Name:
Email:
Title:
Comments:

Energy Plan

This is a great idea. Too bad it takes a competitive election year to bring ideas like this out. If Senator Coleman is really about getting things done, this should already be in process. Now it seems like an afterthought.

By: Mike

Mr.

Drill first, Drill at home, drill in so called anwar, drill off shore, drill now! Then do all the things you have proposed. -- Remember, no support until we here drill now drill here come off your lips, Norm.

By: Paul Perala

That's INSANE!

First of all, the best thing government could do for America's energy future is to get the H___ out of the way. Allow drilling. Allow coal plants to be built. Allow nuclear plants to be built. Allow ethanol and wind and solar and hybrids to compete on their own merits rather than subsidized. Tell the courts that they may not entertain frivolous environmental lawsuits to stop these things.

As for specifics, the only way wind is going to produce 20% of our electricity is if the entire State of Minnesota is blanketed with windmills, service roads and transmission lines. No towns, no farms, no parks, just windmills. Do the math.

CO2 pipelines? Whatever for? CO2 has no value, why would we pipe it anywhere? If you're concerned about global warming, then find a better way to use the CO2, like for stimulating crop growth. There isn't enough room to sequester the stuff, and no point in doing so, because CO2 doesn't cause global warming and never did. It's a hoax and shouldn't set government policy.

If nuclear energy hadn't been stopped by government and environmental lawyers, the US would be leading in the field today. The best thing you could do for nuclear would be to permit the recycling of nuclear fuel, eliminating concerns about waste and increasing our stock of fuel a hundred-fold.

As for money from drilling leases, why not put them towards the deficit? The oil companies, nuclear companies, and coal companies will extract the resources and build these power plants for free. Why should their competitors get taxpayer money to compete with them?

By: J. Ewing

Too little too late

Drill Drill Drill

By: Mark Gaarder

Law Student

Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay less!

By: Ryan Weldon

WOW-Perhaps J. Ewing would be willing to store the spent nuclear waste in his/her backyard. Deregulation worked so well in the financial services sector it's really a NO BRAINER to apply deregulation to the environmental sector. After all clean air and water are over-rated. Wake up people!! We need to fundamentally change the way in which we live and we need a government to provide true initiatives to help facilitate this transformation.

By: Tom

President, OMEGA Wealth Management Group

I am disapointed to read your proposal but does not include drilling. How do you plan to reduce our high energy cost in the immediate future, which is causing our economy to slow? I agree with alternatives,such as coal production & massive buildout of nuclear power plants. but we are not at the point of dependence on these alternatives, as attractive as they will be. We need fossil fuel energy NOW. Five to ten years will choke off economic growth while we are wating at these price levels. CO2 pipeline development is nonsense and based on a hysterical reaction to a LIE There currently exists MORE THAN AMPLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that CO2 levels follow historical global warming periods. Please come back down to earth.


By: Raymond Berg

Try Freedom

Senator Coleman, you cannot plan for the technologies of the future. Nobody can. We don't know what avenues will be the most, or least, successful, and lots of stuff hasn't been invented yet. So many of the things you want to invest (our tax dollars) in will probably turn out to be wasted money. Especially the wind-power transmission lines.

The analogy with the Interstate Highway system is flawed. It was pretty clear that most of the country's transportation would be going over paved roads for many years to come, so Ike built the Interstate Highways. He didn't have to build bike paths, commuter trains and canals at the same time. We don't have such clarity on energy.
(Well, really we do: fossil fuels and nuclear. We can invest in wind or solar if anyone ever makes them profitable.)

More fundamentally, this does not call for a government program! It calls for letting free-market innovation and hard work go after the problem. Regulations and lawsuits and legislation like the moratoria on drilling are preventing the energy companies from doing their jobs and helping us all. Let them drill; let them refine; let them dig for coal; let them build nuclear plants and lay power lines. In the meantime there will be research on alternatives because people hope to profit from them. Then we'll have our power in abundance, and the government needs do nothing but get out of the way.

Please, Senator, you're a Republican now. You can stop acting as though government is the solution to every problem.



By: Michael

mr.

MY INPUT AND I COULD NOT SAY IT ANY BETTER THAN PAUL PERALA, DRILL FIRST,DRILL AT HOME, AND THEN J EWING BELOW HIM . WHERE AND WHO IS TELLING YOU SENATORS ALL THESE LIES ABOUT OUR ENVIRONMENT. MR.COLEMAN YOU NEED TO GO TO ANWAR
SEE FOR YOUR SELF,THEN YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH. WE NEED TO DRILL THEIR,WE HAVE A PIPE LINE IN THE AREA WE CAN HAVE OUR OWN OIL IN OUR OWN PIPELINE IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS. IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT ANWR DRILLING I CAN NOT VOTE FOR YOU
MR RUBEN DELCASTILLO

By: Ruben Delcastillo

Energy Plan Concerns

How will eminent domain be used in the expansion of corridors and infrastructure? How will abuse of power be prevented?

How long will it take for the "billions of dollars" to flow into the Trust Fund? How many billions are truly expected to be received versus the development loan guarantees?

What about hydrogen or water powered autos?

What kind of pollution involved in the production of batteries for battery powered cars? Is it true that the nickle production in Canada for these batteries is polluting Minnesota lakes with acid rain?

By: Tom Olmstead

Senator Coleman's energy plan is for the most part off the wall.

Read comment by J Ewing. He has it right.

I know we must move toward alternate energy sources, but ethanel for now is not one of them. Ethenal production and use polutes like crazy. And it is very costly. Ang it is raising cane with the price of various foods.

Senator Coleman is right on when it comes to Nuclear reactors for energy.

By: H Brand

If the government is serious about promoting energy security, one of the best ways to do this would be to fund the development of optic fiber cable networks throughout all urban areas and between urban areas. This would enhance the ability of many white-collar workers to telecommute, at least on some days, saving lots of energy and time, enhancing productivity at lower cost.

By: Ed Liebsch

Energy Policy

To say Carbon Dioxide is "has no value" is wrong. If it were not for CO2, there would be no plant life. I've seen enough evidence to realize that "Global Warming" is no hoax, but it is blown out of proportion. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that can be done MUST be done to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, but it must be done with caution. I have a nuclear plant practically in my back yard. More, you need to beef up security. Solar powered cars-hybrids, with plug-in and gas use possible would really make sense. You cannot run a car on water unless you can change the laws of physics.

I offered part of my land for an electricity producing wind-turbine. I was turned down.

We have to stop putting everything else ahead of humanity. Let's keep it in perspective.

By: Chuck B

By: Glen Letellier

Mr.

Norm,

Your energy plan is so sad I hardly know how to comment. It has all the markings of a Democratic plan: more government, more regulations, more high sounding words that when examined show an incredible lack of understanding of the real problem of high energy costs.

Our energy problems have been caused by government regulations and they will not be solved by more government regulations. I suggest you send your plan to Al Frankin.

Glen Letellier





By: Glen Letellier

Small Business Owner

This is not a policy. This is more bi-partisan BS clap trap drivn by environmental wackos that Norm seems hell bent on appeassing.
And you want my money to support this guy. Not as long as he continues to live in la la land.
Drill here, drill now. Talk about Nationsl Security.

By: Joe Hinz

mr

DRILL DRILL There is no global warming or climate change! look at the weather in the 30's remind you of anything. Lets do the most efficient thing get government out! Whats next are you going to tell us we need to use hazardous light bulbs in our home.
gp

By: gpaw

President

Norm is losing the battle for the minds and votes of the folks. You simply cannot have an energy policy that ignores oil and oil shale. Drill here, Drill now, and do Norm's add ons as a part of a complete package for the future. Unless you face up to the insanity of the Greenies you are a Weenie and I will not support you.

Thanks for listening.

Ken Gere, President, Planned Investments, Inc.

By: Kenneth Gere

Yes.

"WOW-Perhaps J. Ewing would be willing to store the spent nuclear waste in his/her backyard. "

If the government would permit nuclear fuel recycling, I COULD store all the nuclear waste in my backyard. It would be that small. It's environmental hysteria like the comment above which has gotten us into this mess. It is time for some rational policy on energy. Deregulation DOES work when the regulations are arbitrary and stupid. Drilling in ANWR, for example, poses such a tiny threat to the environment as to be negligible, yet there is easily a Trillion dollars worth of oil there. It makes no sense not to drill for it.

By: J. Ewing

Patent Office Fast Track

One easy and obvious action should include a plan to speed promising energy saving devices through the US Patent Office on a faster tract and allowing new promising devises and technologies help as a solution.
I realize some of the most promising technologies would hit at the largest energy producers cutting from their bottom line and allowing the average citizens freedom from a debt controlling system. Unfortunately since I became politically active in the 70's the cry from citizens for the importance of energy and mineral self sufficiency for the US has been ignored until we are now "under" the barrel.

Bill Miller

By: Bill Miller

Mr.

I was extremely disapointed to read in todays Tribune that Senator Coleman had signed on with the "Gang of 16" in the Senate in support of their energy bill. This is a democrat bill supported by 8 RINO republicans and now Senator Coleman. He should be working in the Senate to generate support for the energy policies being promoted by the more than 100 representatives in the House including John Kline and Michele Bachman.

By: Del Oldenburg

Pay attention to J. Ewing.
Free the Capitalist system so that resources can be put where they are truly needed - resources that are earned, not taxed.
Avoid misguided mandates, like Ethanol. Republicans are supposed to know that Government rarely has the answer if it tries to manage economic ventures.
Oil should be valued as long as it's the cheapest and best; and other sources of the future, including nuclear, should be encouraged to grow as long as their economic viability, without government mandates and subsidies, is clearly demonstrated.

By: J. Kuehn

Energy

It's time to drop the ethanol subsidies. The Uof M professor has told us 3 times that is more polluting and costs as much to produce as the energy it produces. I only like the use of funding these other alternatives with gov. tax revenues, which are almost 3times what the oil companies' profits are. When is someone going to point out the the windfall that is being collected is various governments - state, local, and federal. Again, they collect almost 3 times the "profit" the oil companies earn.

By: John Tucker

Tax and Spend

A whole lot of Federal Funds being spent here. It looks like Senator Coleman has switched back to the Democratic Party tactics of tax and spend and build a bigger bureaucracy.

As far as "plug in hybrid cars", no problem here, the technology already exists, so long as you're not concerned about where all that electricity is going to come from.

Nuclear Power is the one item here that I support. We have the ability to generate huge amounts of electricity in an economical and environmentally responsible manner. However, I doubt Senator Coleman has the political capital to overcome the nuke nay-sayers. Six years ago Candidate Coleman discussed the importance of dealing with nuclear waste on a federal level. Six years later, still a lot of talking going on.

How about a little less talking and a little more getting things done.

Not to be completely negative, I do support Senator Coleman as the better of the two choices we have this year. If nothing else, he has the integrity to let the critical comments remain posted.

By: Michael

forget solor and wind it is too costly. go with nuclear. cut regulations and private money will build then. any govt fund set up wiil lead to bridge to no were.

By: james rasmmussen

Dear Senator Coleman:

It is a glaring failure of our government that the “Energy Policy Act of 2005” does not even mention energy independence. It promises 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017. This would amount to, roughly, 550 million barrels of oil per year equivalent, or about 27 days or US energy requirement out of 365. In its myopia the administration sees importation of energy as a part of “global trade,” not national or economic security.

What the US needs is a comprehensive plan to steadily and rapidly decrease dependence on the foreign sources of energy. We need a coherent energetic effort of the Manhattan project or lunar landing type. We will not quickly reach independence, but we can affect the balance of supply and demand in the market, which would lower prices while we steadily move towards independence and decrease the outflow of our wealth. Because we use 25% of world oil, we have some leverage to keep decreasing demand.

Any development plan, be it to expand a store chain, or create a new weapons system that will be deployed and improved as technology develops, or a new energy supply for the country, has certain similarity.

First, we must have a clear idea why we need a new system and in what ways it has to be better than the old one, and make sure that we do not repeat old errors.

Second, we must recognize that we cannot do everything at once. Time, like salami, comes is slices. We must have a realistic schedule. This means that we must produce new energy much faster than the old sources dry up. But the question is also what can we do to decrease importation now, what can we do in the short term, longer term, and the far out future.

Third, we must have some realistic idea (although it rarely will be accurate) of the resources required to implement the system.

Below, is the briefest of outlines of what an energy independence program for the US may entail.

1. Why do we need alternative energy supplies?
For years environmentalists demanded alternative energy to produce less pollution, prevent global warming, etc. Environmentalists did not see arguments that are far more persuasive: tremendous increase in cost due to shortages producing energy, or the threat to national security if supplies are interrupted. To its discredit, the government did not foresee developments either and was not serious about producing alternative energy.

We would be wise to assume that alternative energy will not come from a limited number of sources (oil, coal, gas) but a far greater number, and that our future system will have to be flexible enough to accommodate the input form all of them. For this reason we have to start developing all thinkable sources of new energy at once, and use those that mature rapidly first, but not exclude others.

2. What is a realistic schedule?

What can we do now, this instant?

Economy is the only answer. Consolidate you driving trips. Do not go to the supermarket today, and the post office tomorrow. Make sure that the post office, the supermarket ,and the bank, all are taken care in one trip and tomorrow you don’t drive at all. Turn off the light if you leave the room. Judging by the example of the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, the US can save 12-15%of its oil consumption. This would be 2.5 to 3.0 million barrels per day, an amount significant enough on the world scale to produce a small surplus in the world. It is known that the price of any commodity varies much more that its supply. Thus, we can affect the world price in a significant way in the short run.

What can we do over, say, over a two to four year period?

“Drill here, drill now, pay less” is wholly supportable and necessary, but we will not be able to produce twenty million barrels per day and not indefinitely. Other approaches are also needed.

When a oil well is “exhausted,” 50 to 70% of the oil is still in the ground and can be recovered by secondary and tertiary recovery techniques. It takes six months of pumping water into the ground to start getting oil out, and then in come is a trickle. This may explain why large oil companies are not too interested in this kind of production, but some small companies are. The advantage is that we already know where the exhausted oil fields are and the recovery methods cost on the order of $12.00 per barrel. If there is government cooperation and inducement in terms of tax relief for the first twenty years, secondary recovery can have at least some effect in about one year.

What Mr. Pickens proposes makes sense as a part of an overall plan, but his wind farm probably will not ready for two years. Currently the US produces 3% of its electrical energy by wind, and Spain produces 20%. Electrical grid management has to be adapted to change over form one source to another, as wind conditions change. As wind power comes on line, some gas will be saved and gasoline vehicle fleets should be modified to now use natural gas that will not now be used to generate electricity. The Postal Service and UPS fleets of cars come to mind.

Solar power clearly holds great promise. Solar cells and methods of their utilization are constantly improving and being made less expensive. The cost per watt of a photovoltaic module is now $4.00 compare to $18.00 in 1993. This makes waiting for yet more future developments attractive. However, 2009 seems to be the coming year of solar cell mass production.

Algae oil has been produced by feeding it carbon dioxide from the electrical power plant’s exhaust. It “kills two birds with one stone” by sequestering carbon dioxide while producing 50% of the algae’s dry weight in oil. The process is well understood, but some minor technicalities remain. Currently possibly as many as nineteen venture companies are experimenting with the process a on small scale, and (I estimate) the process could be speeded up by as much as two years if our government would subsidize building several competing large demonstration plants where the learning process could be significantly accelerated. If put on a crash development basis (as was, say, the Apollo Project) first production algae oil could be available in four years. Algae oil production requires something like a system of giant aquariums and ability to extract oil from algae. IN 1998 the Dept. of Energy estimated that such oil can be produced for twice the price of diesel fuel then. Diesel fuel then was $1.03 per gallon, and so algae oil would be $2.06 per gallon. With inflation, a good guess for today’s price would be $3.09 per gallon. Sill expensive, but at least the money would stay at home.

What can we do over five to eight year period?

The best alternative seems to be cellulosic ethanol. There is not yet a perfect enzyme produced that can decompose cellulose, a process needed to ferment the fragments so produced. It’s arrival is estimated to be three to five years away. There is plenty of unused cellulose in the US. For example, corn stalks could be so used, permitting the corn seeds to be used for food. In the meantime some production facilities could be built now because they are basically breweries. Needed modifications, if any, could be done in the future.

Shale oil and coal to oil mass production plants take perhaps as long as four or five years to organize and construct, and cost up to $100,000 for the installation to produce one barrel of oil per day. This is so because of the heavy high pressure high temperature industrial installations they require, questions what to do with carbon dioxide generated as byproduct, etc. The saving grace now is that the CO2 can be used to feed algae.

Geothermal energy utilization has been successful on a limited scale. It cannot be found everywhere. It is a heavy industrial installation that probably requires four to five years of planning and construction. The overall potential in not clear, but every additional source is to be unitized.
What can be done in eight years plus?

Nuclear power. As far as I know, there are no permits to build any new nuclear power plant in the US. Sen. McCain wants to build a number of them by 2045. There will always be doubts about their safety and waste storage, no matter how safe they are. However, the half-life time of waste can be very considerably reduced if the waste is re-processed, but it must be re-processed, and will still be radioactive for hundreds of years. Also uranium ore is not available in infinite supply.

The future gets murkier further away. First, all of the above must be developed, improved and increased. Secondly. we must seriously work on the assumption that we have to move towards a hydrogen economy. It is truly nonpolluting, plentiful, and domestically available. Hydrogen can be produces by electrolysis of water using solar energy generated electricity. The US Southwest is one of the best places in the world to produce solar energy. In this area there are three classes of basic problems: Improving efficiency of solar cells; Improving efficiency of water hydrolisis; deciding on and building a storage and distribution system for hydrogen.

There are also other, lesser, but important problems. Would cars “pump” hydrogen at a filling station or would they take up boron hydrate or some other hydrate ? How would depleted boron be unloaded form cars and how would it be recharged with hydrogen? Hydrogen is a potentially explosive substance that leaks easily due to the small size of its molecule. How do you pipe it to every household? All these questions have to be answered, tested, produced and installed all over the country before hydrogen replaces other combustible fuels and nuclear sources. Realistically, it will take 30 to 40 years. Look how long it took to go from IBM650, the first really popular computer which, I believe, appeared in 1957 to mass use of the PC in, say, 1990. And this progress did not require as many changes is other systems as hydrogen economy would.

The most important ingredient of energy independence and opening of new sources is the willingness and enthusiasm of the government to subsidize research, make accommodations in environmental policy, reduce possibility of nuisance law suits, and generally cheerful cooperation and assumption of eventual success. At present our government seems to work on the ignorant assumption that energy independence is unnecessary and impossible in any case. Somehow yet another lunar expedition takes priority in funding and is considered beneficial in terms of technology development. We have establishing our predominance in space by the first moon landing. But now real life priorities have shifted. Now we have to establish our predominance on the ground by creating energy independence with some deliberate speed.

It is clear to me that somebody in the Congress has to take an initiative for a comprehensive approach to energy management and independence. My judgment is that you have the energy and the imagination necessary to undertake this task.

Sincerely,

Roland R. Ilsen
6847 Abbottswood Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275
310-377-5495
Rolo15@aol.com

By: Roland Ilsen

Please, let capatilism deternmine what fuels are the best for our country....NOT GOVERNMENT. The 360 billion dollar ethanol subsiby is a bust...It is simply an inneficient fuel....the governements pet project. Drill for oil in this country and use it up until it is gone....and by then....the power of capitalism...NOT government will find a cheap, efficient, and reliable fuel. The current government policies that dems and repubs are fostering will make this country and second or third rate nation in the not so distant future.

There is ample evidence...you only have to want to find it...to show the fallacy of the current ethanol/biofuel path the government is MANDATING. Only government can require (mandate) something that doesn't work. Ah yes....remember the great consittutional ammendment called PROHIBITION.....yes it was a work of art....and totally the fault of government. WE THE PEOPLE know....you should fear WE THE PEOPLE, instead of the people fearing government. BY THE WAY---have congress demand a vote of drilling for oil in this country including Anwar BEFORE the elections.....so WE THE PEOPLE can see with a yes vote who is in favor of drilling, and a no vote for those against drilling....OH i digress....that would be to "appropriate" to do. Well DO IT ANYWAY. GET SOME GONADS CONGRESS PEOPLE.

Sincerely,

Doug Devan

By: Doug Devan

Wind Power vs Propery Rights

Dear Norm
I like the idea of wind power for a number of good reasons. But not all Republicans seem to be on board. There is one township here, Town of Spafford, Onondaga County NY (Syracuse area) that recently passed an ordinance that there could be only one windmill at any property, and the windmill could only be sixty feet tall. The idea was to preserve the view of Skaneateles Lake, one of New York's finger lakes. Spafford is a real Republican bastion, too, with all town officials being Republicans for as long as anyone can remember. YOu should continue to fight to get wind as a part of the solution to the energy problem, but I think you are going to have to address some of the reasons for the stubbornness that some property owners are exhibiting.

For similar reasons many are agains having power corridors pass anywhere near them. I won't go into any details of that in this email

Barney Molldrem

By: Barney Molldrem

Lt Col, Ret

Dear Senator Coleman, I was SHOCKED! to see your name associated with the group of Republicans compromising with Senator Reid and Nancy Pelosi on their National Energy Policy.

I urge you to withdraw from the Republican side of the gang and vote against the so-called "Gang of Ten" Senate energy compromise. Voting for this bill will be a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which nearly half the Senate has signed, as it increases corporate income taxes.

Instead, I encourage you to support American Energy Freedom Day on October 1 and oppose all efforts to forestall it by passing a new ban on offshore oil development and expansion of oil shale in the U.S. This country also needs to streamline the approval process for new nuclear power plants in order to increase our electrical energy supplies.

According to a study done by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), the Senate "Gang of Ten" plan will result in a loss of 637,000 American jobs, lower wages and have other harmful effects. In this time of economic uncertainty, why would Congress do this to the American public?

Following thirteen years without a tax increase on the federal level (1993) and $2.28 trillion in net tax cuts, this plan calls for a $30 billion tax on energy production. When my family already pays close to $4 per gallon for gas, why would you want to raise the cost of gas?

The "Gang of 20" claim the plan will create energy independence. Yet it only allows for VA, NC, SC and GA to conduct drilling off their coasts. What about the other states?

The ban on offshore drilling is set to expire on October 1st, 2008. Why pass a new moratorium instead of freeing up 155 billion barrels of oil and decreasing how much I pay immediately at the pump?

Once again, I call upon you to seriously reconsider your participation in the "Gang of 20" Senate energy plan, which is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and seriously compromises Americas future energy independence.

Del Oldenburg




By: Del Oldenburg