Campaign News

ENERGY NOW IN COLCHESTER!

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:10:00 GMT

Joined by supporters Sean Sullivan speaks about the energy crisis in Colchester Thursday. Sullivan believes that we need more energy and that we need it now. Learn more about the Sullivan energy plan by clicking "issues."

2nd District Race: Candidates for Congress address high fuel prices

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:54:00 GMT

2nd District Race: Candidates for Congress address high fuel prices

Residents say issue vitally important

By ADAM BOWLES

For The Norwich Bulletin

Posted Aug 24, 2008 @ 02:00 AM

Ashford, Conn. —

As the 2nd District congressional race heats up, the incumbent and challenger are fine-tuning their plans to deal with several pressing domestic and foreign policy issues.

At separate Norwich Bulletin editorial board meetings earlier this week, Democratic incumbent U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney and Republican challenger Sean Sullivan discussed how they would deal with rising gas prices, the exodus of young workers from the state, continued unrest in the Middle East and a flagging local economy.

High gasoline and home heating oil prices are on the minds of many residents, including Ken Moore of Sterling.

“Gas and fuel prices are definitely the most important issues in the election,” said Moore, 50. “People are going to have to make a choice on whether they pay for gas or for food. If people can’t get to work because of gas prices, what difference does any other issue make?”

Use reserve
To curb pump prices, Courtney favors dipping into the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve, a move he said would produce immediate effects.

“We’d have oil on the market within 13 days,” Courtney said. “But we also need to be looking at increasing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards.”

He said the oil withdrawal also would take the edge off anticipated home heating costs this winter, as would a long-term extension of production tax credits.

Sullivan, while not averse to pulling oil from reserves, called it a short-term remedy.

“It’ll have an impact, but after, we’ll be right back in the same boat as before,” he said. “We need to drill, and drill now, to send a strong signal that we’re ending our dependency on foreign oil.”

Sullivan also sees lowering energy prices by increasing nuclear power productivity as the best way to stimulate the state economy and, by extension, slowing down the exodus of young residents to other states.

“We’re going to need 50 percent more power in the next 20 years, and nuclear power is the only way we’re going to reach that goal,” he said.

Sullivan proposes expanding the federal tuition cost-sharing plan from $4,000 per family to $4,000 per student in a household.

“The people who create the jobs are taking them out of state because of high energy costs,” he said.

Locally, Courtney insisted the state take a fresh look at how it retains its younger workers, calling the current thinking in Hartford “reactive” at best.

“Other states are more predatory when it comes to growing their job bases,” he said. “If you take a look around, there’s not much available (in Connecticut) when it comes to entry-level jobs. And that should be the No. 1 focus of our economic plan — how to create high-value jobs.”

Courtney also said colleges need to be held accountable for tuition increases, which he said are outstripping the grants students receive to help pay for education. He favored setting up a college watch-list to monitor schools that raise their prices concurrently with the amount of grant money they receive.

Against amnesty
Concerning illegal immigration, Sullivan said he favors a strict no-amnesty policy, but was willing to expand the number of legal immigrants allowed to enter the country.

“There’s no difference between a person that’s lived here for years illegally and others just entering illegally now,” he said. “I don’t envision a sort of round-’em-up policy, but we need to enforce the law.”

When it comes the United States’ role on the international stage, Courtney proposed shifting the existing Middle East strategy to focus on Afghanistan.

“While there has been progress in Iraq, we’re going backwards in Afghanistan, which is a far greater threat,” he said. “We’re seeing an inability to move troops in Afghanistan because of the surge in Iraq.”

Sullivan said the surge was a definite positive, but favors a withdrawal of ground troops from Afghanistan. He proposes relying on sea-based forces to react to any threats.

“We made that mess in Iraq, but we didn’t make the one in Afghanistan,” he said. “I feel no obligation to run this problem down to zero. We should pull out, put ships on the coast and strike at the camps as needed.

Kendra Allen of Baltic said this year’s election is about the economy, local and national.

“The economy is the priority,” she said. “That ties into everything else: gas prices, the war — everything.”

Picture of the Week

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:20:00 GMT

Sean shaking hands during the Moosup VJ-Day Parade

Sean Sullivan on TV this weekend

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:23:00 GMT

Congressional Candidate Sean Sullivan will be a guest on Face the State this Sunday August 10th. Face the State airs on WFSB 3 at 11 a.m. Sunday mornings.

Also if you have MetroCast Cable, Sean will be interviewed by 4 special guests on a program airing Saturday August 9^th at 8:30 p.m. and again on Tuesday August 12^th at 3 p.m... This program will air on channel 25 for MetroCast subscribers.

SULLIVAN CALLS FOR AT LEAST 12 DEBATES AGAINST COURTNEY

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:58:00 GMT

Sullivan calls for at least 12 debates against Courtney

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, CT –Today Sean Sullivan, Republican candidate for Congress in Connecticut’s Second Congressional District, announced that he has received and accepted an invitation to participate in a debate sponsored by the town of Essex Library. Sullivan noted in a morning press conference held at the Essex Library that in 2006 both congressional candidates debated a total of 12 times in an effort to bring the democratic process within grasp of all Eastern Connecticut residents.

“My campaign contacted the Courtney campaign a while ago and while we have been in contact with them they have been moving sadly all too slow on debate negotiations. Letters were exchanged that indicated a meeting would take place Thursday August 14, 2008 between our two campaign managers, at the end of that meeting it is my hope we will have some debate dates set in stone. Because the geography in the district encompasses 65 towns, it is imperative that I and Rep. Courtney meet in public to discuss the issues of utmost importance which are facing Eastern Connecticut families,” said Sullivan.

Sullivan was joined at this morning’s press conference by Richard Conroy, library for Essex. Conroy is responsible for inviting both Sullivan and Courtney to the Essex Library debate which Sullivan has already agreed to partake in.

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW: Conclusion

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:55:00 GMT

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW: Conclusion

By Sean Sullivan

Today America is in an energy crisis. Action is needed. Leadership is needed. Our economy and security, both national and local, depend on getting more energy here, energy now.

Nationally, we must tap our resources. We must bring down prices to get our economy moving again, providing the capital for investment in alternative sources. Expanding domestic oil production will stop the massive transfer of wealth from this nation to the world’s oil exporters, improving our national security as well as our economy. We can do this without harming the environment. Let’s get on with it.

Next we must transition to alternative, carbon-free energy sources. There are many options. Solar, wind and biomass hold great promise. They have technological issues that must be overcome, and investment is needed now to get solutions developed. Nuclear power is carbon free and does not have any technology issues. However, political issues stopped the construction industry for nuclear power decades ago and turned responsible waste handling into a political football. We must overcome those political issues and build more nuclear plants. It is the only current carbon-free option that does not depend on a scientific breakthrough. Let’s get on with it.

The next generation of transportation vehicles will utilize electricity. Vehicles may be plug-in, or they may use an alternative such as hydrogen produced by electricity. Either way, we will need more electricity.

Connecticut has its own challenges. Connecticut is electricity-challenged now, leading to prices double the national average. To keep industry and jobs here, we need to become an electricity exporter rather than an importer.

Solar and wind are a part of our future and will help, but they cannot give Connecticut a competitive advantage. The nation has an area known as the sunbelt, and we are not in it. There are plains and mountains in this country that are ideal for wind power, but not here. If this nation were to rely primarily on sun and wind for electricity, other regions of the country will have more electricity that we do, resulting in higher prices and fewer jobs here.

That is why Connecticut needs nuclear power. Millstone in Waterford generates half of the state’s electricity from two reactors. Four more reactors in this state would make us an electricity exporter, providing jobs and economic development.

The Millstone site can accommodate two more reactors. The old Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam can accommodate another two. We could do it. We need leadership.

Increase domestic oil production. Invest in green alternatives. Embrace nuclear power. Our economy, our environment, our security, and our Connecticut depend on energy independence. We can do it. Let’s get it done

Picture of the week

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:08:00 GMT

Sean with Hartford WolfPack Mascot Sonar in Vernon

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW: Beyond Gasoline and Diesel: More Electricity

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:55:00 GMT

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW:

Beyond Gasoline and Diesel: More Electricity

By Sean Sullivan

We have been burning fossil fuels in automobile and truck engines for over 100 years. The basic technology involved in the internal combustion engine has changed little over the years. Concern over the impacts of carbon emissions on the environment and foreign oil on the health of our nation raise the question: what is next? Many options are discussed, but they all point in the same direction: We need more electricity.

There are two basic alternatives: continue to run internal combustion engines on some alternative fuel such as ethanol or hydrogen, or switch to engines powered by batteries or fuel cells. There is also the hybrid model, which combines both.

In the not-to-distant future, one of these will dominate. No one knows for sure which one, because the options have their disadvantages. For example, hydrogen is perfectly clean when burned, but needs first a nationwide infrastructure for producing the fuel and getting it to customers. A plug-in electric car, on the other hand, needs no new infrastructure, but the low acceleration, short range, and time-consuming recharge method of current models has slowed their acceptance. Which alternative ultimately dominates depends on which method consumers ultimately choose.

What we do know is that electricity will play a vital role in the future of transportation.

The role of electricity in the plug-in car is pretty obvious. Less obvious is that alternative fuels require lots of energy to produce, and that energy will probably come from electricity.

So either way, we need more electricity. A lot more. Transportation accounts for thirty percent of the energy consumed by Americans. Replacing all that energy with something besides oil will require a lot of electricity. It makes no sense to talk about plug-in cars as the answer without considering where the electricity will come from.

This explains why Connecticut must urgently develop a strategy for production of lots of carbon free electricity. Presently, we do not have one. Without a plan, costs will skyrocket and our state’s economy will sink.

Solar and wind can help but only to a degree. The unfortunate fact is that we simply do not have enough sun or wind here. Getting our energy from solar and wind is like feeding a family from the backyard garden. It will help, but it is not enough to do the job for everyone all the time.

There is no alternative biomass fuel ready for large-scale production. This is a problem with science. No amount of political will can guarantee a biomass fuel in large enough volume and low enough cost to replace fossil fuels.

Hydroelectric power is limited by nature and the need to preserve the environment of our rivers and the Sound.

The cleanest conventional fuel option is natural gas, but that is primarily imported and subject to price spikes.

That leaves nuclear power. Clean and safe, the technology is ready. Once built, a nuclear plant produces large amounts of electricity at a stable, predictable price. During off-peak hours, excess electricity could generate hydrogen from seawater, or recharge everyone’s batteries in their home.

A carbon-free plan for Connecticut must call for a significant increase in electricity from nuclear power.

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW: Hydroelectric and Biomass, Limited Parts of the Answer

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:37:00 GMT

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW:

Hydroelectric and Biomass, Limited Parts of the Answer

By Sean Sullivan

The next generation of power sources in this country must be carbon free. Hydroelectric meets this criterion, but its potential is limited. Biomass is carbon neutral because growing plants remove the same amount of carbon from the air as is produced when burning plant-based fuels. However, current production methods of biomass fuels are energy intensive. These energy sources will play important roles in the diversification of a national carbon-free energy portfolio, but by themselves they are not likely to meet our growing energy needs.

Water power drove our first industries. Connecticut’s many rivers powered the mills that powered our economy. Today, 39 hydroelectric plants continue to generate about 150 MW of clean, renewable power. However, that amount represents only two percent of Connecticut’s electricity needs. While there is some room for growth, there simply is not enough in our rivers to power Connecticut’s modern economy.

Moreover, harvesting additional hydropower requires a delicate balance between power generation and protection of the rivers and watershed areas so important to our environment. The same holds true when considering the potential use of ocean tides and currents for power generation. In Connecticut, a large-scale hydro project would require use of a large water source such as the Connecticut River or Long Island Sound. A dam across these waterways has obvious impacts on the environment and on boating. The impacts are such that use of our large waterways is impractical. Expanded hydropower in Connecticut will therefore involve only small new projects and upgrades to existing ones, meaning the total contribution to our electricity portfolio will remain small.

Biomass refers to the use of a plant to create energy. Wood can be burned directly, but trees take many years to grow. Biomass efforts have therefore concentrated on a crop or weed that is harvested annually and distilled into fuel. However, these efforts have produced fuels that return little when compared to the energy used to make them. For example, ethanol production consumes about 1 unit of energy for every 1.3 units produced. That means that when thirteen gallons of fuel are made, ten gallons must be set aside to produce the next batch and only three gallons are available to supply our energy needs. Absent a technology breakthrough, the energy-intensive production methods of biomass limit their potential as replacements for fossil fuels.

The limits on hydroelectric, biomass, solar and wind currently prevent these alternatives from replacing fossil fuels. They account for only three percent of our nation’s energy needs, and almost all of that is from hydropower.

A breakthrough in technology is always possible, but never certain. It makes sense to invest in technologies that may lead to a breakthrough. However, it would be dangerous to go down a path that relies on a technological breakthrough. Our energy independence is too important to our national security and our economy, and global warming too much a threat to our environment, to place our future in the hands of scientists and engineers on the hope that they will someday be able to do that which is not possible today.

John Kennedy once inspired this nation to send a man to the moon within a decade, and we did just that. However, the space race was viewed as the latest front in a national security battle with the Soviets. Prudently, President Kennedy continued to fund conventional armed forces as he invested in new frontiers. With energy, we must do the same. Invest in alternatives and tackle the challenges head-on, but continue to pursue what we know works.

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW: Wind; Power For America, Little For Connecticut

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:22:00 GMT

ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW:

Wind; Power For America, Little For Connecticut

By Sean Sullivan

The next generation of power sources in this country must be carbon free. Wind power meets that criterion. It will play an important role in the diversification of a national carbon-free energy portfolio.

Wind power presently provides a very small percentage of our energy needs. A recent government report estimated that by the year 2030 wind power could provide twenty percent of this nation’s energy, a considerable amount. However, there are many technical and practical problems standing between us and that goal. We must attack these problems. Meanwhile, prudence dictates pursuit of energy independence through technology that is already developed. Moreover, in the generation of wind power, Connecticut is at a disadvantage. Our state’s economy demands the simultaneous pursuit of other alternatives.

On the upside, there is no pollution with wind power, and no cost for fuel.

On the downside, wind turbines are expensive, wind is sporadic and unpredictable, and in some parts of the country, including Connecticut, wind conditions will not generate significant power.

In May 2008, the Department of Energy reported that reaching the goal of twenty percent wind power by 2030 requires “improved turbine technology to generate wind power, significant changes in transmission systems to deliver it through the electric grid, and large expanded markets to purchase and use it.” Translation: as much as we may like the idea of wind power, the technology and infrastructure are not ready for prime time.

Additionally, wind power is impractical in parts of the nation, including here. The Department of Energy provides a rating system of one (poor) to six (outstanding) for wind energy potential. Practically all of Connecticut gets a rating of two (marginal). Some spots on the shoreline get a rating of three (fair). In the hills of Litchfield County some areas receive a four (good). No areas of Connecticut receive a rating of five (excellent) or six (outstanding).

Atop the Rocky Mountains wind conditions are outstanding. Somewhat less wind but large swaths of open, flat land make for ideal wind energy conditions in the Midwest. Of course, there are no mountain ranges or sweeping plains here. Wind will never be a large contributor to our energy needs, no mater how advanced the technology.

In fact, large amounts of wind power generated in the Rockies and Plains states carry a downside for Connecticut. Transmitting electricity over long distances adds considerably to the cost, so electricity is cheapest near the place it is generated. For example, Idaho today has large amounts of hydroelectric power, and Idaho residents pay seven cents per KW-HR for their electricity. By comparison, we average eighteen cents per KW-HR, or two-and-a-half times as much. Jobs are created where energy is cheapest. Achieving this nation’s wind power potential will help achieve national energy independence, but it will not help Connecticut create jobs.

At best, wind will only meet a part of this country’s needs, and very little of Connecticut’s needs. Therefore, we must prudently pursue other energy sources that can guarantee energy independence for this country and inexpensive electricity for Connecticut.