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 (68) 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 12, 2007

U.S. Energy Bill -- Early Christmas Present or Lump of Coal?

Washington, D.C. [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

All the tough talk in Washington, D.C. about the need to combat global warming, make America energy independent and stimulate the economy with homegrown, renewable energy sources turned to a whisper on Thursday, as House and Senate Democratic leaders reportedly said they would remove key provisions for the renewable energy industries from the latest energy bill.

"We truly hope that Congress will provide the leadership that brings our country into the 21st century on energy technologies and energy policy -- not remain stuck in the 19th and 20th century."

-- Rhone Resch, President, Solar Energy Industries Association

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi decided to remove a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and all tax provisions benefiting renewables so that they could pass an energy bill through Congress before Thanksgiving break on Friday, November 16.

“This is basically Congress delivering an early Christmas present to the American public — and it's a lump of coal,” said Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). “We are feeling disgusted because this energy bill goes right back to maintaining the status quo.”

That status quo, said Resch, means continued support for coal, oil and natural gas, additional support for biofuels, but no support for renewable forms of electricity such as solar, wind and geothermal.

The renewable portfolio standard, which would set a target of getting 20-25% of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2025, will no longer be in the bill. While that is indeed a blow to the cause of renewable energy supporters, perhaps the bigger issue is the lack of tax incentives such as the production tax credit (PTC) and the investment tax credit (ITC).

“I can't imagine the Congressional leadership would seriously propose an energy bill that would not place a strong emphasis on renewable energy, especially the long-term tax incentives that are so vital to the growth of the industry,” said Randall Swisher, Executive Director of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The PTC is vital for the developers and manufacturers that AWEA represents. Without a long-term extension of the PTC, which expires in December of 2008, developers will be unsure about the financial viability of their projects. If the market starts to slow down in the U.S., manufacturers will be unwilling to scale up production or enter the country all together.

Earlier this week, AWEA issued its fourth quarter market report, which showed that the industry is on track to install 4,000 megawatts (MW) of wind capacity, shattering the 2006 record of 2,454 MW. With long-term support, AWEA believes the industry can continue to surpass those numbers. But if the PTC is not extended, next year's installed capacity may fall short.

“Getting into 2008, we will start to see uncertainty creep in in terms of getting projects financed and, even more importantly, attracting manufacturers to this country, bringing with them the jobs that are a critical part of what this industry can deliver for the future of this country,” said Swisher.

Another report released this week by the American Solar Energy Society looked at the economic impact of renewable energy in the U.S. According to the report, the renewable energy industries could generate up to $4.5 trillion in revenue for the U.S. economy with the appropriate public policies, including a RPS and long-term tax credits.

A lot is at stake for renewables in the upcoming energy bill. Now, with only one week left before Congress leaves for Thanksgiving recess, renewable energy lobbyists on Capitol Hill and around the country are making a final push to get lawmakers and citizens to support a bill that would reflect the long-term needs of the industry.

“We're doing everything we can to make sure Americans know about this issue and that they contact their lawmakers to put these very important provisions back in the bill,” said Chris Stimpson, Executive Campaigner for Solar Nation, a renewable energy advocacy organization. “Without such action, all the talk about a new energy future means nothing.”

In a statement on his website, Senator Reid writes, “I believe that Congress needs to provide a long-term extension of the renewable energy production and investment tax credits to help provide for long-term growth in the renewable energy sector.” His recent decision to leave out the tax incentives does not reflect that message, however.

Resch believes that the decision to strip the bill down can be turned around in the next week — with the right public support.

“We truly hope that Congress will provide the leadership that brings our country into the 21st century on energy technologies and energy policy — not remain stuck in the 19th and 20th century,” he said. “But we need to make sure that lawmakers on Capitol Hill hear the voice of all Americans who are thirsty for a clean energy future.”

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 (68)
 
No image available
November 9, 2007
The RPS seemed like it was the only thing regarding renewable energy that was being resisted by corporate America. They should be able to omit that from the bill for now and just go for the tax credits. Please call your Senators and Reps and ask them to fight for the tax credits.
Comment 1 of 68
No image available
November 9, 2007
This is unacceptable! This will really hurt the solar and wind markets. Perhaps they are prediciting a non-voluntary carbon market will be up and running by 2008 which will give added value to the clean electricity produced by wind and solar? I hope so. The small expense of the ITC/PTC is nothing compared to the prospects of energy independence and national security it gets us heading towards! Everyone call your congressperson!
Comment 2 of 68
No image available
November 9, 2007
Apparently they are currently considering killing the Renewable Portfolio Standard part of the bill.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/8/214056/515
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/8/173742/748
Comment 3 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
On the peak oil thing...
Demand is 88 Million Barrels/day.
Supply is 85 Million Barrels/day (with little hope of increasing).

The World reached it's peak a little over a year ago.

Jesus Jones Congress! WAKE UP!
Comment 4 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
Politicians will do anything for MONEY!!! Big Oil must have gotten to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They Sell Out America while there pockets and Swiss bank accounts get FULL!!!! What will they do when there is no more oil with which to rape the masses?
Comment 5 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
Can I ask you a single Question?
Dose U.S have RPS energy policy that sets the goal of 20~25% of renewable energies within 2025 now?
I mean, the nationwide.
Comment 6 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
"This is NOT LEADERSHIP!"
In America "Leadership" can be bought by the highest bidder.
Comment 7 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
ON ANOTHER SHIP ARE WE, although small, we are many, and powered by the Sun, Wind, Sea & nature, we are forever. Some on the dirty ships will try to destroy us while they're sinking. Some will drop their gold and jump ship. Some will wise up and share it with US on our CLEAN ENERGY SHIPS! Some will use a little of their gold to "green wash" their dirty ships and decieve most, but only for a while. The CLEAN ENERGY ships will repair the damage by the dirty energy ships and we'll sail many years over the sunken dirty energy ships.
Don't let them distract, blindside, or bring their dirty fuels and black greed aboard your ships!!
SO KEEP YOUR SIGHTS ON THE HORIZON, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, use the clean wind & ocean currents, and SOLAR for the brighest energy future ever imagined by all humankind.

It's TIME TO REMAIN SELF-SUFFIENCT and raise the sails!!
G. Andrew
Comment 8 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
To LONG-TERM thinkers only,
(sorry Mr.J.Berry, with all due respect, you're a short-term profiteer, today's costs are NOT the reason for CHANGING, LONG TERM SURVIVAL must consider ALL costs)
Please, friends, follow the metaphors...

For all of us truly concerned about the future of all humans, do not be concerned about what our government is NOT doing. The current government is blinded by the greed of the dirty energy industries, but their dirty energy SHIP is SINKING! You will see them cleverly control our "cash-n-carry government with their money while they try to gather as many chests of gold before their ship sinks. The dirty energy leaders will go to any expense(including lives) to keep their ship afloat, but it is doomed, some will even let their ship sink from the weight of the gold instead of using it to power the ship from the wind & Sun, and clean energy. It is sad for those lead and blinded by black gold, and those innocent aboard.
Comment 9 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
To follow up John Carr's comments, there is a rapidly growing consensus that we're at Peak oil. So, there doesn't appear to be any logic whatsoever for the Democrats keeping the same old "business as usual" energy bill (burning oil, coal and natural gas), but that's the way they appear to be heading.

It just doesn't make any sense abandoning renewables at this juncture. I'm scratching my head at the fools on the Hill and wondering what they're thinking, if they're thinking at all ....

Equally bewildering, Pelosi wants to push through a climate change bill before the year's end. How is she going to produce effective legislation without solar, wind, etc?
Comment 10 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
Democratics in office are so weak, they should rounded up and put on public display as circus freaks. Screw them, they can piss off.

New Party, Now!

Green Party, where are you?!!?!?
Comment 11 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
What is so surreal about this is the disconnect of oil industry forecasters with policy makers like Pelosi, and everyone else for that matter.

The growing consensus in the oil industry is production cannot keep up with demand starting as early as 7 years, but no later than 15 years. By 2030 NO ONE is saying there won't be PERMANENT shortages. By 2050 most analysts are quietly predicting production at 25% of todays rate.

I'm not saying "The sky is falling!" But, governments are SUPPOSED to care for the LONG TERM security of their countries. I see NO long term planning here, only capitulation.

Evidently, all our representatives have forgotten who they work for, and are only concerned about passing something our "Unitary Executive" won't veto.
Comment 12 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
So much for Democrats having a "Green" vision of the future. "Green" is on the Democrats chopping block, again.

They are clearly out of touch with their base.

"See the new boss, same as the old boss."
Comment 13 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
The story is slightly off. It is right that solar pv would be harmed by this bill. Solar pv depends on government subsidies to make its costs of $.30 to $.60 per kwh competitive with gas/coal/nuclear coming in at $.08 per kwh.

In contrast, Wind would be substantially unaffected. It is already cost effective against other energy sources. The large wind mills 1.1 Megawatt and up are essentially sold out for the next few years. They don't need the subsidies or the phony pollution trading system to be profitable.

The Wind Industry is not going to turn down its share of the government subsidies that solar pv requires to stay in existence. That would be foolish. It's free money.
Comment 14 of 68
No image available
November 10, 2007
This is unconscionable! It sends the exact wrong message! This is NOT LEADERSHIP! In a time when crucial leadership is of primary importance to create the inertia to "fuel" the renewable enrgy movement, our leadership has failed us.

How can we subsidize the oil and coal industries that pollute our atmosphere and create greenhouse gasses which lead to global warming and not support the naissance of clean renewable energy industries?
Comment 15 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
Sorry for the repeated posts.... I didn't see the first one post!
Comment 16 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
This is totally Nuts!!! An Energy Bill with nothing for wind or solar just when things are really starting to accelerate with people upgrading to renewable energy!!! I have been blogging and emailing ever since calling my state reps yesterday getting the word out!!! We will be heard!!!
Peace
Comment 17 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
This is nuts!!! I have been blogging since yesterday on this getting the word out. Great! Yeah! An energy bill to help hurt the renewable energy movement right when it's gaining momentum. Something really stinks!!!
Comment 18 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
For instance, peak oil INCLUDES natural gas and natural gas liquids. U.S. gas fields PEAKED around 1973. I'll say it again... Natural gas production peaked, that's right, PEAKED, at 28 TCF/yr in 1973! No matter how many wells were drilled, we haven't been able to get more than 23 TCF/yr since then.

Creaming curves for drilling vs. production show a steeply declining U.S. production per well per hole drilled. The reserviors we rely on are getting smaller, and wells that used to last 40-60 years, barely last 15 years today.

If NG demand grows at 1%/year, for the next ten years, we will have a 10% SHORTAGE of natural gas in 10 years, (if we can keep production at current levels). There is every indication that gas production will continue to fall for the next 10 years.

The electric generation industry is VERY connected to peak oil.

Don't kid yourself, and don't get too comfortable.

Next time, get the facts.
Comment 19 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
George,

Right now, what you say is true about the 3%. Coal and natural gas (primary generation fuels), are not widely used in transportation because their power density is low,(in the case of methane), or solid, (in the case of coal). However, methane can be reformed into liquids using current technology, and coal can be economically liquiefied into liquid transportation fuels today.

The transportation industry will shift to augmenting crude products with natural gas and coal co-products, to overcome shortages soon. They're acting on it today.

Disconnecting the three fuel sources shows a complete ignorance of the relationship the three sources have had with each other, over the last 100 years.
Comment 20 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
Go to www.Vote-Smart.org. Type in your 9 digit zip OR the name of the Rep or Senator, or even Bush. In the case of Rep or Senator go to "WebMail" on the right click and enter the following IN THE SUBJECT a-n-d IN THE BODY of the email:
"In the ENERGY Bill, INCLUDE SOLAR & WIND ITC. Pelosi & Reid took it out! THX."
In the case of writing Bush you will simply have a standard email format pop up.
Comment 21 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
Hello Commentors,

Are any of you taking action by clicking the Action Alert! up top to contact your representatives? We need to let them know by this Tuesday, to pass the
renewable energy message to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi?
A suggested script might go like this:
"Hi. My name is__. I, and 90% of America, would like more renewable energy. It's not a tough call, since it's pretty clear that the future of the world depends on it. So, please tell Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi to
include a 8-year extension for the solar investment tax credits in the energy bill. Thank you."

Additional talking points include:
- Clean energy means jobs and energy independence.
- America needs carbon-free renewable energy, now.
- The fight against global warming will only be won by a transition to renewable energy.
- The energy bill must extend investment tax credits for solar.
- Our future depends on some strong leadership. Isn't that what leaders are supposed to do?
Comment 22 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
the 'ship of fools' keeps sailing this time captained by Pelosi and the democrats-all I can say is 'smoke the rope' before she sinks.
Comment 23 of 68
No image available
November 11, 2007
Am disappointed, but not surprised.
But kindly refrain from remarks linking peak oil with electricity generation. Oil provides less than 3% +/- of total US electric generation. We can substitute clean-burning natural gas. That's not the problem.
Dealing with peak oil means shifting an enormous portion of total US energy demand - transportation - from oil to the grid, in part by shifting to plug-in hybrids. That shift must take place ON TOP OF increased demand for electricity. The US population will grow from 300,000,000 today to 400,000,000 by 2050. 20% by 2025 is unrealistic, even WITH the PTC.
Recommendation: keep existing nuclear on line, and add more. (We're already stuck with safeguarding the waste for millenia - another 50 or 100 years of usage hardly matters).
Clean energy has to be used to displace dirty energy - coal.
PS: I'd be curious to know how Democratic Senators Kerry & Kennedy voted. They oppose Cape Wind...
Comment 24 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
George,
Ahhh... If you ever get depressed, call the EIA. They are the ultimate optimists! I believe they know where Santa Claus lives! They were created to produce optimistic forecasts for the oil industry. Job well done!

Seriously, EIA reserves do not square with industry's numbers. But, they never have, so why change now?

As far as the politicians, they must be trading the tax incentives for something else. We need to know which "something." If it's fear and capitulation that's driving them... let's show them why they're called "representatives," and not minions.

I'm trying to get an answer, on the republican side, as to what kind of pressure W, and his crew, are placing on Pelosi and Reid. Hope to know by tomorrow evening. I'll keep you informed.
Comment 25 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
Backward Progress

Democrats must be crazy to act silly and so lazy,
To think that fossil fuels will be the one,
And be given all support , wow. that is their strange retort,
By cutting off the funds to wind and sun.

Ho, ho, here we go,
Say the democrats who want control of power,
When they tell us that renewables are now to be undoables,
They turn supporters all from sweet to sour.

Just to have a tipsy government is fine,
But now they've done it, really crossed the line,
Proposing legislation that will lead to devastation,
A trend of backward progress for this time.

Politicians, where is your sense,
You need stiff kick for your recompense,
You will be the laughing stock of the European block,
Please admit your error is immense.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment 26 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
Any1 knows what time the Congressional meeting is and if we can tune in somehow to listen to it?
Comment 27 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
Gore Article:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/11/news/newsmakers/gore_kleiner.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007111214

Check out my article under comments on Green Wombat:
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/11/first-solar-the.html#comments

A Democracy is only as strong as it's citizens. Let's be heard! Let's get the candidates, especially those in congress, to let us know there stand on this issue.
Comment 28 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
We are contacting everyone possible in regard to this issue. It is a "Sad State of Affairs". It just shows what power "Big Oil" has and why we're figting a war in Iraq. All the soldiers should have a Exxon/Mobil and other oil company patches stitched on their uniforms! That's who they are dying for. The FIGHT is ON!!! Bush can't fund solar and renewables because he needs every last penny to fight his Oil War!!! That XXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!
He and Cheney are the biggest "Thieves" this country has ever seen!

John I couldn't find the article of today about Al Gore. I'll keep looking.

Keep the pressure on friends!! PHEV's and EV's all the way!!! The War is ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment 29 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
Check out the story on Al Gore on cnn.com today. He says in the story he just got off the phone with Senator Boxer and it looks like the tax credits are being taken out of the Energy Bill. I don't undersatnd it. Put in tax credits that decrease over time. It will be left up to the states and municipalities. Sad state of affairs.
Comment 30 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
So what are the facts on this story? What does "reportedly" mean? Reid's office is denying this, other office don't have any idea what is going on? Where are we getting the news that RPS and ITC's are on the chopping block? If they are, we need to raise hell about it. If they're not, then I'm wondering where the news is coming from. Can't find any media coverage on it substantiating the actual positions that have been taken or the facts of any deal that was cut in terms of specific provisions that have been altered. What do we know???
Comment 31 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
I've been asked by GRO Solar and Borrego Solar to contact my states Senators Kennedy and Kerry. I have done this and would appreciate all of you to contact your senators and congressmen or women to insure they know that there is a strong support for ITC's.

Go Solar and Wind Power! Go energy efficiency! Go biofuels! Go carbon sequestration!
Comment 32 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
RFK, Jr is certainly right when he says, "show me a polluter and I'll show you a subsidy." The lobbyists are entrenched in DC for gas and oil. The dems are in cohoots with the republicans all the way. The solar manufacturers could care less as well, being so busy elsewhere in this world. What to do? Absolutely nothing for now. It's business as usual. There will never be an equal playing field. As I have said for years, utility companies need to own solar and wind, mandated by the people. Feed in tariffs by other countries are allowing our PV manufacturers to go where the money is. What a shame for us...
Comment 33 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
Hi John -
Comfortable? Not me. I'm in PV...:>)
Regarding data sets for natural gas: Per EIA, notwithstanding the sizeable US withdrawals during the period you cite, US PROVEN reserves are actually higher in 2005 than in 1980.
Enough to meet US demand? Nope. Hence the need for imports while we're in transition.

As always - price matters. It's no fun being a buyer in a sellers' market, but that's what we are. It DOES provide the necessary "push" toward RE.
Tough sledding in near-term, but only high fuel prices will bring on demand destruction. SUV / bigrig owners will have to bite the bullet, and trade the "bad penny" when they can. Even then, someone else will buy and drive it, or they'll be exported to Venezuela, where Chavez sells gas for <$0.10/gallon.
As to PV? Think "big-box" arrays. One residential roof at a time will never get it done...
Comment 34 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
George,

Importing natural gas will not meet the demand. Dow Energy, on the Gulf, has been a prime mover in the NG import strategy. My conversations with Dow do not support your view. Imports are being driven by price. Dow can import it for less than local suppliers will provide it. But, it's not enough to meet demand, or even stop what will be playing out in slow motion. If you have a rosey picture of NG in the future, you are in a shrinking minority. The point should be to get off NG, not import more of it.

Like I said, Don't get too comfortable.

As far as whether 20% is reasonable by 2025... At this rate? Who are we kidding? When Congress can't even stand to mention renewables in their legislation, it's not likely.

Looks like we, in this community, need to get involved in a much bigger way, and step up the pressure on our representatives.

I will be down at my representatives office today, up close and personal. I suggest you do the same.
Comment 35 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
To Son Bumsuk

There is no national RPS currently.
Comment 36 of 68
No image available
November 12, 2007
John -
"reflects ignorance?" "Get the facts?"
Here's one: Your comments refute exactly none of mine.
Natural gas can, and will be imported.
As you correctly point out, new resources and technologies are under development. Some, like corn ethanol, are fools' gold, and some, like Alberta tar sands and Colorado oil shale, come at great cost, both economically and environmentally. And none of them would have economic merit were oil prices were to suddenly collapse. (I don't expect this to happen).

My larger point was, and remains, that "20% by 2025" is unrealistic, given the anticipated growth in electric demand driven both by burgeoning population, and the shift of at least some portion of the very large transportation load from fuels to the grid.
That challenge is made greater by NIMBY gone BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, as exemplified by influential senators seeking to kill Cape Wind.
Comment 37 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
I need to read post like all the ones above to remind me how extreme the renewable energy crowd gets.

Most people want affordable energy at reasonable prices. That's it. If renewable energies can do it, then great.

In contrast, many Greenies want renewable energies regardless of the cost to save everyone from their impending doom. Greenies seem more than willing to lie or play on ignorance to achieve salvation for everyone. It a great cause, therefore anything to achieve it is fair.

Solar pv is a joke. It costs 3 to 6 times the market rate. (Solar Buzz Year End review solar pv $.30 to $.60 per kwh installed)Yet everyone talks about the importance of Solar to save everyone.

However, Wind is cheap and profitable. We are installing Gigawatts of it each year while Solar is in the megawatts. Wind doesn't need an energy bill. Because Wind Mills make money, we are installing one every other day 365 days (180) a year and the rate is increasing.
Comment 38 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
Andrew -

Point taken. Sorry for appearing to monopolize the
board. Of course - anyone can weigh in at any time.

You might cut those big bad nasty energy producers some slack. Every food item in your home today has traveled an average of 1500 miles to get there. It didn't get there by carrier pigeon or horse-drawn cart.
Were it not at least in part for their contributions, none of us would have the luxury of contemplating a cleaner, greener world. We'd be scratching in the dirt.
Get over yourself.
Comment 39 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
Andrew,
My interest in the oil situation is specific to planning. We don't live in a vacuum.

Perpetuating an unsustainable culture is not in my plans, and I don't think it's in George's either.

The discussion about natural gas is more about timing. A plan of action should always take into account the total resources available and their depletion rate. We have to assure our society has the polymers, and fuel to build the windmills, solar cells, ancillary equipment, and such. Like it or not, most of this will come from the oil industry.

We don't want to "almost" build a better world.
Comment 40 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
The feedback I'm getting from Texas republicans is, don't take it out. Texas stands to win big on the incentives.

Let's see what they do on the floor today.
Comment 41 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
I spent 2 days at the Gilroy Garlic Festival gathering photos of over 100 people (perfect strangers) holding my poster supporting a national 20% RPS by 2020. I sent those photos to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The house watered it down to 15% which I still support. It's amazing to me that there is any willingness to cave on this issue. The Democrats have an opportunity to capture an issue away from Republicans that has broad appeal and resonates with the electorate. Conservatives and Liberals want this. What are the Democrats thinking?
Comment 42 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
I talked to a representative at Harry Reid's Washington D.C. office today about the issue. They told me that Sen. Reid is STILL supporting renewable energy in the energy bill and that the rumors listed in this article originated in the blogosphere. Asking them again what they meant, they told me that Sen. Reid has made no move to take provisions for renewable energy out of the bill and the allegations he was doing otherwise were false and based on rumors.

Does anyone have thoughts about this?
Comment 43 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
Gentleman,
Who cares what gas, petroleum, and other dirty fuel industries are doing or claiming...it's smoke & mirrors to distract, don't be arguing about what's fuel is left!

Stay focused on what will carry us forward, moving U.S. to Sustainable energies & TOTALLY (no stored or buried waste "swept" under to destoy us later) CLEAN ONLY.

KEEP YOU SIGHTS on the SOLUTION, not dying, denying & dirty fuel desparados who refuse to change course,
they will only take you down to a toxic grave if you allow them on your vessel!! BEWARE...don't look back!

STAY FOCUSED...KEEP YOUR clean fueled SHIPS, just that, CLEAN!
Comment 44 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
George,
Look here...
http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/JL_NAm-NG07.pdf
This information is backdated and includes flares, vented, etc... It is more accurate than EIA.
Comment 45 of 68
No image available
November 13, 2007
John -

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
EIA data supports your point earlier about "peak natural gas" withdrawals since the 70s. The same data sets ALSO indicate that PROVEN RESERVES are higher today then in 1980, AFTER three decades of withdrawals. It's all in the definitions. In contrast to other nations, US definitions standards are actually quite rigorous.
Translation: there's lots of gas. Not enough to be independent but certainly enough, when coupled with imports, to cushion any transition to RE.
Returning to the central issue - RE tax credits and incentives:
Perhaps Congress wants to see more widespread support at the state level before committing Federal money.
In any event, blaming Bush no longer works. He doesn't control Congress; the Democrats do.
Regrettably, they got elected not for any "positive" agenda. They simply ran, and were elected, as the "anti-Bush."
Alas - now they must govern.
Let's wait and see how this unfolds...
Comment 46 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
E. Patrick...
"...mother nature's fickle supply..."
I wish everyone had the same view of reliability that you do.

I wonder if the sun will still be shining after all that nuclear waste turns back into non-nuclear waste in 1 million years? How about, after people have forgotten about the oil age in 20,000 years?

The sun is bound to go out sooner or later.
Better not depend on it, being it's fickle and all that...

I have a GREAT idea! Let's dig some more coal.

And HEY!
DON'T PICK ON JIM BERRY!
Every good plot needs an antagonist!
If Jim stopped complaining, it would drain the delicious joy from those who enjoy witty reparte.
Comment 47 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Can't let false info go unchecked.
Mr. Berry,
"It costs 3 to 6 times the market rate. (Solar Buzz Year End review solar pv $.30 to $.60 per kwh installed)"
Just went to the site..."Solar Electricity-21.37 cents per kWh" in industrial apps. http://www.solarbuzz.com/"
Also, the 21 cents is based on 5.5 Sunhrs/day and 20 years of PV production...40 year old PV modules are still producing power, with 40 year old technology. Do you really think the $0.08/kWh will stand for the next 20 years and not go up? Historically it's gone up 10%/yr for the last 20 years. At 7%/yr rate increase starting at $0.08/kWh (which I think is low as a national average)...rates in 30 years will be $.57/kWh. CA is paying $0.36/kWh NOW in tier 5. Don't get me wrong Windpower is great, but you aren't going to put a windmill in Downtown LA, Denver, or DC And new distribution lines need to be added to transmit the power to where it is needed. I promise, the Sun comes up every day.
Comment 48 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Solar Thermal (for hot water and heating) is very feasible 3-8 year payback in most cases. And when people put PV on something other than a "barn" with leaky windows and no insulation it can become feasible. For the ones putting down solar PV, have you ever heard of R50+ insulation or ICF building components www.nudura.com. Solar IS FEASIBLE when used properly! For you Nuclear fans, can we plant the waste in your back yard??? Please! Then your great great great great great grandchildren can watch the mound of glowing cancer causing FILTH!!! Send us your address, we will have some shipped right out!! :-)
Comment 49 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Power generation is now much more efficent, and reliable than the clunky old refinery/distribution grid. Since human nature is to be greedy and shortsighted (example, our politicians and those who pull their strings), what the world needs is a shift from centralized production to appropriately sized distributed generation. Many people are already living off the grid with distributed (and renewable) power. We need the same independence and individual responsibility (conservation is critical with renewables) with our fuel/energy that we have with our PCs. It makes no more sense to rely on Exxon, Edison, etc for our energy than it would for us to go down to the big computer at the IBM building with our punch cards any time we wanted to send an email. Give people the power and see what happens! The first person to effectively tap into the personal energy generation market will make Bill Gates look like small potatoes and blow the present energy geopolitical monopolies to smithereens.
Comment 50 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Someone posted that "No one wants to live near a power plant." This is not correct. It is more accurate to say that few people willingly live near polluting power plants. On the other hand, I live at a PV power plant as do some of my neighbors who also have PV. No one in our neighborhood complains and many neighbors who do not have PV boast that they live in a neighborhood with solar power and hybrid cars. Culver City, California encourages PV power plants as do many other towns and cities. Keep calling your political representatives to tell them that you and your neighbors want the investment tax credit extended at least 8 more years.
Comment 51 of 68
November 14, 2007
I have trouble believing that Nancy Pelosi would ditch renewables so thoroughly. I had had hopes for her in the political realm. So disappointing...
Fran
Comment 52 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Perhaps the Democratic Congressional leaders have come to their senses and realize their is no utopian answer in renewables,despite all the psuedo-science and demand for government hand- outs and restrictive environmental laws.
For those who wish to live in all electric world the answer is nuclear power, not dependence on mother nature's fickle supply of wind, waves, sun, rain, etc. Of course when mother nature's hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, fires and other disasters disrupt the electric power supply does it signal a return to horse drawn emergency vehicles and bucket brigades?
Comment 53 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
By removing the RSP from the Energy bill, the U.S is only going to hurt itself, as other countries have much stronger targets and goals for including renewable energy into their portfolios. The R&D of RE is going to increase in the E.U and Asia, and the U.S will find itself having to buy the technology from these new scientific leaders. We are becoming a backwards nation, stuck in the 20th century and that is frightening. The analogy to the lump of coal for Christmas...very clever and accurate.
Comment 54 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
If you haven't read it, read Scott Sklar's article over on the Insider page.
Comment 55 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Like it, or not, noise is one of wind's biggest detractors. More R&D needs to be done to make blade sets much quieter. For the people who can't sleep at night...the Mars Hill generator promised the noise would not "ruin their lives". At Mars Hill, they were wrong. They need to ante up, and sound-proof the most affected residences, without making a big stink about it. Sometimes, doing the right thing is hard on the pocket book.
Comment 56 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
(Arrrgh. Had to seriously butcher that last comment to fit it all in. Sorry!)
Comment 57 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Jim Berry: Big Oil gets more subsidy $ than solar and its profit margins are at least 20%.

Bush invading Iraq has helped Big Oil; about a third of the price of oil is attributable to the invasion. Exxon Mobil alone racked up a $9.4 billion profit last quarter: http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/news/companies/exxon_mobil/?postversion=2007110112

The polysilicon shortage is about to ease as more factories start up. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/53429-is-akeena-the-next-solar-flare) The price of silicon solar will be dropping to the point where solar will achieve parity with oil in five years' time. (Less, if oil keeps shooting up.)

There's also thin-film solar and nanotech, and what the Japanese are doing (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19696/). Octillion is making window treatments for existing windows: Your car windshield could keep your car battery charged among other things. Office building windows would go from energy leakers to energy generators.
Comment 58 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Three cheers for the corrupt Congress. Mandates that require utilities to buy renewables in monopolized markets is causing renewables to fail. The US needs European feed-in tariffs in regulated markets and to foster competition in deregulated markets by:
1) old plants, who received stranded cost subsidies to cover losses and pay off their capital costs, must pay back stranded benefits (while gas prices are high)
2) no grandfather exemptions for old plants from meeting costly environmental laws imposed on new plants
3) regulated utility monopolies must sell old plants to many buyers at market prices
4) enforce antitrust laws to prevent consumer price gouging and the use of windfall profits for predatory pricing against market entrants
5) loosen siting regulations on new power sources
6) extend power lines to more, especially out-of-state, competitors
7) prohibit regulated utility monopolies from dumping surplus power at below total cost into deregulated states
Comment 59 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Looks like we have to wait until 2009. Under this President nothing is going to happen at the federal level. Keep working on the state level. Look a Kansas they killed a coal power plant because of the green house gases. Right on Kansas!

Wall Street is going to have another subprime business as usual crisis when it finances all this coal, nuclear, and ethanol projects and cann't get a return on investment.

Let the six nuclear power plants get built for 10-15 Billion each. that will end that non-sense.

Put your money with clean energy and mop up.
Comment 60 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Well, MS.Leclerc, if you love them so much, check the real estate for sale near the Mars Hill project. From what I hear, they are not sleeping very well in that town!I am sure they would love to sell you a home near the towers.The noise level there exceed's state limits.And yes,it is RUINING their live's.
Comment 61 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
On that last exchange, the win goes to Ms. Leclerc.
NIMBY has been superseded by BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

No one wants to live near a power plant. We're running out of options here, and turbines are relatively benign.
Admittedly large, and presenting some alteration of the "viewshed", wind turbines present no emissions,
no surface or deep mining, etc. Renewable, sustainable.

Not the whole answer, they're certainly a piece of the equation.
Comment 62 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
Ruining???
I doubt the noise keeps you up at night, I doubt the sight of them on a near by ridge makes you want to get out your gun...
I for one would rather have a set of tubines up on the ridge behind my house instead of a nuclear plant across town, or a coal plant up wind of where I live...
Comment 63 of 68
No image available
November 14, 2007
I for one hope the govornment STOPS the tax credits for wind power.They are taking over the beautiful land all over the country,and ruining people's live's who have to live near them.
Comment 64 of 68
No image available
November 18, 2007
This is just plain stupid and narrow minded to eliminate alternative energy sources. I guess the earth really is still flat according to our leadership!

Time to clean house and get some new leadership
Comment 65 of 68
No image available
November 18, 2007
With the cost of gas so high and the instability in the middle east, Big Oil has realized that their days are at a minimum very turbulent. Cars made with rechargeable batteries are here and GM also realizes that fuel cell cars are years away and that rechargeable is the way forward. That means trouble for Big Oil. Recently private equity funds (Big Oil and Saudi Arabia) has purchased the biggest electrical utility (TXU) in the country for $32 Billion. Utilities were never a good investment for private equity funds, thus the only reason for this purchase and others to follow are to control and own their competition. The rechargeable battery is one technology that stand in the way of Big Oil continuing to dominate the energy markets. The Chrysler deal is all part of the same strategy.


Frank Grassi
Comment 66 of 68
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 67 of 68
No image available
November 20, 2007
Could it be that YOU "got" what you voted for, or in some cases, many cases, by not voting at all, you got what you didn't vote for... And you thought you vote didn't matter... If you voted for this batch, shut up, if you didn't vote at all shut up. If you trully give a crap, you best pick up the phone, TODAY FOLKS or well, you can just keep whinning about it as well all look for new jobs. The current MOBs agenda is clear and now out of the box... Have a Great Solar Day!
Pat, altsolar.com
Comment 68 of 68
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
North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners UniRac, Inc. Michigan Economic Development Corporation ORMAZABAL The Switch OutBack Power Systems
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo