Nominate Your Favorite Renewable Energy Project for The 2009 Excellence in Renewable Energy Awards
click here for more information
Close
 
Photo Credit: Peter Juvinall
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 (23) 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
December 23, 2008

Obama's Green Economy

by Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider, Editor-in-Chief

Is it a bail-out or a build-up? That's the question being put to federal lawmakers right now as they try to grapple with the nation's economic woes and with how to allocate its depleting resources.

"Modernizing our energy infrastructure is critical to our security, and that means taking immediate action. The new Congress and President-elect Obama have a great opportunity to get it right this year."

-- Bill Cadman, Colorado State Senator

President-elect Barack Obama says that while his administration will insist on financial prudence, it must address the current recession head-on. In January, he is expected to introduce an economic stimulus package that is reported to be in the US $500 billion range. An estimated US $15 billion would be targeted toward green energy initiatives to create or preserve millions of jobs.

To skeptics, it sounds like a giant make-work program — one that would spend billions on rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and create a massive budget shortfall in the process. But to the president-elect and most Democrats, it is a necessary step to not just avoid falling off the precipice but to also generate the next-generation of jobs and those predicated on the green economy.

"My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process," Obama said in a video. "We will invest in solar power, wind power and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it's safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies."

News stories are replete with inside scoops on where else the billions would be channeled. Pouring money into the smart grid is one place while weatherization programs that seek to make homes more energy efficient is another. Meanwhile, mass transit groups say that they have at least $8 billion in projects ready to go.

Obama said on numerous campaign stops that addressing global warming would become a national priority under his administration. To reduce the associated heat trapping emissions, a cap-and-trade program would be implemented. Under such a regime, the government would set emissions limits and then auction "credits" to those companies unable to meet the thresholds. That money — pegged at US $150 billion — would then go to the creation of green energy technologies.

But many of his comments were made prior to economy's precipitous fall in October. At that point, American industry became more concerned with weathering the storm than investing in expensive technologies. The incoming administration has subsequently acknowledged that its attention must focus initially on getting the economy healthy and secondarily on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 — the amount that some climate scientists said is necessary to avoid catastrophic consequences. Hence, the nation's budget deficit will expand in the short run.

"The primary focus of the new administration will be on improving the conditions of the domestic economy, which makes energy policy a secondary concern," says Andrew Watt, managing director of Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. "Moreover, funding of the plan will be problematic in this deteriorating economy that has also seen a rapid decline in crude oil and natural gas prices."

New Possibilities

Needless-to-say, the rejuvenation of the economy and the creation of clean technology jobs dovetail with one another. And with billions about to be doled out for those purposes, energy-related interest groups are converging on Washington.

The Western Governor's Association, which is a non-partisan group representing 19 states, just penned a letter to President-elect Obama that says energy efficiency and the development of alternative fuel sources must become a main concern. That's because the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that by 2030 the domestic demand for electricity will rise by at least 20 percent while the demand for petroleum and other liquid fuels will increase by 10 percent.

The ultimate goal is a low-carbon society. As such, the effort will require bi-partisan and public-private partnerships to build more wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro facilities, the governors say. At the same time, they caution the new administration not to neglect traditional fuel sources that are prevalent today.

"There is no getting around it — if we want to 'keep the lights on' in America, we are going to need to build new base-load power plants, erect new high-voltage transmission lines and increase our production of all forms of American energy," adds Colorado State Senator Bill Cadman, a Republican. "Modernizing our energy infrastructure is critical to our security, and that means taking immediate action. The new Congress and President-elect Obama have a great opportunity to get it right this year."

Obama understands that crafting energy policy is an urgent but delicate matter. The sheer complexity means that he must prioritize his time and efforts. And he's made it clear that the promotion of green energy and next generation jobs will garner his attention.

While government may provide stimulus packages and safety nets during these hard times, it will be the private sector that finishes the job. For their part, many utilities are waiting until conditions improve. Others, though, are searching for new possibilities that involve investing in new forms of generation to meet tomorrow's needs.

"We believe there remains significant investment opportunities for the industry to implement public energy policy as renewable energy resources are built and smart grid technology is evaluated and deployed," says David Parker, a utility analyst with Baird & Co. "There remains opportunity to develop a more efficient generating fleet as older generating resources are retired and replaced with more advanced technologies."

The federal government is leveraging its goodwill. But its current and future involvement are meant to resurrect the ailing economy and to create the foundation for a green energy uprising. It's an issue that gets to the heart of Obama's platform and one that will not just determine his political success but also the nation's economic and energy futures.

Ken Silverstein is an award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of Energy Central's publication, EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, he has spent several years writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors, and his work has been published in more than 100 periodicals.

Republished with permission from CyberTech, Inc. EnergyBiz Insider is published three days a week by Energy Central. For more information about Energy Central, or to subscribe to EnergyBiz Insider, other e-newsletters and EnergyBiz magazine, please go to http://www.energycentral.com/.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (23)
 
No image available
December 23, 2008
Convert the Motor City to the Turbine City
Comment 1 of 23
No image available
December 23, 2008
GE has already shown that $1.10 returns to the federal coffers for every $1 that is put into wind energy tax credits.

Trillions are going into bailing out banks (some of them not even U.S. banks). These same banks aren't even using the money to provide credit to the economy. $500,000,000,000 spent on stimulus. Only 3% is to go to energy policy ($15B), and this over a 10 year period -yet still there are those complaining.

If we really want to get this economy back on track. Let the massive banks crash and the small banks take up the slack of providing credit. Spend the $500B on completely revamping the transportation, technology and energy infrastructure. This will provide way more jobs and opportunity than the transnational banks. Money going to the banks is a black hole that increases the debt. Money on infrastructure, temporarily increases debt but in the end brings more back in taxes than goes out in subsidies. It will also increase independence and national security.
Comment 2 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
I see no future for green energy sources as long as the market price for liquid fossil fuel is allowed to fluctuate as wildly as it has recently. As an investor in "green", I can tell you that investors want more stability than that.

IMO you should spread the idea of changing today's federal flat tax on gasoline to a tax that rises when market price falls and falls when market price rises. Call it a
"floating tax" or "reversing tax" or something like that. It should be designed to hold the total price at the pump in the range of $3-$4 per gallon.

Most important, do it for crude oil so after-tax price stays at $75-100 per barrel.
Comment 3 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
I am the owner of a small "green" startup, Control Alt Energy, LLC. When the price of gasoline and home heating oil was up, so was the interest in alternative energy sources. As such, a "floating tax" would have a positive impact on my fledgling business. Having said this, my conservative views cringe at the thought of more government implementing additional tax and spend policies to redistribute wealth. The free market approach will work, demonstrate the payback on clean alternatives such as solar thermal and people will flock to alternative energy sources like no tomorrow. It may take a little longer, but artificially inflating the price of a barrel of oil is wrong no matter how you look at it. Just my opinion...
Comment 4 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
IMO we should put solar, wind, geo on every building that the state and federal goverments give aid. First buildings that come to mind are, schools, hospitals,and government buildings and parks. That should give back to the tax payers day one, give jobs to green companiens and keep the states and federal coffers from having to give aid to these buildings for energy!
Comment 5 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
We have to be careful about what the government gets involved in. The price of oil will rise again and renewable energy industries should be ready when it happens. If the risks are too high for private investors in one area and the government can provide the necessary push or lower the risk so that private investment will flow, fine. Right now the falling price of oil is muzzling international trouble makers such as in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. I don't want to prop up the price of oil to help the create a mess we will step into.
Comment 6 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
I like John's 12/24 recommendation of a floating gasoline tax. When you consider the fully-loaded cost of gasoline, including environmental, political (think petrodictatorships and terrorist funding), and military, the real cost of gasoline doesn't compare nearly as well with renewables.
Comment 7 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
MY COMPANY, CATCH THE WIND, IS PROVIDING A UNIQUE HYBRID RENEWABLE ENERGY PACKAGE THAT WILL ELIMINATE THE PUBLIC UTILITY BILL COMPLETELY ON ANY BUILDING THAT THE SYSTEM IN INSTALLED. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A 30% TAX CREDIT TO APPLY TO ANY PROJECT. WE COULD DOUBLE OUR PRODUCTION WITH A 60% OR EVEN A 100% TAX CREDIT AND REALLY IMPACT CARBON FOOTPRINTS.
Comment 8 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
I have a sinking feeling about Obama's policies. Huge amounts of ever more scarce wealth are being used to prop up the old ways. The one thing that is needed is a $1.00US per watt solar panel with a 40 year life time and if it takes a research effort akin to the one that developed the Atomic Bomb, it would be worth it. Combine that with all the other renewables and demand balancing of our grids and a huge range of nastinesses will dissapear from the world. Jimmy Carter was right all along. Lesser men had no vision.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/
Comment 9 of 23
No image available
December 24, 2008
The Big Three should recieve many billions to create a mirror assembly line, and to ramp up e-car production. Other places should recieve money to build many thousands of nuclear class steam generators, and still others for the production of graphite heat resivoirs.

CSP in the deserts should be able to do the trick of getting this economy around. Billions should be spent on clean coal (even though I don't like it) for backup baseload. And Billions more on the best battery tech. Give them big banks a token for causing oil prices to drop. Oh, and the extra powerlines, what? about 2 percent of that money? Also, a few billion on the streamlining of wind and PV.

Which leaves us with many extra billions part of which could be used to educate how to build multilevel cities with electric car mobility on every level.
Comment 10 of 23
No image available
December 25, 2008
If an electric motor for a car cost, let say $6,000 each. And a stack of batteries cost $10,000. The government should invest $32 billion to buy from the Big 3 enough motors and batteries for 2 million cars. Then tell the automakers to put these motors and batteries in their existing models and take out the traditional internal combustion engines.. Then give the opportunity for 2 million people to buy these new cars with 0% interest if they choose the electric option. Another option for the government could be to use this money to offer a tax credit of 50% to 75% of the total cost of converting their existing cars to electric. This will create new business opportunities for thousands of mechanic shops. This also could be a way to get rid of our oil dependency that is costing $700 billion a year.
Comment 11 of 23
No image available
December 27, 2008
Guys,

Alternative energy is going into a holding pattern for a few years. Its simple economics. Oil, Gas and Coal are down by 60% or so in price. In contrast, Alternative Energy prices have hardly changed.

Solar PV is going in a coma.
Electric cars are dead. (thank god - they used a net 50% coal power)
Wind is going to be scaled back.

Anything else would be irresponsible use of money.

Note, we still know how to make them. There just no rush to build them and loose money everyday like the Europeans if energy prices are low.

Let's live in the glory of cheap energy prices for a while.

Turn the heater up!
Open the Window to get some fresh air too.
Drive your SUV at 90 mph with only one passenger!

Its cheap for now!
Comment 12 of 23
December 27, 2008
Whether oil is $35 per barrel or $140, it's time to hyper-accelerate solar to not only reduce our electric load but to generate enough energy to barter for all the other energies we use. It is possible.

The Energy Credit Card at www.brobecksolarenergy.com
Comment 13 of 23
December 28, 2008
Mr. Berry, Thank you for confirming that satire is not dead.
Comment 14 of 23
No image available
December 30, 2008
The post by one commentator about fossil fuel prices being "allowed" to fluctuate has an interesting socialist feel to it....

The market will set prices efficiently and fairly for any energy source brought to the table. Subsidies, kickbacks, and (to a lesser extent) incentives distort this mechanism. Just leave the market alone, continue investments to bring down the ridiculously overpriced prices of renewables, and the rest will take care of itself.
Comment 15 of 23
No image available
December 30, 2008
I like the idea proposed by Wendy to put renewable on every government building around. Similar to having cities buy renewable fuel vehicles, for example, this approach increases market share and reduces infrastructure costs immediately, as well as exposing folks to how these things work. Wins all the way around.
Comment 16 of 23
No image available
December 31, 2008
Jim,

If left alone, I'm afraid that you may be correct about economics putting RE on hold. But stability in energy supply (and perhaps prices) is also a national security issue. Insuring security justifies government intervention and even paying too much in the short term for RE.

Infrastructure stimulus plans are needed to reestablish the economy. Hopefully, a good portion of that spending will be for RE, staving off the potential disaster if economics alone drive demand for RE.
Comment 17 of 23
January 4, 2009
Good writing, Ken.
I am unsure about stimulus plans as little more than payback for election funding et. al. I say the businesses that made foolish plans based on what they could force into the market need to fall away. The head of the list is the financials, all the big ones. The bankster boyz bailout is graft at its most blatant. Nowhere but in the United Snakes. Next is the big auto corps. The foreign companies in the US get along without our govt support. I say the big three need to die if there is nothing left of record profits of the last several years to make the cut. They screwed up! The govt should pay them for that? Get real!!
We must elect officials and petition them to have the guts to call a pig a pig and get over the idea that govt greenwash can change anything. Jobs in the green sector will appear automatically and the labor force will move there.
The govt's job is to watch over and police business, (as FDR said), and not steer it in artificial directions for their lining of their own pockets. It is no secret that politicians suck for big cash. Obama got elected from the grass roots and needs our input to make anything happen. Petition! Often! Now! Write!
Comment 18 of 23
No image available
January 4, 2009
The anticipated deficit could be reduced - by us. A little initiative by taxpayers demanding that their Senators and Representatives repeal any and all tax incentives, tax breaks, and subsidies for foreign exploration, drilling, transportation, and refining of oil would bring in a few billion dollars that have been slipping through the cracks. Not just because of their past record profits, but also because they haven't been doing their job well.

Increasing the tax burden on foreign oil while simplifying the tax rules would also put more pressure on these companies to actually come up with new developments. We've used the 'carrot' approach, now let's try the 'stick'.

Bring the oil industry back into the US, where we regulate pollution, instead of allowing it to occur unchecked overseas. Now that we realize pollution is a global problem, maybe we should stop allowing these US companies to produce fuel like they were in Cleveland in the 1950's.

With less government support for foreign oil, better alternatives will have to be arrived at, the market will demand it. Many of those better alternatives will be renewables.

US renewables and US oil production and refining will add to the US job pool.
Auto assembly line workers can work refineries, distilleries, PV and turbine assembly jobs, and the white collar jobs will be here instead of overseas.

It sounds protectioinist and centered around the US, but we have been a world leader for a long time. We need to take steps to take care of ourselves and our true allies in order to take care of the World.

China's won't.
Comment 19 of 23
No image available
January 5, 2009
Wind in Motor City.

Sorry, John Groweg. There is none.

http://firstlook.3tier.com/solar/
Comment 20 of 23
No image available
January 8, 2009
As of 1/8/2009 there are several oil tankers in holding position a.k.a. floating oil storage, around the U.S. coastal areas. That means, Oil supply is WAY up. Demand is down due to slow economic situtations, (less shipping via trucking and trains). So in conclusion, we have cheap cheap energy until we use up the excess supply.

The other problem is during less consumption of gas and diesal is less revenue that is needed to repair our roads and bridges that is several years past due to be repaired. We may need to raise the taxes for our oil products to increase revenue for necessary repairs on our infrastuctures in keeping with the inflation rates of materials and labor involved. That in turn will raise the price of our fuel of choice for the priviledge of driving on safe highways and bridges.

Having that said, the consumers will be more motivated to use alternate mode of traveling choices. Some cities are blessed to have mass transportation systems. I live in an area that is not so bless to have that system. However, I must say Adam Smith's invisible hand has been at work here. There has been a large increase in motorcycles and small cars sold in the area during the year at high gas prices. When the electric/gas plug-in hybrids come on line to sell on the market, I am sure we will buy out the area's market supply really quick. I am for one is going to be first in line to buy a plug in electric hybrids.

Have faith in the consumers. They are really not stupid.
Comment 21 of 23
January 28, 2009
How. Johnson; The west side of lower MI has a very windy shore on the L.Mi. side.
Unfortunately, they also have NIMBY homeowners along the lake. Politicians will not alienate the wallets that feed them. It calls for true courage that is in short supply. We may need national direction on what constitutes "looking right and patriotic". NIMBY conservatives are advised to take a good look at whose butt their great property value protection pads. Would they really want those sellout politicians as neighbors? Maybe, hey?
Comment 22 of 23
January 28, 2009
I too, an concerned about how the "bankster boys bailout" will offset the looting of the land, but we gave the BO the tag of POTUS by a genuine majority and I can only trust he'll give them banksters all the rope they want to show their colors. Already the Republicans are bitching and blocking bills he wants passed. I eagerly await to see what oversight he will have in place to support the plans.
Word of note; for the cost of the bailout, every home and small business in this land could have a solar water heating system in place. I wonder how that would affect the banks bottom line tho? Perhaps a caviat of interest free loans for RE projects should be a rider on that bill.
Naw..... What was I thinking!?
Comment 23 of 23
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
Spire Corporation EC Harris LLP Prism Solar Technologies, Inc Poet Solar Technologies AEE Solar
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo