipartisanship you ever see is when they finally sign a bill and everybody says, 'Gee, isn't that wonderful?
- Colin Powell
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah - we're going to turn this country around 360 degrees!!
Corrected Headline: (Score:3, Insightful)
US Senate passes bill creating a slush fund for campaign contributors.
Re: (Score:2)
"Who let the hogs out . . . ?"
"Oink . . . oink, oink oink oink oink, oink oink oink, oink, oink oink oink oink oink, oink oink oink oink . . . etc . . .
If it walks like a pork, talks like a pork, and tastes like pork barbecued pork . . . well . . . this bill looks like pork to me.
The only question remains for the folks from North Carolina and Texas . . . who has the best barbecue . . . ?
A question that is guaranteed to be more interesting than Live Full Nude Sex Show Mud-wrestling . . . or an Emacs vs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: And yet, no mention of Thorium? (Score:1)
Thorium isn't going to happen. Fusion is not going to happen, either. Get over it, the free ride is over. Now we should expect it to turn ugly as soon as renewables turn out to be not up to it and unsustainable for the current population...
Data Centers (Score:2, Interesting)
Something is wrong with the headline... (Score:2)
"Senate Passes Bipartisan Energy Bill"
Wait... the Senate can do something bipartisan???? I thought that wasn't allowed anymore!
Re: (Score:2)
Banking on the short attention span of the US public...in order to keep from being voted out. Although honestly, it seems that for the past 20 years incumbency has alternated be
Senate yes. The house, not so much (Score:3)
OTOH, the house does not. And that is why this bill was passed by the senate and not the house.
Re: (Score:2)
Unpossible! Congress is broken! Obama says so! (Score:2, Insightful)
How can a *bi-partisan* bill get passed? Seems impossible given recent descriptions of Congress.
OTOH, it seems that bi-partisan bills are often pork barrels and little else.
Rather than a real compromise that tries to incorporate and balance the best ideas of both sides, these sorts of bills seem to just have equal parts of bad ideas with enough funding that almost all players "get something".
Taxpayers get something too, but it's the pointy end of the stick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think is paying for all this, including the regulatory costs? Hint, it ain't coming from the Senator's salaries....
My sig is quite appropriate for this story.
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, they ARE supposed to spend money WISELY. And this bill sounds like it, though I am still looking into the nuke stuff that we need.
THis is the SENATE, not CONgress (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The House of Reps + Senate = Congress how exactly being 1/2 of Congress is the Senate not Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From Article I of the Constitution
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
It's known as the vesting clause.
I just read the constitution, you should too.
Re: (Score:2)
When it is just 1 of them, then it is just 1 of them. IOW, The Senate is NOT CONgress. Any more than you are the HUMAN RACE. You are a part of the human race.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a part of the human race.
Speak for yourself human.
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully, they have something for gen IV nuclear (Score:3)
pipelines and exports (Score:3)
This bill was about exactly two things:
hastening the approval of pipelines and liquefied natural gas exports
Nothing else in that bill matters to our rulers, and nothing else in there will happen.
No nuclear? (Score:3)
In my mind any energy plan that does not include nuclear power is going to fail. This is especially true if this energy plan includes a desire to reduce carbon output.
To those of you that claim nuclear power is too dangerous, too expensive, or too much whatever else I say that if this is true then global warming is not a threat. Besides hydro electric power nothing beats nuclear power on safety, price, availability, or reduction in carbon output. If global warming threatens the lives of billions then we can do nuclear power to save them even in the highly unlikely event that means another Chernobyl.
Wind, solar, and whatever else that is "green" just cannot provide the energy we need. Any reliance on some future technology to make them viable again means that global warming is not a threat. If we can wait 20 years for fusion to come along, meaning we keep burning coal until then, means that global warming is not a threat.
Since the US Senate has not passed a bill that includes support for nuclear power then they don't seem to believe that global warming is a threat. By "support" I don't mean subsidies, there are other ways to show support besides money. Requiring the US DOE to actually do their job and provide a path free from fossil fuels would be a start.
Re: (Score:2)
When they talk about energy production, especially about reducing CO2, and refuse to include nuclear in the mix, that tells me all I need to know about them.
"It would be nothing short of disastrous if we were ever to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy."
(Cold fusion, back when it looked like it might really exist) "It's like giving a machine gun to a retarded child."
They are against energy. Energy, full stop. They will oppose any energy source, no matter what its characteristics, if it thre
How many KWH? (Score:2)
Can one assume it is wind-based originating from congressional blowhards?
Re: (Score:2)
Enough KWh that they are sending you a bill for the power.
Shovel Ready Jobs (Score:2)
The more I listen to members of congress the more I want the stocks brought back. Set up about 30 of them on the Mall and then I'll own the
rotten tomato concession. When any member of congress or the president fucks up, it's in the stocks for three days getting pelted with rotten tomatoes.
Why is security lumped in there? (Score:2)
There must be some freedom-trampling involved, because otherwise why would you bundle "cybersecurity" (ugh) with energy?