Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Lays Out Energy Plan As Prices Soar
AP via Compuserve ^ | 4.27.05 | H. JOSEF HEBERT

Posted on 04/27/2005 4:40:09 PM PDT by Cicero

Bush Lays Out Energy Plan As Prices Soar

By H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, facing economic and political damage from soaring gas prices, offered proposals Wednesday to speed construction of nuclear power plants and oil refineries and boost sales of energy-efficient vehicles.

Bush outlined his initiatives in his second energy speech in a week, reflecting growing concern in the White House that high energy prices are beginning to slow economic growth and undercut the president's approval rating.

Speaking to small business leaders, Bush lamented that he was powerless to cut gas prices. ``I wish I could,'' he said. ``If I could, I would.''

``This problem did not develop overnight and it's not going to be fixed overnight. But it's now time to fix it,'' he said. Bush said the problem is that energy supplies are not growing fast enough to meet the growing demand in the United States and in other countries.

``See, we've got a fundamental question we got to face here in America,'' Bush said. ``Do we want to continue to grow more dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs? Or, do we need to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our economic destiny?''

America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s. Bush said that France has built 58 plants in the same period and today France gets more than 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

``It's time for America to start building again,'' he said.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called Bush's initiatives ``little more than half measures and wrongheaded policies that will do nothing to address the current energy crisis or break the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our nation.''

He said Senate Democrats will offer a much larger package of tax incentives - double the $8 billion approved by the House - and funnel more of the money to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures.

Bush urged using closed military bases as sites for new oil refineries. The Energy Department is being ordered to step up discussions with communities near such bases to try to get refineries built. He said the United States has not built a new oil refinery since the 1970s.

Bush also called on Congress to provide a ``risk insurance'' plan to insulate the nuclear industry against regulatory delays if it builds new nuclear power plants. And he endorsed giving federal regulators final say over the location of liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals. LNG terminal projects have been stymied in some regions by local opposition, even though the need for more LNG imports has been widely accepted.

As he did last week, he called on Congress to give him an energy bill by this summer.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who is trying to put together an energy package that can pass the Senate, said he welcomed some of the president's proposals. He is ``making it clear that energy remains a top priority of this president,'' said Domenici in a statement.

Bush's support for giving the federal government clear authority in locating LNG terminals comes after the House included such a provision in the energy bill it passed last week. Some lawmakers strongly opposed the measure, arguing it would deprive states and communities of a say in locating LNG import terminals, even in heavily populated areas.

Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of the country's electricity. Some utilities have expressed interest in building a new reactor, perhaps as early as 2010, but want assurance of a smooth regulatory process to get financing.

To address their concern, the president is directing the Energy Department to develop a federal ``risk insurance'' plan that would kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing a new reactor. Such a program would need congressional action, and White House officials would not speculate on its cost.

The president also wants the Energy Department to discuss with local communities the possibility of building refineries on closed military sites. A shortage of U.S. refining capacity has been blamed in part for the high gasoline prices, most recently by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah at a meeting this week with Bush.

The president's call for a tax credit for gas-electric hybrid automobiles and for use of clean diesel is similar to a proposal in his budget earlier this year. The hybrid tax break was left out of the energy bill passed by the House last week.

Such a credit would provide $2.5 billion in tax incentives over 10 years, White House officials said. Consumers would get a credit, up to $4,000, depending on the level of a vehicle's fuel efficiency, if they purchase a hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle.

04/27/05 17:01

© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; energy; energyplan; gasprices; term2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
Compuserve headlines this on its main page as Bush urges construction of more nuclear plants.

Good. They are trying to make trouble for him, but that's the issue we need to put to the front of the discussion, because it's the only solution to our energy problems.

1 posted on 04/27/2005 4:40:10 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cicero

2 posted on 04/27/2005 4:41:36 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Oh, yes, the intermediate trend of oil prices is down. But the long term trend will resume its climb in due course.

New plants and refineries take a long lead time to approve, finance, and construct. It's none too soon to make a start on a rational energy plan.


3 posted on 04/27/2005 4:44:07 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: Cicero
Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of the country's electricity. Some utilities have expressed interest in building a new reactor, perhaps as early as 2010, but want assurance of a smooth regulatory process to get financing.

In other words, there are free market reasons to build more nuclear power plants, but they fear the political and regulatory barriers. No one needs to be pushed to build new nuclear plants, but they need some of the socialist roadblocks cleared away.

5 posted on 04/27/2005 4:49:12 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfgang_Blitzkrieg

Sure. The Dems love high gas prices, which they can blame on Bush.

But at some point the voters are going to realize that the Democrats in the Senate have been blocking Bush's attempts to pass an energy program for going on five years. Whining and screaming and blocking all attempts to do anything about it.


6 posted on 04/27/2005 4:51:49 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Well, four years plus into an administration is still good, just not very timely.


7 posted on 04/27/2005 4:51:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I don't think Bush could afford to mention nuclear power earlier. But to give him credit, he spent his whole first term trying to pass an energy bill that would at least have helped a little.

Now he has decided to grasp the third rail of energy--nuclear power. High gas prices have made it much more palatable than it was four years ago.


8 posted on 04/27/2005 4:54:00 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: BenLurkin

Bush's energy plan has been on the table for 4 years now. Congress simply won't act.


10 posted on 04/27/2005 4:58:58 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: petejones

I'm a bit leery about distorting the market with subsidies. Some of the articles I've read suggest that hybrids aren't getting any better mileage than some of the smaller gasoline models. I'd consider buying one if it really saved gas, but I don't want to buy one unless it really does the job.


12 posted on 04/27/2005 5:03:11 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

We need 150% of our electrical needs generated by nuclear power, excess can produce added value, cheep hydrogen as petroleum replacement in both hybrid and internal combustion engines, clean water, mineral recovery from sea water.


13 posted on 04/27/2005 5:03:13 PM PDT by FishPatmos (old and slow lurker, fibro fog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FishPatmos

Exactly. Hydrogen fuel cells make no sense whatever until we have an excess of nuclear power to hydrolize water. Otherwise you're just burning one kind of fuel to make another, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that you always lose a little when you do that.


14 posted on 04/27/2005 5:04:59 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Looks like one sick bird if they consider that soaring.....
15 posted on 04/27/2005 5:09:59 PM PDT by b4its2late (Junk is something you've kept for years and throw away three weeks before you need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

To a certain extent I agree with that assessment. On the other hand, we will never have a better time to pass legislation we desire. We have the Congress, the Senate and the Presidency in our hip pocket. I spent forty years waiting for that to happen, and now I've spent some five years waiting for the big things to happen. God forbid we should lose the majority mid-term, but if we should, our chances of executing our will be just that much harder.

We can make all the excuses in the world, or our team can deterime to get the job done and do it.

Presidents have massive staffs to do their bidding. They shouldn't be one note Annies. It's way beyond time to get off the pot and make things happen.

If it requires going nuclear, then by God go nuclear.


16 posted on 04/27/2005 5:13:20 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (US socialist liberalism would be dead without the help of politicians who claim to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Sure. The Dems love high gas prices, which they can blame on Bush.

They also love it because it limits mobility, trapping more people in DemonRAT hells known as big cities.

17 posted on 04/27/2005 5:17:11 PM PDT by steveegg (Bring back Hoosier, Firestone; SOMEBODY to get Badyear off their duffs and make a good tire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
The Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to nuclear energy. Uranium is destroyed in the core of nuclear power plants, ergo the need to replace about 1/3 of the core every 18-24 months.

The beauty of nuclear power and using uranium is that uranium has little value besides power generation. In the current situation, we burn fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) that are valuable as feedstocks for the petro-chemical industry.

Uranium prices have risen along with oil in the past year to levels not seen in a generation. The rise is for similar reasons -- the premature obituaries for nuclear power removed the incentives to mine and enrich. With existing plants running at approximately 90% capacity and the NRC authorizing significant power level increases at the existing plants, the demand for uranium has increased. The price is up during the lag of bringing more ore into the front-end of the fuel cycle.
18 posted on 04/27/2005 5:27:04 PM PDT by sefarkas (why vote Democrat-lite???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

"Some of the articles I've read suggest that hybrids aren't getting any better mileage than some of the smaller gasoline models."

That is because many of the hybrids coming to market cater to the mid-sized, near luxury segment.

Lexus h400 is their mid-size SUV (or crossover) High luxury, same six cyl motor, as normal gas version.

GM full-size pickups with normal V8 motors, and an electric supplement.

Honda Accord. Like Lexus, takes the six cyl. motor, plus electric supplement.

What I'm not mentioning are the three and four cylinder little gas motors, together with electric supplement. These are the ones with the highest fuel mileage numbers.

Image is an issue, for some. Rightfully the sellers know to put the technology out in the market, in vehicles people really buy.

If a Toyota Echo is your thing, then you'd be fascinated by a small hybrid.

If a midsize SUV is your thing, you will NOT be fascinated by a hybrid looking like a Toyota Echo. You will likely look carefully at one which looks like what you already drive.


19 posted on 04/27/2005 5:35:35 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

If President Bush is facing ire for energy prices, imagine what the Dems are facing.

You'd have to be living in a damn hole to not know that the Dems are against every domestic energy initiative ever brought up!


20 posted on 04/27/2005 5:44:12 PM PDT by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson