The Green Curmudgeon

With 2007 coming to a close, we thought it time to review how the Curmudgeon family did in its efforts during the year to reduce our large footprint on the world.

Electric Consumption

We did best in reducing our consumption of electricity. With our solar panels at work for the full year, we generated roughly 2600 kilowatt hours of emission-free renewable solar power, offsetting between 20-25% of our electricity needs.

We also had the first full year of benefit from our other conservation measures, including replacement of most of our light bulbs with compact fluorescents and turning off most of our electronics when not in use. Those measures--which cost a lot less than putting in solar panels--had about the same impact, reducing our consumption by about 2800 kilowatt hours.

All in all, we reduced our electric consumption by a third, from 15,800 kwh in 2006 to 10,400 kwh in 2007. Even more impressive is that since 2004 we have reduced consumption by TWO-THIRDS, from 29,400 kwh to 10,400 kwh. One key: in 2004 we had an electric heater in our greenhouse that used roughly 10,000 kwh by itself, just to keep a little room at about 55 degrees. We replaced the greenhouse with a very well-insulated sunroom, which is pretty much paying for itself in energy savings. (That's our greenhouse effect.)

A word to the wise: if you are using electric heat anywhere in your house, it's probably costing you a bundle. We have some friends in Scarsdale, NY, who had an enormous electric bill, and discovered one of the prime reasons was the electric heating in their garage.

It will be difficult for us to reduce electric consumption much further, absent a new, more efficient air conditioner. One of our a/c units is pretty old, so that upgrade may not be too far off.

Natural Gas Consumption

We've also made some progress in reducing our consumption of natural gas, which we use for hot water, heating, cooking and fireplaces.

In 2004-05 we averaged 2350 Therms of gas use, whereas in 2006-07 we averaged 1960 Therms, a nearly 20% reduction. We've done that without making our home uncomfortable--we keep the thermostat at 71 degrees, lest Mrs. Curmudgeon complain.

The keys, so far: turn down the thermostat when out of town; put in a storm door; turn down the heat in unused zones of the house (like the guest bedroom).

We need to do more, and are thinking of the following: programmable thermostats (to turn down the heat late at night) and replacing our older windows with today's double-paned energy efficient versions. Both of those steps will probably cost a good deal more than the savings they will generate, however (we have four thermostats and lots of old windows). We could also get a more efficient hot water heater, although hot water only accounts for about 150 Therms per year, so there's no big savings to be had there.

The good news is that natural gas is a very efficient energy medium for the uses to which we've put it--heating--so we're doing pretty well even without additional reductions.

Gasoline

Our progress in reducing gasoline consumption has been slow because we haven't replaced any cars in the last three years. We estimate that we have reduced consumption by about 10% by changing our driving habits--more coasting to stop lights, slower acceleration, better highway speeds.

In 2008 we may replace one car, and in 2009 the lease will be up on the Curmudgeon's Acura. We hope to get much more efficient replacements for both, but we can't be too radical--we still have to ferry two boys and all their stuff--and the occasional friends--all over creation. And we're pretty sure that "travel soccer" will result in an increased carbon burden as we travel farther afield to get to the games.

Solid Waste

We made good progress this year in boosting our recycling and reducing our garbage/trash. We are now meticulous about what goes into recycling--not just newspapers and magazines, but mail, school flyers, cereal boxes, other food containers. We also save all those plastic bags that the newspapers come in, along with the ones from stores, and put them into the plastic bag recycling at the grocery store. That has probably resulted in a couple thousand less plastic bags at the landfill from us this year. And we're religious about recycling cardboard, plastic bottles, metal cans--anything that is eligible for recycling.

We've also started doing some composting, but we could do better. So far, we're probably only fattening up our local squirrels, but a resolution for the new year is to come up with a good system to maximize composting.

Still, we put a lot of trash out each week. It'd be nice to reduce it further.

Water

Water is not energy per se, but it is a precious resource and it takes a lot of energy to get it to and from your home, so it's worth looking at how much you're using. We just started looking into this, creating a baseline of water use over the past three years so we can figure out whether we're making any meaningful reductions.

With this summer's drought, we certainly wished we'd had some rain barrels. Typically, a barrel will hold 50 gallons of water, and even a small rain storm will re-fill it. We could easily put out four rain barrels--one on each corner downspout--and with re-fills get several thousand gallons of water over the course of the spring/summer/early fall watering season.

Sustainability

Organic products and other renewable products obtained from sustainable practices also reduce energy needs and conserve the environment. We are gradually adding more organic products to our diet--eating out less would help(!)--and trying to incorporate sustainability into our purchasing decisions. It ain't easy, though.

Our bottom line: we made terrific progress in 2007, but we've probably harvested all the low-hanging fruit. It's doubtful we'll make as much progress in 2008, but our hope is that we will continue to reduce our collective Curmudgeon-household footprint as we go forward.

Dominion Re-Regulation Bill Amendments--A Start In The Right Direction

Governor Kaine made some important amendments to the Dominion Re-Regulation Bill passed by the General Assembly. For stories from the Washington Post and Richmond Times-Dispatch, see here and here. (The Times-Dispatch story has more detail.)

In a nutshell, Governor Kaine has strengthened provisions promoting greater energy conservation and increasing investment in renewable energy sources, which is certainly to the good.

Notably, the Governor raised from 5% to 10% a goal for reducing energy consumption through conservation measures between 2006 and 2022. (Still too modest a goal, but we can work to increase it further in the future.)

In addition, the amendments increase the incentives to invest in renewables such as wind, solar and hydro. Other provisions also provide incentives for "clean coal" and, more importantly, reduce the profit that can be made from conventional coal-fired electric plants. (National cap and trade legislation may further discourage new construction of conventional coal plants.)

Kaine also smartly decided to exempt large industrial consumers of electricity in the state from requirements that they help cover the "costs" to utilities if those consumers fund their own investments in renewable energy generation. (More on this below.)

Finally, the Governor tinkered with some other provisions to provide marginally greater protection to consumers from large rate increases.

We share the disappointment of the Piedmont Environmental Council and other conservation groups in the state that the Governor didn't do more on the environmental front, especially while he had clear leverage over Dominion since it desperately wants this bill. (Indeed, Dominion's spokespeople voiced support for the Governor's amendments, meaning plenty was left on the bargaining table.) (But, just imagine where we'd be on this if Republican Jerry Kilgore had defeated Kaine.)

That said, the amendments are a good step forward. We've never believed for an instant that Virginia will suddenly become a green mecca, a' la California. Rather, it will take a sustained effort over many years to make good progress. It will help if Democrats continue to gain seats in the Assembly, as we expect they will, and it will also help when farmers, fishermen, hunters, coastal residents and others realize they have a big stake in all this and become more natural allies on these types of measures.

The good news is that between the conservation/renewables provisions of the re-regulation bill and the energy bill passed last year, there is ample room for small, incremental amendments over the next few years to further boost conservation and renewable investment.

We also want to say a word about the provision that allows large industrial users to invest in renewable energy without compensating Dominion for the "cost" of opting out. This is an excellent amendment. We want to encourage the largest power users to search out and invest in renewable sources of electricity to service their needs. As a practical matter, today that means mostly wind energy, because it is economical, but the mix may change down the road.

In any event, it is a myth that there is somehow some "cost" to Dominion, or to other ratepayers, when large consumers decide to generate their own electricity from renewables. Quite the contrary, those investments reduce the need for Dominion to build new plants to meet growing demand, reduce the need for new high voltage lines, help distribute the energy load more efficiently around the state, help reduce the cost down the road for medium and smaller consumers to invest in renewables (by developing the technology infrastructure and expertise), and force Dominion to keep its prices competitive or lose customers.

For all those reasons, we should encourage the largest power consumers to "go for it" on renewable energy, and that's what Governor Kaine's amendment will do.

Now, the one thing we can't yet figure out is whether Dominion will be required to offer its "Greenpower" program--available in North Carolina--to Virginia consumers. That program allows a consumer to pay a premium for electricity generated from clean sources--in essence to help fund increased renewable generation. Getting that program to Virginia consumers is one of our priorities.

Ethanol Bush

It's a sure sign of the lameness of our national energy policy that all President Bush can come up with to show his concern for our "addiction to oil" and global climate change is photo op after photo op to tout ethanol.

Yesterday, the Prez schmoozed it up with the CEO's of Detroit's Big Three to tout their contributions to increased ethanol use.

GM in particular, had nothing much to offer: a flex-fuel Impala. How advanced! A car that guzzles ethanol instead of gasoline. That's really not going to help much. (Flex-fuel vehicles can run on a blend of ethanol and gas that is 85% ethanol, as opposed to most of today's vehicles that are limited to a blend containing no more than 10% ethanol.) GM is like a big brontosaurus, lazily chewing the tops of trees while a giant asteroid blazes its way into the upper atmosphere.

Chrysler didn't do much better, showing off a biodiesel Jeep SUV. Biodiesel's a little better than corn-based ethanol, but really, are we going to achieve anything with large SUV's guzzling plant material?

Ford, at least, had something different to display: a hydrogen-electric Ford Edge. Can Ford get these into its showrooms anytime soon? Who knows.

If we want to combine energy independence with lower carbon emissions, then a combination of electric/ethanol technology has great promise. Cars powered largely by plug-in batteries with small back-up motors running on ethanol could get over 100 miles per gallon of ethanol, making it fairly easy for us to vastly reduce our dependence on foreign oil without running up the price of corn and other food sources diverted into fuel production.

While we may achieve energy independence, we doubt we'll be buying the autos of the future from Detroit.

Affordable Microturbine; Loudon Solar Home

We picked up some interesting tidbits from our solar contractor, Don Sandros of Sand Energy in Leesburg, during a visit yesterday to fine tune our solar panels (i.e., get them better oriented to the sun).

First, you may remember our featuring a post on a microturbine manufactured by Southwest Windpower, which is suitable for individual homeowners, costs just $10,000 to install and will deliver around 425 kwh's of electricity a month if you have a decently windy location.

Don is familiar with the Southwest microturbine--he's installed a few in Virginia and says they're the real deal. They're small, mounted on a 35-40 foot pole, and so far Don has found them reliable, easy to set up and true to their specifications.
Since the $10,000 microturbine generates about twice the electricity of the Curmudgeon's $20,000 solar panels, the payback is four times as fast.

Of course, you do have to have wind, which rules out Arlington. But, if your property includes an unobstructed ridgeline in Loudon or Fauquier County, or if you live near the coast (or along a lake) you might just have enough wind to justify one of these machines (pictured above).

Don also told us about a gentleman he met at a Loudon County Committee for a Sustainable Society meeting, Alden Hathaway, who a few years ago built a completely solar home out in Loudon and has written a book about it: "Building An Affordable Solar Home."

Hathaway's book is available as a pdf. on his website. We read a good chunk of it last night and found it quite readable and entertaining. One of Hathaway's key points--which Curmudgeon readers will find familiar--is that energy conservation and use of renewable solar energy go hand-in-hand. As we've pointed out many times here, he notes that many energy conservation measures cost less than putting in solar panels. He does a great job of breaking down the economics of various conservation measures.

The website also has a presentation Hathaway gave at the National Building Museum with four years of data on his solar home. If you get a chance, give it a visit.

We Like Your Plan, Mayor Fitch!

The Mayor of Warrenton, a town of maybe 10,000 nestled in the foothills of western Virginia, has a plan to make his burg energy independent and virtually carbon neutral. (See Washington Post story here.)

George Fitch, the Mayor, wants to build a $30 million plant at the county dump to convert waste into electricity and ethanol. And, he thinks he can do it without raising taxes or taking on debt.

We sure hope he succeeds. What a fabulous precedent that would set for other communities across the nation!

Fitch and his allies in Warrenton are not exactly pie-in-the-sky liberals. (According to one of Fitch's fellow town council members, they aren't "environmentalists" because that would be "somebody who wears Birkenstocks and carries a knapsack and too-long hair and spends his free time working for the Sierra Club." Guess the Curmudgeon's not an environmentalist either--phew!)

Instead, they offer up the possibility of a mainstream conservative vision of energy conservation, independence and environmental stewardship. (This is quite a contrast to the complete lack of vision espoused by hard-right conservative Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, in an insipid op-ed piece in the Post a couple weeks ago, about which we've already commented.)

What Fitch recognizes is that turning garbage into energy simply makes eminent sense as an example of good government. If adopted as a widespread model, it also makes everyone more secure both by reducing reliance on imported oil and by widely distributing electric production facilities (which makes the grid less vulnerable to terrorism).

We just hope Fitch's vision doesn't cause Warrenton to be overrun by long-haired Birkenstock-clad backpackers in Prius's covered with Sierra Club stickers.

Environmental Fixes For Dominion Re-Regulation Bill

Governor Kaine has his plate full with the defective, but still fixable, transportation bill sitting on his desk.

That leaves little time for him to focus on an equally important bill dumped in his lap by the General Assembly, which would dramatically change the way electric utilities--particularly Dominion Virginia Power--are regulated in the Commonwealth.

Among other things, the bill is an environmental disaster. Here, we explore some ideas for improving the bill on the environmental side. However, the entire bill needs careful consideration--which it did not get this term. The Governor should veto it so that he, the Attorney General and the General Assembly can more carefully consider these important issues next year.

Others have done an excellent job of detailing the way Dominion rammed this bill through the General Assembly this term without anyone really understanding what it will do to electric power consumers in the state.

Our focus today is on the environmental side. For all practical purposes, Dominion is the only electric utility in the state of Virginia. We are fortunate that it is a well-managed company that has kept electricity rates relatively low.

Dominion, however, is behind on the environmental curve, and it won't even try to catch up unless the legislature, Public Service Commission, Governor and Attorney General force it to.

Dominion badly wants new legislation that will change the way it is regulated and allow it to raise the capital needed to meet Virginia's future power demands. That puts the state in an excellent bargaining position to obtain some key environmental concessions.

First, Dominion should be required to offer its Greenpower program--which is available in NC--to Virginia customers. This program, similar to programs offered by other utilities around the country--allows a customer to pay a bit extra to obtain his or her power solely from renewable resources, such as wind energy. These programs incentivize utilities like Dominion to expand their investments in renewable energy.

Second, Dominion should be required to expand its net metering program in Virginia by providing a set amount of financing for consumers who want to install their own renewable energy generation onsite. This further encourages development of wind and solar energy in the state. At present, there is a cap on the amount of net-metered energy that Dominion must accept, equal to 0.1% of its total energy demand in Virginia. The cap should either be removed, or raised to at least 5%. There is some other tinkering that can be done with the net metering provisions to further encourage individuals and businesses to develop their own alternative sources of renewable electricity.

Third, Dominion should be required to make aggressive investments in conservation. There are ways to structure regulation that will give Dominion appropriate incentives to promote electricity conservation programs. We should study successful programs from other states and implement them here. Remember: a 100 megawatt reduction in electric demand is just as good as building a new 100 megawatt powerplant. There is plenty of room for Virginians to reduce their consumption without any impact on lifestyle. (I have detailed on my own blog how I reduced my power bill by as much as 30 percent in some months by taking simple steps that don't require any sacrifice.)

[One way to improve conservation is to raise rates. We note that higher rates does not necessarily mean higher bills: if rates go up 25% but as a result you use 25% less energy, your total bill will stay the same. Californians use, on average, almost half the electricity of Virginians. Their electric rates are higher, but their total electric bills are not.]

Fourth, we need to explore incentives to discourage Dominion from building new coal-fired power plants in Virginia (or elsewhere for purposes of supplying Virginia). With prospects high for the enactment of national legislation to discourage carbon emissions, it would be economic folly for Dominion to commit the state to new generation from coal. In any event, it is environmentally irresponsible. Virginia has a long and sensitive coastline that is vulnerable to rising sea levels and increased storm activity. We can ill afford to endanger our historically significant and economically vital coastal communities through such short-sighted actions as building new coal electric plants. If anything, we should be looking for ways to retire the existing ones.

With its good management and sound financial base, Dominion could, with the right incentives, become an environmental leader that would do Virginia proud. Now is the time to make sure those incentives are put in place.

Governor Kaine should veto the bill hastily pushed through the General Assembly this term, followed by a commitment to work with Dominion, environmental groups and consumer advocates for a bill that suits all Virginians in the next term. (We might add that Attorney General Bob McDonnell is at grave political risk on this bill, since his office undertook to study and attempt to modify Dominion's original draft bill. Unless he wants to be known as "Dominion Bob" when he runs for Governor, McDonnell should support efforts to bring in a wider array of citizens groups to meld a better bill in a future term.)

Gore's Energy Consumption Is An Issue

While we like former Vice President Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth campaign to educate the public of the global warming peril, we are disappointed to learn of the massive electric bill at his Nashville home.

The fact that the initial report came from a right-wing Tennessee political organization (not a "think-tank" as some media reported it) doesn't change its significance.

It appears undisputed that Gore's home used approximately 221,000 kwh's of electricity last year. That is a LOT. Comparing Gore's use to the average American home--which uses roughly 10,500 kwh's per annum--is probably unfair. Certainly Gore's home is larger than average.

It appears to us, however, that Gore's energy use far exceeds what even a larger home, even a mansion, should be using. There may be some extenuating circumstances: for example, the Gore household has some security features that no ordinary home would have. There could be other factors as well. For example, we learned that an old electric greenhouse heater we inherited from the previous owners of our home was gobbling up 12,000 kwh's of electricity a year--nearly half our total--before we replaced it. Since we can't imagine how Gore could use such a vast amount of electricity absent some extraordinary circumstance, we'd be curious to hear the full story.

What we can't accept, however, is the argument of some Gore supporters sho say that whatever his electric consumption, it's ok, because Gore is enrolled in the GreenPower program of his local utility. Under such programs, consumers opt to pay a premium to their utility in exchange for a promise that the utility will obtain that electricity from renewable sources (usually wind).

The problem we have with this argument--i.e., that enrolling in GreenPower exempts Gore from scrutiny--is that it kind of assumes unlimited renewable resources. Gore is using up a lot of wind and solar, which means less to offset the carbon emissions of others. Wind and solar are better than oil and coal, but they still consume other resources, such as steel. There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy.

That's why we harp on conservation here. We're in favor of reasonable energy conservation--that is measures that don't significantly reduce our standard of living--combined with heavy investment in and development of renewable energy sources.

As we've reported here before, the Curmudgeon household has significantly reduced it's electricity consumption through a combination of conservation measures and installation of solar panels. In February, we reached a new monthly low of 625 kwh's, which is darn good for a house as large as ours. (That's almost half our usage in February '06, which was 1115 kwh's--most of the savings is from fluorescent lighting and simply turning our electronics off each night.) While that's a good start, we're still concerned that our carbon footprint (from our natural gas usage, cars, beef consumption, etc.) is still quite massive.

Gore says that he, too, is renovating his house to make it more energy efficient, and that he plans to add some solar panels to his home. By our calculation, he'd have to install more than 1000 of the Curmudgeon's 190 watt Evergreen panels--at a cost of more than a million dollars--to offset his current use of electricity. We doubt if his roof is big enough for that.

Gore can't just talk the talk. He needs to walk the walk. Home is a great place to start.

Net Metering Update--Need For A National Law

Yesterday, the Curmudgeon highlighted a report from the Network for New Energy Choices grading various states' net metering laws and giving Virginia a "D".

We've since done some more research and concluded that the NNEC report, while useful in some respects, was misleading and confusing in others. So we want to correct the record and pull together some additional information here.

One of the things we learned is that the NNEC, which issued the report last November ('06) had some out of date information, including with respect to the states that don't allow net metering. It turns out that only 10 states (not 16 as NNEC reported) don't have net metering laws. For example, North Carolina, listed in the NNEC report as not having such a provision, in fact allowed net metering starting in 2005 (via an order from the Public Utilities Commission). We're sorry to say that our native state of South Carolina--whose couple hundred miles of beautiful coastline and whose historic city of Charleston are potential victims of global warming and superstorms--hasn't bothered to allow net metering yet.

We also looked at the methodology of the NNEC's report and concluded that it was not very sound. In grading states' net metering laws, the NNEC gave considerable weight to the number of customers who had signed up for the net metering programs. The problem with this is that those numbers are heavily confounded by other state laws, mainly those that in some states provide direct subsidies and tax breaks to individuals and businesses who install green energy generation.

For example, both California and New Jersey, which earned an "A" grade from NNEC, heavily subsidize solar, wind and other renewable energy in their states. It is those subsidies--not the net metering law per se--that have put those states far ahead of everyone else.

The NNEC also penalized some states for their limits on the size of alternative energy generators that could be plugged into the net, and provisions such as requiring liability insurance. In Virginia, the net metering law limits homeowners to no more than a 10 kw system, which we yesterday said was too small. At the time, however, we misunderstood what this means. It turns out a 10 kw system for a homeowner is pretty big. The Curmudgeon's solar photovoltaic array, which has 14 panels, is rated at 2.3 kw. Few homeowners could fit anything four times that size on their homes (and it would cost $75,00-100,000). Still, the limit should be raised since some farm owners could install very economical wind generators well in excess of 10 kw.

In contrast, Virginia's limit for commercial enterprises is 500 kw, which is a pretty large system. (We'd like to see it raised to 2 MW to encourage large businesses--such as AOL--to go for bigger systems.)

Virginia also requires generators in the net metering program to have liability insurance, but it turns out that a standard homeowners policy will suffice as long as it does not have specific exclusion against loss arising out of the use of a renewable fuel generator. So this is really not much of a disincentive.

Virginia requires a utility to carry forward any net generation for a year (this is important, because some generators create more electricity than they need in some months and use more than they generate in others--the carryforward smooths out the peaks and valleys). And Dominion Virginia Power will consider entering a purchase power contract with someone who's generating a lot of excess electricity.

The one real problem with Virginia's law is that it limits participation in the net metering program to 0.1 percent of a utility's total peak demand for electricity. In other words, if the number of participants exceeds 0.1 percent of Dominion's peak demand, Dominion can turn down additional participants. This is a silly limitation--Virginia should hope that participation will grow as large as possible. If a limit is kept, it should be set at 5 percent. Utilities benefit from net metering because it reduces overall demand and thus staves off the building of expensive new plants and controversial high voltage transmission lines. Also, solar generators tend to produce the most energy during periods of peak demand, thus decreasing the need for a utility to purchase very expensive peak power. Accordingly, any claim that expanded participation in net metering will hurt the utility or its ratepayers is hogwash.

While we think the NNEC's grading of the states was misleading--we'd give Virginia a "B"--maybe a "B-"--the report does have some utility. It notes "best practices" among the states, which in turn can be used to model much needed federal legislation.

Here's what we'd like to see from Congress. A national net metering law based largely on that in New Jersey, which would require all utilities to allow net metering. The stated goal of such legislation should be to encourage 5% of all electricity generated in the U.S. to be from net metered installations by 2017. (That's a lot of electricity--about 200 billion kilowatt hours.) There should be few limits on the size of net metered generators and paperwork should be kept to a minimum (Dominion's form is pretty easy to use). The law should also preempt localities from discouraging net metered home installations--we recently saw a report from Scarsdale, NY where the village council prohibited a couple from putting solar panels on their roof because neighbors complained about possible glare.

Net metering alone, however, will not get us where we need to be. Congress also needs to pass a package of generous tax incentives for individuals and businesses to install renewable net-metered electric generation. At present, federal law allows a tax credit for an individual of up to 50% of the cost of certain renewable energy sources, but the credit is limited to $2000. That means on a solar panel array costing $20,000, the credit is actually only 10%. Congress should remove, or greatly increase, the limit on the tax credit, and use elimination of tax subsidies for oil to fund the increased cost of the credit. A true 50% tax credit on renewable net-metered generation would make solar economical and would spur creation of a huge industry to meet demand for these types of installations.

We believe this is an area where bipartisan action can and should be taken--almost everyone has something to gain: utilities put off expensive new plants and purchases of peak power; every state gains new jobs and businesses installing net metered generation; we reduce the need for foreign oil imports and we reduce carbon emissions. What's not to like?

The New Congress Needs To Do Right On Green Energy

Democrats in Congress are planning a major and long overdue step in the right direction on energy independence and reduction of carbon emissions. Let's hope they get it right.

In broad strokes, the plan is to eliminate various tax incentives and other subsidies for the oil and gas industry and devote those funds instead to supporting renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and biofuels.

On the oil and gas side, Democratic leaders have pretty much figured out what to do. They will roll back the portion of a broad 2004 manufacturing tax cut that went to the oil and gas industries--an unnecessary incentive for an industry raking in billions in profits. In addition, they will seek to force the industry to pay royalties on new offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico and adjust the way certain tax deductions are computed.

This is a good first step that will raise around $15-$17 billion. We urge Congress to also look hard over the next year at other tax breaks and subsidies provided to the oil and gas industries and begin eliminating them as well. There's no point continuing to subsidize fuels that spew climate altering carbon into the air. If they play their cards right, Democrats might well get a few Republicans to join them in this process of beginning to wean ourselves of our addiction to oil.

On the renewable energy side, Democrats haven't yet agreed how to spend the money garnered from the oil and gas side. Let's hope they don't mess this one up.

First, none of the money should go to nuclear energy. Yes, it is true that nuclear generating plants are essentially carbon free. The Curmudgeon endorses building new nuclear plants and expanding the percentage of our electricity generated from such facilities. However, new direct government subsidies (on top of existing ones already in place) are not the answer to the nuclear industry's problems. Nuclear power is competitive economically. To get nuclear going, the federal government needs to take other steps to help reduce regulatory hurdles and help the public understand the green benefits of nuclear power.

Second, biofuels, particularly ethanol, are already getting huge subsidies. They don't need any more. If anything, we're going overboard on ethanol produced from corn, which really isn't all that carbon friendly. So, if Congress wants to put the money to good use in this area, it should specifically designate it for funding of research and demonstration projects intended to produce biofuels from cellulosic plants, such as corn stalks and switch grass, where energy efficiencies can be much greater.

Third, wind energy is already competitive in much of the country. But we can still learn to make even more efficient turbines and encourage communities to accept wind generation in urban areas. And expanding our wind generation capacity rapidly makes good sense all around.

Solar energy remains an economic challenge in most of the country. Subsidizing solar will help this sector become more competitive and encourage development of more efficient solar panels and increased manufacturing capacity.

Other renewables, such as geothermal (mainly in the west) and wave energy from the oceans would certainly benefit from increased funding.

Last, but certainly not least, we would all benefit tremendously from rapid development of vastly more fuel efficient automobiles. The two technologies with the most promise are hybrid autos with an extra plug-in battery, which can achieve 70 miles per gallon of gas used, and hydrogen powered fuel cell autos, with zero emissions and zero gasoline use. Anything Congress can do to speed adoption of these technologies will have huge payoffs down the road.

Is it possible that Congress will listen to the experts and do the right thing? We hope so. At a minimum, we hope that politics--such as overencouraging corn-based ethanol production to benefit already oversubsidized corporate farms--will play a relativel small role in shaping our priorities.