Photo Credit: House.gov
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (51) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
November 14, 2007

Energy Bill Update: Will Renewables Be a Part of the Political Landscape?

Washington, D.C. [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

After much concern about whether or not key provisions for renewable energy will be a part of this year's energy bill, it appears that tax incentives and a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) are still options on the table, according to industry sources in contact with staffers working on the legislation.

"Many of us believe the Democratic leadership is falling into a game of chicken here. We do have a lot of Republican support for our provisions, so we don't believe they ought to be caving in."

-- Scott Sklar, President, The Stella Group, Ltd.

Last week, industry trade groups in Washington reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi publicly stated that they would separate the tax incentives and RPS from the energy bill in order to pass it before the Thanksgiving recess.

Now, because of increased pressure from industry associations, their members and other concerned citizens, Congressional leaders say they are still looking at all possible options for the energy bill and that a decision on final language probably won't come until next month.

“I think we're looking at a December timeline for anything, says Karl Gawell, Executive Director of the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA). “The question is, 'what's going to be in it?'”

There is much speculation about what renewable energy provisions – if any – will go back into the bill. The White House has said that it supports a scaled-down RPS and lowered fuel efficiency requirements, but it won't support tax incentives for renewable energy that are funded by taking incentives away from the fossil fuel industries. Since gaining control of Congress, Democrats have pledged to follow a “pay as you go” approach to legislation – meaning to fund new programs, the expense must be offset from somewhere else.

Both Reid and Pelosi have expressed strong support for renewable energy in the past; however, says Gawell, the issue is not whether Democrats support renewables, “it's whether or not they have the votes to override a Presidential veto.” GEA, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other trade groups have been communicating with the offices of Reid and Pelosi about the issue all week.

Scott Sklar, President of the Stella Group Ltd., a renewable energy marketing and policy analysis firm disagrees with the concerns over a veto. He has been closely watching the political drama unfold in D.C., and he says that the Democrats shouldn't be pressured to strip the bill so bare.

“Many of us believe the Democratic leadership is falling into a game of chicken here. We do have a lot of Republican support for our provisions, so we don't believe they ought to be caving in,” he says. “Playing this kind of game by taking the investment and production credits out of the bill throws us in the position where you may have an energy bill that doesn't really have incentives for renewable energy and high value energy efficiency – and that would be tragic.”

It is still unclear how the bill will be modified. Both Reid and Pelosi's office declined to comment on the status of the renewable energy provisions, but trade group representatives say they are making some progress in getting the tax incentives and RPS back in the bill for December.

For more information on the energy bill, see the earlier story.

Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Reader Comments (51)
 
No image available
November 14, 2007
Maybe we should negotiate to get a lower interest rate on the war debt. Use the difference to fund renewables development.

The financial institutions that carry the war debts could capitalize by using the difference to fund, or underwrite renewable projects. Most of these projects would yeild higher returns than the war debt. Nobody loses. A symmetric solution.

I'm beginning to suspect, Jim is a heliophobe...
Comment 1 of 51
No image available
November 14, 2007
Mr. Berry,

Solar Hot Water is VERY economical and COMPETITIVE. It's included in the federal tax credits that NEED to be extended! You are ALREADY paying for a NEW solar hot water system that will make the majority of your hot water when you pay your gas or electric bill. Once you pass the 3-8 year mark again and again, you sir, are throwing money literally in the street. If you like paying for energy exec's perks, keep on doing what you are doing. I want my Free Hot Water!!!!! :-)

For the folks who want to use solar pv, first build a new well insulated house with www.nudura.com! I will agree that solar pv is not feasible for everyone but water heating IS! If you have the wrong house with old appliances and drafty windows,or course, PV is not for you just yet.
Comment 2 of 51
No image available
November 14, 2007
The under lying assumption that ALL renewable energies will fail but for passage of this government welfare program is false.

Only the non-economical and non-competitive renewable energies will be significantly harmed by the failure of this bill. (Solar pv and some geothermal)

The most important renewables, Wind and hydro, are already cost effective and commercially sucessful. It would be difficult to identify a single one of these projects that would be canceled if this bill fails. That's because they don't need a corporate welfare check to bring home cost effective green energy.
Comment 3 of 51
No image available
November 14, 2007
I think the money should come from fossil fuels. The gasoline price will go up one way or the other. If we take some money from fossil fuels now and put it into renewable energy, we might stablize the gasoline price in the long-run.
Comment 4 of 51
No image available
November 14, 2007
I'm in full support of government funding for renewable energy, but, we must keep in mind that the money must come from somewhere. It would seem logical to take money away from fossil fuels and invest it in renewable energy so we can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
As much as we renewable supporters hate to admit it, if we pulled large amounts of funding away from fossil fuels, the economy would suffer greatly. Revenues and incomes would have a difficult time covering that drastic increase in cost.
Taking money from fossil fuels might not be the best idea. Anyone will say that gasoline is already too expensive. So where will the money come from? I have no idea. The easiest way to get money is to raise taxes, or tax certain goods or services, but the general public won't support that either.
This bill won't do any good unless there is money available for it. We must propose a solution and make some sacrifices for that solution. Any thoughts anyone?

Matt
Comment 5 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
perplexing logic pro and con for subsidising renewables: nuclear is too dangerous but needs subs, hydro and wind are market viable without subs, solar is in dire need of govt subs ,oil needs the subs it gets, biofuels need the subs, lobbyists need a paycheck-- where is the logic that can persuade wash. of the homeland consumer need for a reliable,sustainable, realisticly affordable energy program?
Comment 6 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
Mr. Berry, I'm not seeing the $.30-$.60 cents/kWh that you are referring to. On the Solarbuzz home page it lists a solar electricity index of $.21 cents/kWh.

If you think that $.08-$.12 cents/kWh represents the real cost of electricity you are kidding yourself. If true cost accounting was required of the entrenched electric generating technologies we would be paying much more.

For instance, if nuclear had to insure themselves, like any other business, the cost would be prohibitive. What about the cost of the thousands that die every year from pollution related illness.

I haven't heard any reports of people dying from solar PV.

Comparing fossil fuels and nuclear to renewables is apples vs. oranges.
Comment 7 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
While I think there should be large subsidies and tax incentives for clean renewable energy, it might make more sense to approach the situation from a different angle. Wouldn't the same goals be acomplished by creating a national net metering law similar to Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Both of these states pay full retail costs to business and individuals who put excess power into the grid. The Republican's are huge proponents of free market economic activity. So why not give everyone a shot at paying for systems up front knowing they will make money selling it back to the power companies. It would take the tax incentives off of the table and if the Dem's promoted the plan as such, they might be able to get enough Republicans to override a Presidential veto.

Even if small producer were paid the wholesale price for their excess production, it would still be cheaper for the utilities than building new power plants which would likely be coal fired.
Comment 8 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
Mr. Rhodin's point is well taken that we do continue to subsidize oil/gas. The playing field is not level.

However, Oil/gas/coal/wind/hydro are all cost effective in the market place right now. The contest in that arena is whether we pay $.08 or $.09 or .012 per kwh. In contrast Solar PV is $.30 to $.60 per kwh installed (Solar Buzz year end review 2006) Based upon the above,which energy supplier desperately needs mandatory quotas and subsidizes? SOLAR PV!

This bill seeks to help out the least cost effective renewable energy Solar PV (electrical panels not hot water). That industry is completely dependent on the gov't handouts like this bill and the bogus carbon credit system it creates.
Comment 9 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
Thank you Mr. Rhodin,
All of the talk from the oil and gas industries and even the leaders in Washington about renewables not being market competitive without significant subsidies is frankly humorous. These industries receive huge subsidies themselves. I don't think anyone is really talking about tipping the balance to give all of the government funding to renewables...
JUST LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD.
Unfortunately the dems are scared and not much better than the other side of the aisle. They are all in the pockets of the lobbyists and you see the result...
STATUS QUO, no change, pull any mention off the table, spineless.

Keep up the good work though folks, revolutions come from the bottom, not the top!
Comment 10 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
In response to Mr. Berry's post and others that we should not be giving a "welfare" check to uncompetitive clean energy technologies, I feel the need to start with a quote from the above article that the White House said: "it won't support tax incentives for renewable energy that are funded by taking incentives away from the fossil fuel industries."

This of course raises the question, why are we giving a "welfare" check to a fully matured industry that has and is currently pulling in record profits? Do you think if we stopped giving them tax incentives that they would stop drilling and/or start taking a loss?

Supporters of the renewable tax incentives are not asking to tax fossil fuels to support renewables, they just want renewables to be given the same chance that fossil fuel has been afforded for years. Personally, I think this is the least that should be done. This is a nuanced point that I feel needs to be driven home with a sledgehammer.
Comment 11 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
Politically, we need to create a comprehensive energy plan that includes a rational transition to renewable, instead of ignoring it. This plan is needed to HELP oil companies schedule new production, and lay out a timeline for partial divestment into the new energy regime.

Our aim should be, to create an ultra low cost renewable energy SURPLUS that attracts investment and manufacturing back into this country.

Pelosi and Reid ain't cutting it so far.
Comment 12 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
Actually,
I think the leaders of the major oil companies are ahead of their lobbyists and politicians. Most major oil companies are changing course. They, of all people, know what's coming.

One major problem, they have concentrated their wealth on exploration and production. Any legislation that impacts that, like the offshore clause in this bill, will be met by swift attempts to annihilate it.

We don't need to pit one energy against the other. It's a fight that everybody loses. We need to focus on a smooth transition. This means NOT robbing oil companies pockets to fund renewables, no matter how tempting. They need to make that decision for themselves.

We need to focus on ways of mitigating the impact of declining crude production. We should increase efficiency standards, and invest in manufacturing techniques that make renewable energy LESS expensive than fossil fuels. This creates a market driven solution.
Comment 13 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
The good news is America has a grassroots movement to shift faster than they can keep control...and they are desperate to stop it at any cost.
To save America we need Congress to see that it needs to accelerate shift to Clean energy NOW. Please keep spreading word TRUE CLEAN ENERGY now makes the best long term economic advantage for ALL American's!!
Thank YOU!
Comment 14 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
J. Carr, you're a smart man. Please share your ideas more, so we can educate Americans who have been kept in the dark about why congress has subsidized & protected dirty energy and any cost to us.
America needs to shift the money wasted on oil wars to a "war effort" FOR true clean renewable energies. We can win this war against foriegn dirty energy, not with a gun, but by America becoming self-sufficient and shifting power to the only long term solution to energy,
RENEWABLEs (Wind, Solar(all), GEO, Wave, & magnetic...).

The dirty fuel industries are fighting back because they are NOT READY to "MORPH" into the leaders of the CLEAN energy market, due to unpredicted explosive growth in Asia for energy. They'll only allow a "power shift" when they can stay in the "driver's seat" for energy market. In their transition to control, this is why most are "green-washing" with huge advertisements in WSJ's GREEN section recently along with all the TRUE clean energy articles...
Comment 15 of 51
No image available
November 15, 2007
So where does funding for the wind PTC and the solar ITC currently come from, and why can't we just extend that? As for the RPS, I thought that was one of those unfunded mandates, which means the power industry or the ratepayers end up paying for it, rather than the government.
Comment 16 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
The "Energy Industry" is best characterised by 2 words.... Mal Fides... (latin for Bad Faith). They have never dealt in good faith.....ever!
Comment 17 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
The government should be encoraging the public to convert to other energy sources. The public wants to have the NEW renewable energy as well as their fossil oil. Since oil is so valuable, shouldn't we be saving it as much as we can. Instead of all the profits, with the tax substidies, and the war tax just going to the oil companies. Shouldn't we be creating jobs to save us from global warming. Instead of sending solders into harms way, shouldn't we be working together to
break us of our oil addiction. We HAVE the technology We HAVE the need to change, WE NEED investments into reneweable energy to create jobs.... here, If YOU invest in renewable energy... then you should receive a tax credit. The goverment should be creating incentives to help the public afford the change. The reduction in oil consumption will stabilize it's price, oil is to precious to waste as a fuel. Solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars with lithium batteries are the new weapons we should be building.
Comment 18 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
If you want know more about it, contact me off this site, since it's not relevant.

If you're gonna build a billion dollar IGCC piece of crap, solar beats it hands down right now, both economically, and environmentally, (Hear that Jim?)

But, I've come over from the dark side.
I now have a much brighter view.
Comment 19 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Gary,
No. Coal is not the answer for electricity, but it will be vitally important for polymers, carbon nanotubes, resins, and other products.

David,
I know a significant portion of the management of Peabody, North American, and Kinnecott. There is a lot of misinformation about coal. Be very careful about quoting the press.

I'll warn you now, I was in coal liquids development, and can win almost any argument on this subject started by persons who haven't been in that field.

Knowing that, I can say that IGCC is not a good idea. It wasn't 75 years ago, and it isn't today. IGCC is essentially a modified Lurgi gasifier that's been bastardized to sort-of-work.

If you want a coal technology to work,
don't,
absolutely don't
Use anything designed by an oil company, without fixing it first.
Comment 20 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
And yes, there are grave problems with LNG:
http://greyfalcon.net/lng

Pretty much, LNG is effectively no different than IGCC Coal.
Comment 21 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
==Coal, on the other hand, is mostly, American owned and operated, and not in short supply.==

While partially correct, thats also incorrect.


We do have a lot of coal.

And theoretically if we were to drive using coal electricity, that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4

However the real problem with coal is that Un-Grandfathered New Plants are Far Too Costly to build.

_______

If it were merely a battle over which technology has the most plentiful/cheapest fuel,
Then we should be doing Solar!
Comment 22 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
John
Are you suggesting coal as an answer to our energy problem?
Comment 23 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Gary,

Where do you think that imported LNG is coming from; The Beverly Hillbillies?

How about, oil exporting countries, including O P E C.

Natural gas, like its cousin petroleum, is in declining production. Much of the formerly flared NG is now being sold to us.

Coal, on the other hand, is mostly, American owned and operated, and not in short supply.
Comment 24 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
The current set of politicians produced a plan that, (and completely ignores the fact), leads us into major fuel shortages within 10-15 years, without a single plan to transition. They have tied themselves to the global warming ship, when they should be engaged in a rational, bipartisan, fuel transition planning.

If we peck at this problem, it will bite us.
Transitioning a $600 billion/yr industry over the next 25 years requires bipartisan thinking, unswerving commitment, and lots of investment. You cannot make oil, and their supporters, the whipping boy and expect good results. Just as, you can't ignore and belittle RE supporters, and not expect a fight!

If we polarize on this, we lose. It's like cutting your nose off, to spite your face.

The good news... By transitioning, we can radically reduce CO2 emissions, while doubling our rate of return!
Comment 25 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Gary,
We can meet that demand on the West Coast without increasing our dependence on Foreign oil today without any need for government subsidies. We have a large supply of Natural Gas and additional terminals are being constructed as we speak to provide additional sources of LNG.

I am afraid that the "push" to get people into electric vehicles would only be achieved by subsidising the sale of those vehicles.

So, do you agree that the "War for Oil" argument doesn't wash when it comes to electricity supply today?
Comment 26 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Although oil may not be used on the west coast for power production that is not the only issue. In my opinion the short term answer to oil for transportation is electric vehicles. This would result in a huge increase in the demand for electricity. The best way to meet that demand is through a distributed supply of electricity from pv and wind power.
Comment 27 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Some things to consider when talking about "welfare" and "free market".
Fossil Taxes
Kind of a sick graph
Doonsbury Tells it
Which party spends the most public money?(Again)
_

It's not about creating a "Free" market, it's about leveling the playing field to create a "Competative" market.
One way to achieve that is to yank out all the fossil fuel based direct/indirect subsidies.
A more realistic way is to just bring renewable electricity up to par.

_

Another way, is to factor in the externalized economic costs.
$3000/KW IGCC
$6500/KW FutureGen
Too Much Water Use
Comment 28 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
I am confused,
How is a dependence on Foreign oil and the use of fossil fuels for power production related? On the West Coast oil for power production has been outlawed since the nineties.
I keep hearing this red herring issue from pundits and others that have the microphone and for the life of me cannot make the connection.

The last time I checked the only companies that owned interests in coal were Japanese companies.

Am I missing something here?
Comment 29 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
To talk about the true cost of renewable energy but ignore the true cost of fossil fuels is foolish. Remove subsidies for oil and include costs for war, pollution etc. and we probably have $15 a gal gasoline. We protect (war) the flow of oil for reasons of national security. But global warming is also an issue of national security. So it stands to reason that development and implementation of renewable energy is an issue of national security. It is too complicated and risky to the economy to try to remove all forms of subsidy from fossil fuels and way too complicated to compute true costs of fossil fuels (pollution, illness, extreme weather, war etc.) and include those in the cost of current forms of energy. Development of renewable energy is too important to the future of this country and the world. We cannot afford further delays in development. Therefore, I submit that govt involvement in the form of mandates, rebates and tax incentives are required.
Gary
Comment 30 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
I agree with the smooth transition idea, but please, lets transit!! It is a joke it continue to subsidize below-ground fuels, when above-ground fuels are so plentiful and clean.
Please pass this on to your friends, we need to get the bill pass WITH renewables now. I've phoned both of my Senators, I suggest we all do the same.



Tim
Comment 31 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
I'm not going to lose faith in our system. I'll bet the members of Congress are pulling the renewable portion out of the existing bill so they can dangle it in the media like a carrot and then come in an save the day with a new bill just for renewable energy and give their vote record the "green" they need for the future elections. If not this year then next. I've written my congress person's and I can only hope those who are reading this have as well.
Comment 32 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
In response to Mr. Berry's post and others that we should not be giving a "welfare" check to uncompetitive clean energy technologies, I feel the need to start with a quote from the above article that the White House said: "it won't support tax incentives for renewable energy that are funded by taking incentives away from the fossil fuel industries."

This of course raises the question, why are we giving a "welfare" check to a fully matured industry that has and is currently pulling in record profits?


But but but they're GOOD guys! It's OK for Republicans to get government money! (/snark)

Supporters of the renewable tax incentives are not asking to tax fossil fuels to support renewables, they just want renewables to be given the same chance that fossil fuel has been afforded for years.

Yeah. If Bush won't fund solar, then he should get rid of Big Oil's free-money program; they're already double-dipping, what with the huge tax breaks Bush gave them in 2003.
Comment 33 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Please, let's stop fighting and sail our new course! Feel the earth's warmth, ride the waves, hear the wind, see the light, and use them...their here for ALL, now.

Show the way! Get your own array, turbine, and electric car. LEAD by example and show the way for America to be beautiful, powerful, and the hope of the world...
again.
Comment 34 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
Clean Americans,
Even if our government doesn't "Level the playing field", TRUE renewable industries will WIN, hands down.

Pardon the metaphor(s),again...

The dirty fuel ships are taking on water, the smart ones are dumping the dirty fuel anchors and raising the sails(closely powered by Sun,ha!)
Some will go down with the weight of the Black gold stashed below and sadly take the sailors/crew blinded by misguided leaders at the helm.

This century, at least, will be the global shift to sustainble energies, (then ships will set sail for more important issues the world needs to survive).

MY HAND IS OUT to those who want to join us on the clean ships. WE have more important things to attend... like family in need of time with strugling working parents and friends in need of subsistance until the renewable industry grows to bring great clean jobs home.
Comment 35 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
The most important thing to remember is that while with other fuels (including nuclear), they must be continuously consumed to produce energy, whereas with solar, wind, and flowing water, once the infrastructure has been amortized, the energy is FREE!
Comment 36 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
In the game of "pin the tail on the donkey", Americans' favored variant is "who's ox gets gored". Our favorite pastime remains counting and spending other peoples' money.
Fossil energy companies are owned by shareholders - several million of them. Their product is used by ALL 300,000,000 Americans; all of us have to foot the bill.

Conversely, PV incentives are unduly concentrated on a very small number of retail residential consumers. By contrast, "big-box" arrays on schools are "wholesale" installations, would benefit more people (the ones who fund the incentives), and accelerate growth in the industry.

The way to reduce emissions, and effect a shift is to tax fuel-based energy, and exempt RE. A carbon or BTU tax of all conventional energy sources (not RE in its infancy) is the logical way to go. That tax should replace the income tax, and be revenue neutral for low and middle income Americans.
Comment 37 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
One can tell a lot about any company simply by looking at its parking lot and the cars in it and how they are arranged. How different is the parking lot at the companies of the renewable energies industries from those of other industries that are not producing renewable energies? Do the People of this American nation need to see some comparison photos?
Comment 38 of 51
No image available
November 16, 2007
I has these two dogs once. Badger and Torin were there names. There was this one time they had "treed" a Racoon. Torin just sat there quitely while Badger was jumping around, barking non stop. Badger soon left when the Racoon made no moves but Torin stayed right there, still and quite. The Racoon soon made its move after Badger left.
Maybe the Renewable Energies Industries (REI's) are just plain barking up the wrong tree. Going to the U.S. government with there hands out asking for more and more. I would hope that the REI's know where the U.S. government gets its money from. The People of this American nation!
Talk about paying for something out of more than one pocket!
Its those same People that would be the end user (purchaser) of those products of the REI's if those products did not have such a monumental cost that only multi-millionaires could afford.
REI's, make your products affordable to the People of this American nation without the need for U.S. government assistance.
Comment 39 of 51
No image available
November 17, 2007
Transferring subsidies from the fossil fuel industries in order to finance renewable energy is a logical first step in the transition away from fossil fuel usage. Not all fossil fuel subsidies need to end, much research and development is being financed by the government in better ways of using fossil fuels, such developments will only result in an increase in fossil fuel consumption but will do so more efficiently. Diverting funds from such projects to more realistic renewable energy projects would be a much better use of taxpayer money. Prioritizing renewable energy project funding is just as important; as an example, large scale hydrogen usage is decades away (low priority), gasification and cellulosics are proven and applied technologies(high priority) that can supply fuel on a large scale. As high priority renewable energies become self sustainable, funding can be diverted appropriately to the next priority level of renewable energy.
Comment 40 of 51
No image available
November 17, 2007
What about the resolution for 25% renewables by the year
2025? It is reported that that agreement has passed the
Senate last July and the House in October.
www.25x25.org
Comment 41 of 51
No image available
November 17, 2007
The laws of nature have been broken by the way we use energy.The fragmented world of partisan politics only serves to dig a deeper hole for our economy to fall into.The real issue here is how society as a whole sees and appreciates (or lateley depreciates) capital and energy resources. There is a new awareness of an existing system of commerce. The system of commerce is Natural Capitalism development.Natural capital is simply the accumulated bounty accumulated by all life that has preceded you. Natural Capital development in human terms is working with this natural bounty in ways that do no harm and lay the groundwork for the next generation into infinity.
Comment 42 of 51
No image available
November 17, 2007
Random thoughts:

Efficiency first. Higher energy taxes will result in both demand destruction, and greater investment in efficiency and alternatives. Cheap energy is neither a birthright nor an entitlement. Not even for Americans.

Slashing incentives for conventional energies to fund RE NOT a good idea. US NEEDS every domestic bbl we can produce during transition to alternatives.
40% of our oil is domestic, but there are NO EASY BARRELS LEFT. Removing incentives for domestic production (now driven largely by pricey "enhanced recovery technology" used in pursuit of remaining puddles), will result in US importing even more. Saudis/OPEC costs are below $15./bbl. Stop worrying about oil company profit; worry about where vastly greater OPEC profits are going....

There are no "silver bullets" out there READY to replace conventional energy. Not corn or cellulosic ethanol, not CAFE(a long-term fix). It remains the goal, but will take time.
Comment 43 of 51
No image available
November 17, 2007
Actually if we're just going to talk IGCC without CCS, then we're talking more of the $3000/KW range.
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal

Which is still rather pricey compared to the former $1000/KW range for old coal.

The 2005 Clean Air Act sure did a number on the cost of coal after the grandfathered capacity got filled.

_

And while Coal-to-Liquids have problems, BioFuels can get even worse.

http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil

_

Pretty much the answer to all of this is that we need energy efficiency more than we need an "increased supply".
Comment 44 of 51
No image available
November 18, 2007
Here is the Energy Bill site again...this time as a link:

www.energybill2007.org
Comment 45 of 51
No image available
November 18, 2007
We can certainly spend a great time debating these issues and solving them. Generally speaking I think the answers are to be found in putting forth a variety of solutions (as opposed to swapping one thing or another). So many solutions offered up seem to be focused on one type of energy use only.

In addition, I hope that we as citizens are spending as much time contacting our Congressmen and women and spreading the word to our friends and neighbors. As Jake Jenkins said, "Keep up the good work though folks, revolutions come from the bottom, not the top!"

One way to let someone know...sign the petition that says you support the energy bill before Congress right now. Find it at http://www.energybill2007.org
Comment 46 of 51
No image available
November 18, 2007
My GOD, I have read all the posts, That guy Barry was the nut in the fruit cake.Solar is our best hope and I wish everyone would stop calling it renewable or alternative energy; It should be called conventional energy as it was the earliest form of energy long before oil was pumped from the bowels of the earth and set ablaze to heat water and create steam. And be warned congress and mr. president Get your house in order or we the people will. Tim tvesely@neaenergy.com
Comment 47 of 51
No image available
November 18, 2007
Forgot to mention another cost factor.

Whatever solar cost today is fixed. The same can not be said in fossil industry. IN other words, oil price will go up in the future while solar price could go down on either lower cost of production and/or technological advancement.
Comment 48 of 51
No image available
November 18, 2007
Solar is in the developmental stage. It would be a gross injustice to kill a product in its infancy.
Future technological advancement would in all likelihood duplicate what happened in PC industry where all components registered sharply lower costs.
Second, what's the cost of global warming vs pennies in subsidies which is unlikely to continue forever.
Comment 49 of 51
No image available
November 19, 2007
The facts are in concerning the data of climate changes impacts upon he eniviorment and the economy. Have our past history has not taught within our society anything after the Sherman Anti-Trust Act against Standard Oil Trust by the Supreme Court decision of 1917 on the power of an monopoly or now today the power of just five of the top oil refinery industry efforts to consolidate its control or influence over over a badly need renewable energy bill we must have leadership lock step with time of combating negative economic impact upon the economy. The Accountant & CPA are just learning what a energy tax credit is and some accounting software
may have been 6month behind the facts of the tax incentive for homeowners and businesses to have clue .
Comment 50 of 51
No image available
November 19, 2007
It's time Congress sits down and watches the old movie with Jimmy Stewart, "Mr Smith goes to Washington". Then we should throw the lot of them out of office.

Washington DC is so captive to special interests. States have been passing and increasing aggressive RPS's with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. The D's AND the R's seem to sort of get in at the state level. Renewable energy is "greener", both envrironmentally AND for the economy. State legislatures and governors understand and want to create 21st century jobs.

We the citizens need to slap Congress in the face. Send em home. We can keep momentum with state and local support, but at some point, Washington needs to get in line. I'm not holding my breath. Can anyone say third party?
Comment 51 of 51
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Solarfun Global Marine Renewable Energy Conference All Energy Ferraz Shawmut Bella Energy
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo