Although the measure provides $30.6 billion in funding for programs administered by the Department of Energy (DOE), Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agencies. Reflecting the need to control excessive federal spending, funding in the bill is still $5.9 billion below President Obama’s request and $1 billion below 2011 levels.
Instead of spending $1 billion on speculative high speed rail projects, the House wants that money to go to Midwest flood relief.
Dent claims this Energy and Water Bill “strikes a sensible balance between our need to reign in excessive federal spending and provide crucial funding for programs that benefit the American people.”
It includes $116 million for the continued development of hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Dent, a founder and co-chair of the House Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Caucus, rejected President Obama’s proposal to advance other alternative and renewable programs at the expense of hydrogen and fuel cells and worked to ensure more reasonable investment in the promising technology.
“I urge the Obama Administration to promote energy diversification rather than choosing winners and losers. I am glad Congress has embraced an all-of-the-above approach that includes alternative and renewable technologies, domestic oil and natural gas, clean coal and enhanced energy efficiency,” said Rep. Dent. “Hydrogen and fuel cells have the capacity to transform global energy production and consumption. Continued support for this cutting-edge technology will help produce cleaner energy while creating jobs across the nation, including here in the 15th District, and ensure the United States remains the global leader in the development of hydrogen and fuel cells.”
All but ten Democrats nixed the Bill, which moves on to the Senate. They have yet to pass a single funding bill this year.
Dent claims this Energy and Water Bill “strikes a sensible balance between our need to reign in excessive federal spending and provide crucial funding for programs that benefit the American people.”
It includes $116 million for the continued development of hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Dent, a founder and co-chair of the House Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Caucus, rejected President Obama’s proposal to advance other alternative and renewable programs at the expense of hydrogen and fuel cells and worked to ensure more reasonable investment in the promising technology.
“I urge the Obama Administration to promote energy diversification rather than choosing winners and losers. I am glad Congress has embraced an all-of-the-above approach that includes alternative and renewable technologies, domestic oil and natural gas, clean coal and enhanced energy efficiency,” said Rep. Dent. “Hydrogen and fuel cells have the capacity to transform global energy production and consumption. Continued support for this cutting-edge technology will help produce cleaner energy while creating jobs across the nation, including here in the 15th District, and ensure the United States remains the global leader in the development of hydrogen and fuel cells.”
All but ten Democrats nixed the Bill, which moves on to the Senate. They have yet to pass a single funding bill this year.
36 comments:
Dems also failed to pass budgets the last two years. The are, as many of their constituents, quite lazy and ever entitled.
Dent making sure his number one donor is taken care of again.
Seamus
Dent bringing home the pork! The tea partiers must be proud of him. $116 million? That's a joke.
BTW, high speed rail is exactly what this country needs. It could put a hell of a lot of people to work too.
This nation and the world needs a renewable and low-cost source of energy to replace petroleum and hydrogen just might be the ticket. Pretending that high speed rail projects will put anything but a tiny dent into congestion and pollution problems is absurd.
Better that money be spent on research and development of alternative fuels that are viable.
One thing is clear: raising the cost of petroleum and carbon based energy sources to discourage their use and make them price competitive with solar and other 'dream' alternatives is just plain nuts and is contributing to our financial woes.
Did you read where First Solar, a company Obama visited and praised for its efforts in marketing solar as an alternative, needed a 4.5 Billion dollar federal subsidy?
Dent's on the right track: he is looking at it on a practical level, not wishful thinking.
Speaking of energy efficiency, just this past week Dent voted to repeal the 2007 law that eliminated incandescent light bulbs and would save everyone money, use less energy, and help protect the environment. Very environmentally conscious of him. NOT.
No one can doubt R&D is needed to help create or refine the energy needed in the future. Guess what though...a company like AP HAS to do R&D on such issues or go extinct. It's a joke thinking that the research will not be done without government intervention. Now I'm going to be a hypocrite and say since pork flies out of DC, no reason the locals should not get it but I also question the ethics of taking so much money from one entity and then filling their coffers with federal tax money for an effort that will be done anyway.
Seamus
:Dent making sure his number one donor is taken care of again."
Air Products is located in the LV and happens to be the are's thrird largest employer, providing 3,417 quality jobs. And they are his biggest contributor? Tells you something about Dent's popularity, doesn't it?
No it has something to say about the AP PAC and their priorities. If you follow the cash they give more to incumbents than anyone else. An incumbent on a Hydrogen committee is gold.
That being said AP as a whole has been very good to the City of Bethlehem by lending their resources and CI tools to help the city to perform better and they have been a valuable Artsquest sponsor.
Seamus
Air Products has always been a big Dent supporter. Not just the PAC, but the people who work there, too. Congressman Dent is committed to alternative energy, including the use of hydrogen or even natural gas, as well as solar and wind. They recognize and see his interest.
Tea partiers for Dent? Hardly. He's a big government progressive who makes a better D than R. Please try to keep up.
There's NO safe alternative to incandescent. The "energy efficient" bulbs pushed by huge Obamamaniac Jeff Imelt of GE, are dangerous and require special permits to dispose, due to their toxic components. Their instructions warn users to evacuate their premises for several hours if a bulb shatters.
Dent voted for the children.
Jeez I hope they put him up for sainthood. It was all for the children afterall. People are really on today for some reason.
I have gotten used to the CFL lights, but do agree that it's a tough sell to tell everyone they need to spend 3 times as much for a new lightbulb.
Seamus
I challenge the basic premise; why on earth is the government directing money to anything? It will simply create a distortion in the marketplace and quite likely will divert funds from someone else's good idea. Just because hydrogen cars feel like a futuristic thing to do does not mean that, along with all of the unintended consequences, it's necessarily a good idea, andcertainly not something I can find constitutional authority to fund.
LVCI,
I just deleted your comment. You will note there is no link to your blog from mine, either. Although I have no problem with posts that snipe away at Dent, I do have a problem with a blogger who (1) slams some lady, just as she is leaving the area; (2) gets all bent out of shape when one of your posts is merely questioned by MM; (3) quits blogging every other month; (4) has deleted several posts; and (5) complains about a lack of commentary, but disables them completely when somebody starts questioning you.
The last time you decided to quit blogging, I removed the link to you and have no intention of allowing links to blogs that may not be there next month. If you want the link to your blog restored, I expect an explanation for your crazy behavior as well as some kind of assurance that it won't recur.
We're all nuts in our own way, but you have exceptionally thin skin for someone who blogs. In addition, you refuse to identify yourself and take responsibility for what you write.
(4) has deleted several posts. Are you talking about Bernie O'Hare???
Seamus -
The cost is part of it. Another part is the environmental issue when the bulbs wear out and are thrown in with the rest of the trash instead of properly recycled. Another part is worrying about you, your kids, your grandkids or pets knocking over a lamp and having to deal with the cleanup.
The incandescent ban is bad law - but a good example of what happens when government reaches too far. The law deserved repeal, and Dent was correct on his vote to do so.
Yeah, and bring back lead in paint. the old car paint with lead in it lasted longer. Also I want cadmium red paint. That was outlawed as well.
Damn liberals are fro cheaply painted cars.
CFL bulbs contain Mercury for Pete's sake! The EPA has a two page, single spaced, typed instruction sheer on what to do if one breaks in your home. And environmentalists are in favor of this? How idiotic that the measure was passed in the first place.
It is not just the high cost but the potential danger.
Dent did the right thing not only for the children but for the stupid adults who supported this stupid idea.
"the promising technology"
You really need to do your homework on this one Bernie. Hydrogen fuel cells are an energy carrier, not an energy source.
Fuel cells will consume Hydrogen which requires tons of electricity to produce. Where does most electricity come from locally? Coal and other fossil fuels. There is nothing green or sustainable about it.
Lead paint is far safer than those crazy new bulbs that require evacuations when shattered. GM is a big donor and they might as well have their friendly president promote widespread DDT use again.
Dent voted for the children.
Obama wants kids to die from dangerous dim bulbs after they eat a healthy snack from their organic garden.
Bernie -
I just saw that the Morning Call is reporting that Rick Daugherty will run even if Callahan does.
It looks like the Dems are really pulling out their "A Team". I predict another double digit win for Charlie.
And another one bites the dust:
http://www.ksbw.com/r/28586219/detail.html
For those who don't want to cut and past the link, it is an article about a green, electric car company financed with public dollars is closing its doors.
I take no pleasure in reporting these failures of American ingenuity. In fact, one wonders where the creativity and invention that so enriched this nation at the turn of the 19th century is at the turn of the 20th?
India is introducing an inexpensive auto that runs on compressed air. That's right air. Imagine if you could take all the hot air expended in Congress on a daily basis and you could probably power every car in the US!
Why can't we solve this energy problem without pursuing ridiculous approaches and pretending we are smart?
Drill, baby, Drill
Air Products has always been a big Dent supporter. Not just the PAC, but the people who work there, too. Congressman Dent is committed to alternative energy, including the use of hydrogen or even natural gas, as well as solar and wind. They recognize and see his interest.
HYdrogen is a pipe dream. Dent is just flushing taxpayer money down the toilet. And if he was so committed to alternative energy, why did he vote to bring back the energy sucking incandescent light bulb. Dent is a phony, empty suit.
Yeah, and bring back lead in paint. the old car paint with lead in it lasted longer. Also I want cadmium red paint. That was outlawed as well.
Damn liberals are fro cheaply painted cars.
And Nader and his fruit loop ideas about safety belts. A bunch of liberal weenies!
It is not just the high cost
See, this is the problem. The morons that want to continue using energy sucking bulbs simply do not understand math. I'll speak slowly. YES, they cost more. But here's the thing: they last LONGER. Much longer. So if you add up the costs of multiple regular bulbs and one florescent bulb, the consumer actually wins on price AND on energy usage. Perhaps you could jot this down and refer to it later?
Yeah, the hell with that little mercury problem.
I wonder how many incandescent bulbs equal one CFL, and if the electric cost difference really does equate (taking the whole environmental stance out). Why CFL and not LED? In major corporations or franchises they can save tons, but does the economies of scale really work for a small home owner? I know Starbucks saved 4.2 million switching to LED's over halogen.
Seamus
Little mercury problem? What about the mercury that is released into the environment by coal power plants? Even counting the <5mg of mercury that CFL bulbs contain, using an incandescent bulb puts significantly more mercury into the environment in many areas of the country:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864
Seamus, LED adoption has been slow because of price and quality issues. You're still looking at $40+ per bulb for the equivalent lumens of a 60w incandescent bulb/13w CFL. Given the high premature failure rates, the investment rarely pays off.
There are new rules to reduce Hg emission at coal power plants, effective this November.
http://www.coalpowermag.com/environmental/Expect-New-Mercury-Rules-by-2011_231.html
New rules that haven't been finalized and would take three years to implement. Meanwhile, mercury content in CFL bulbs continues to decrease and doesn't reach the environment at all if they are properly disposed. Reducing mercury emissions from coal power plants is worthwhile goal, but incandescent bulbs will continue to pollute in far greater quantities than their CFL counterparts.
Anon 9:05 -
I'll go slowly so YOU can understand.
First, the lifespan of CFL's have been found to be grossly overstated (by up to 49%). It seems the bulbs burn out a bit quicker when they are actually being turned on and off.
Secondly, the efficiency claims for CFL bulbs come down as a result of the bulbs being turned on and off, something not considered in the efficiency estimates of CFL bulbs.
Finally and most importantly, why should anyone be forced to buy a bulb they might not want? If people think they can save money by paying more for CFL bulbs and hope the savings on the electric bill makes up for the cost, they should be able to do so. But if you'd rather use incandescent bulbs and go that route, that should be your choice.
We don't need the government gaming the system. Manufacturers should be able to produce whatever bulb they want, and people should be able to decide what's best for them through their decisions in the free market.
Jot that last paragraph down, memorize it and apply it to every government scheme that our "leaders" try to jam down our throats.
Patrick McHenry,
The failure rate that you note is most often associated with cheap bulbs produced by low quality manufacturers. In 5 years, I've had two failures with GE CFLs, one of which led to GE sending me a $10 coupon for my next purchase. Not a bad deal considering the original six-pack of bulbs cost $7.
"Jot that last paragraph down, memorize it and apply it"
Talk about authoritarian tendencies!
I don't need no stinking government inspecting my food, bridges,paint or house.
The free market will determine what is best. When I see some peoples kids die from eating paint chips, I will ask what brand paint was that. I will then stop buying that paint. That is how the free market works you union pukes.
Thats what the founding fathers wanted when they wrote about the need for a totally unregulated market. They let it be known that without laissez fare capitalism the country would go to Hell in a hand basket.
The problem is the stupid liberal weenie girlie men communist fascist democrats.
Leave me and my country alone. What is good for General Motors is good for me!!!
The Last Living Patriot!!!!
We don't need the government gaming the system.
Really? Sigh.
Waaah, I don't want to use unleaded gasoline! Why is the government forcing me too? Waaah, I don't want to use lead free paint, why is the government gaming the paint industry? Waaah, why do I need to pay for a seat belt system in my car? I don't need the government forcing me to pay for things I do not want or need! Waaah, why must I buy health insurance? I'd much rather leech off those who do have insurance! Screw the hospitals, I'm not paying. Why is the government gaming the system?
I AM SO PERSECUTED.
Post a Comment