Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

What is "Clean Energy," President Obama?

By Lindsay Morris
January 26, 2011   |   30 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

30 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 30
January 26, 2011
Whether this is actually met will depend almost exclusively on the definition of "clean coal".

If "clean coal" is simply coal plants that have their emissions scrubbed to sub-ppm contaminate levels of sulfur and mercurides, then yes, this is quite plausible. If "clean coal" involves deep-earth sequestration... then this is laughable. Sequestration requires a great deal of energy (dramatically increasing the total fossil output-and therfore the fossil percentage on the grid) and involves very high costs (~$100+/t-CO2), with no near-term gain that would be felt from the electricity consumers. Forcing adoption of deep-Earth sequestration would more than double the cost of energy, rendering all American-made products non-competitive... (this includes products like solar panels and components for wind turbines, btw).

There's no chance that non-fossil energy can ramp up to 80% by 2035. In fact, it's highly unlikely that nuclear energy will maintain its present output over the next couple of decades, and it will be difficult over the next decade for wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro even to scale to a point where they can offset the reduction in nuclear energy By 2035 there should be a significant reduction in fossil energy as a percentage of total energy on the grid, it's likely that there will still be more fossil energy produced in 2035 than there is today.

What would be a better goal is to try to reduce carbon emissions by a set amount by 2030. It's very close to economical to decommission an old, inefficient coal plant with an ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plant (U-SCPC), which would cut the emissions for that specified amount of power by ~60% at very little cost... Forcing the goal to be a percentage "clean energy" would only cut an additional 40% emissions at as much as 10fold the cost... Also, this goal doesn't target low-hanging fruit in the transportation sector, while a strictly emissions related goal would.
Comment
2 of 30
January 27, 2011
I asked the top science consultants to put them in order.
1 GreenNH3
2 grain ethanol
3 cell ethanol
4 algae
Why are we doing 2, 3 and 4 until we have done # 1 ??
Comment
3 of 30
January 27, 2011
Clean energy is not the burning of so called clean coal or algae. No matter how you make it burning fuels is not clean energy it is the opposite. Look at the coal ash created when burning coal where does it go? How can you burn it without making CO2?
CO2 sequestering is expensive and unreliable. This so-called clean energy will not lower our overall cost for power. It will only cost more.

Not even solar is clean energy when you think of the by products created. Look at the manufacturing going on in China. Go outside a solar manufacturing plant there and see the huge piles of toxic waste they put right into the community surrounding these plants and tell me its clean energy. Tell the people who live there its clean energy.

"Clean energy" is the production of energy producing equipment with minimal impact on the environment and this equipment when in operation does not burn fuel to make energy. This equipment must perform as any other dirty energy device in the production of energy without making any CO2. And without filling up landfills with toxic by products.

Only a few products can make the claim "Clean Energy Producer"
It is not a dream or a some day product it is reality you can read about the cleanest energy made today here at this website. www.electric-energy-today.com

Compare this to any other so-called clean energy product.
This company will install and own the "CLEAN ENERGY" equipment right on your property and sell you CLEAN ENERGY at a 50% discount from what you are paying now with no upfront money. Think about this company when you pay your next dirty energy bill.
www.electric-energy-today.com
Comment
4 of 30
January 27, 2011
Obama challenged us to "win the future." What the hell does that mean? "Sputnick moment" was used by DOE's Dr. Chu - again, without explanation.

We need a breakthrough. The goal should be "clean, affordable electricity" and the gov't should offer a $1 billion prize. Gov't and private industry have invested $400 billion on "clean energy" in the last 40 years and we haven't found a SOLUTION.

Wind and Solar schemes remain overpriced and underperforming. They will NOT solve our energy needs.

If we really want to "win the future" we need competition and reward - that's what built America.
Comment
5 of 30
January 27, 2011
For Andrew; et.al., Competition and reward can be stimulating things, but it should not come from the government, and it won't. The govt. is mostly supported by conservative money which has come from a system of deceipt of the US population (by that same conservative money) that consumerism and cheap energy through world dominance in our technology will always prevail. It has maintained a "head-in-the-sand", "full speed ahead" ideology that has permeated all levels of society, even the voting public. We want what we were promised and we want it as promised, without changes, while we watch TV and get fat while fighting lung cancer and other toxins that we are told are neccessary risks in our "modern" lifestyle. Well, guess what. hey lied to you; our military, congressional, industrial, comercial complex, and they did it for the money that the best law and comerce schools told them they would be entitled to. "Goods and services for payment" became "deception and cheating as you can avoid getting caught for superior leverage and wealth". AND, NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THIS IDEOLOGY. The filthy rich slobs; and I frame that moniker all too lightly, have no idea of their true identity in themselves or position in the world as it rots and crumbles around them. They see they are separate from their source and believe they are also separate from everyone else. They believe their bodies are the sum total of their existance, having learned this in pre-adolescence and made crucial life decisions about it and have not seen reason to question that assumption since. These are the idiots you have put into charge of overseeing the country and all that relates to daily comerce. They come from schools that teach the winning of viewpoints of debate, no matter if the basis of the viewpoint is from outmoded constraints. It will not be questioned because, after all, winning proves it is right. The ethical basis of life support has changed, but the minds of these fools has not.
Comment
6 of 30
January 27, 2011
@ phil-manke-79191:

1. It's not the end of the world.

2. Our government (DOE) spent +$30 billion on clean energy schemes in 2010 and hopes to spend more this year. They don't have much success to report.

3. A $1 billion PRIZE for a SOLUTION will be the BEST investment our government could ever make. The money is only spent with a solution.
No image available
Comment
7 of 30
Anonymous
January 27, 2011
Naysayers abound. You don't need any big breakthrough technology: the experience curve for both solar and wind power is quite steep and there's limits to how fast you can go, but ... they do work and they work quite well for non-American users. When you say they don't work you mean they don't work at the price you want to pay or rather you're willing to pay the price but not directly. Coal fired 'dirty' power generation appears cheap when you ignore the 100's of billions of direct subsidies, tax spending, subsidized transportation and even subsidized grid capacity that you pay for through your tax bill rather than your electricity bill. And, obviously, the 16,000 Americans who expire prematurely every year as a result of this business are a freebie once they stop burdening the health care system (are you laughing or coughing?).

30 billion on clean energy schemes, quite a lot of it 'clean coal' and natural gas which is arguably not clean, is a pittance - small change compared to the amount spent on protecting incompetent bankers from facing the music - America should be ashamed. And,its not true that nothing has come of it: there are some pretty big, profitable, growing, job-creating companies that have been assisted along the way by these incentives.

As it turns out, the USA sits on a vast reserve of premium solar and wind-power resources which are virtually undeveloped. There are a million good excuses why they are not ... good on yah.

Okay, so some faster, leaner, smarter guys have cornered the market in basic production while the US was not paying attention - tough. But, the big employment in green power is in integration, management and operation anyway - not jobs that can be readily exported. Jobs you can have by simply massively deploying green power at home. Note: increased volume is also the way you accelerate the experience curve - if you want it (green power) to be cheaper faster, buy more sooner.
Comment
8 of 30
January 27, 2011
While wind, solar and hydroelectric are source of electricity production with great potential, especially as the North American grid is revitalized, these energy sources are not enough to address our reliance on liquid fuels.

I believe that a major paradigm shift is coming where the industry begins to no long think of either renewable OR conventional fuel as being their business case going forward.

The paradigm shift that I am thinking of involves merging these two sectors into a new way of doing business with an improved bottom line. An example would be the simultaneous hydropyrolysis of both biomass & ancient biomass (shale, bitumen, coal, coke etc.) using electrolytic hydrogen where the hydrogen comes from cogeneration and renewable electricity.

Another example would be the use of electrolytic hydrogen in enhanced oil recovery where both steam and clean hydrogen are introduced to a failing oil reseviour to revitalize production, improve recovery efficiency and reduce the amount of refining required once the oil was brought to market.

The possibilities are endless for the potential of renewables & conventional liquid fuels production. The interesting thing about these examples is that they all require an availability of renewable hydrogen (i.e. wind, solar and hydroelectric power).

In this regard the electrification of our transportation sector may not require the production of millions of pure EVs immediately. Rather it could involve the displacement of steam methane reforming or autothermal reforming of natural gas as the energy industries primary means of producing hydrogen of refining purposes.

Finally, this paradigm shift requires that engineers, scientists and politicians realize that the whole sustainability topic evolves around getting more energy out of every tonne of carbon prior to emission to atmosphere. This can be realized by introducing renewable energy into conventional chemical bounds!
Comment
9 of 30
January 27, 2011
@ Joseph-Fournier

Look up WindFuels... We're doing what you're talking about, just on a more scalable basis.

www.WindFuels.com
Comment
10 of 30
January 27, 2011
Dear "Anonymous"

Wind and Solar schemes cannot solve our energy needs without spending $5 trillion. We don't have $5 trillion.

People doing "math" are not naysayers. They are trying to figure it out. They are analyzing the data and trying to find a solution to our energy problem.

If you have something worth any value - suggest it. Trying to demean people is sooooo old school. Today's thinkers are trying to solve problems instead of simply complaining.

Solar and wind are too expensive. That is reality.

Do you have any ideas?
Comment
11 of 30
January 28, 2011
Hi Andrew_W:

Here is a starting resource for you to calm your nerves over wind power costs: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf

Compare this to coal & IGCC power CAPEX costs:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf

As you will see they are equivalent. While wind as lower availability, it has no fuel costs.

Interesting that you say we don't have $5 trillion? The US spends approximately $400 billion per year on foreign oil; an 8% ROI and you got a complete transformation of your economy.

Consider also that the US will spend $1 to $1.5 trillion on defence & weapons in 2011. So not sure why you say we do not have the funds?

Also Andrew_W, renewable energy experts do not try to sell the concept that wind & solar energy will solve the energy puzzle. They simply can serve as an integral component of our renewable energy mix going forward.

What is your ideas?
Comment
12 of 30
January 28, 2011
Always amazes me when people like Andrew_W twist the facts to support their doomsday point of view. Best he stick with Yahoo Messenger with the rest of the "fringe". They will forever be waiting for "a breakthrough".

"If it worked everybody would be doing it." Duuhhhh, they are doing it, what's holding you back?
Comment
13 of 30
January 28, 2011
@ Joseph and Gary:

You guys must hate math. $400 billion is not $5 trillion.

You may be willing to "wait" for solar and wind to become viable, but most of us are looking for a real SOLUTION. We're not getting suckered by wind and solar cons.

No "doomsday" there, just an intelligent pursuit of a real solution.
Comment
14 of 30
January 28, 2011
It seems that for someone who believes "solar is too expensive" that simply removes solar from having to be considered. Relegate it to the "unrealistic" pile.

Solar, however is currently cheaper than grid power in approximately 15% of the US (where power prices are high). Are you against switching that 15% to solar RIGHT NOW? Why?

Of course once solar is paid for you will get electrical generation for 25 years (warrantied) and more likely 40 years with NO FUEL COST for that whole time.

If you just don't like solar because you have already "decided" it is too expensive, fine. But for those who aren't already "believers" many seem to be making up their minds that solar makes sense financially (and environmentally, and socially).

If you have a problem with solar because it is such a small percentage of the market and it seems difficult to scale quickly... Well, things scale very quickly when they make sense (think cell phones and computers). 1% doubled still isn't much, I agree, but don't bash folks who spend their money and invest their time to be a part of that 1%, which will definitely grow to 10%, 40%. Why won't it? Given that it is an amazing technology and the negatives are so minimal (Your "too expensive" being the only actual negative).

The prices will and are coming down, and for many they have already passed grid parity. Why keep trying to convince people that they are too expensive and therefore not a viable option? I don't get it. Are you "just a realist?" or is your mind already made up? What price point will make you change your mind?
Comment
15 of 30
January 28, 2011
Here is another way to look at Obama's, and the Senate Republicans, view of what is "Clean Energy'. Nuclear plants and clean coal are a long way off. They require a huge investment as do the 100 coal plants still in operation that have no environmental controls. In fact, 70% of all coal plants are over 30 years old, and a bunch have operated for over 40 years.
Credit Suisse estimates that it will take a $70B investment in those old coal plants to give renewables a level environmental playing field. The ratepayers will pay that bill.
Then there are the $16billion in annual tax expenditures that go to the fossil fuel industry, also tipping that playing field away from renewable investment. At least the G20 is requiring us all to get rid of those tax preferences and the new budget addresses them.
So let's take what is there now. We have the technology for huge grid reductions from efficiency and roof-top solar, to which we can add offshore wind where the capacity is enormous and some of the onshore issues not relevant. We can work FAST and beat the issue of what is CLEAN.
Comment
16 of 30
January 28, 2011
I have not said it is the end of the world, at least not to anyone outside the Fed. I do say that solutions will not come from the government in its present form because it is capital based. I.E., money dependent, and budding new industries have not the established funds to pay our senators and rep's thru PACs and lobbiests. Nothing will change in the present form until a way to fund their corruption is allowed to be put in place. Ask anyone who knows how big government works.

Here is an idea; "Declare war" on the carbon energy deficit. Convert the military industries to the mandatory production of RE technology. The money channels already are in place, as is the work force and infrastructure.

Yeah, that'll happen.
Comment
17 of 30
January 28, 2011
@simpleenergy:

Solar costs $.25-$.45 per kWh. That's not affordable. It's also not dispatchable.

Get solar to $.10 per kWh AND dispatchable and it becomes a valuable part of the solution.

Most estimates I've seen suggest that's 20 years from now. It belongs in the lab until it is competitive. Until then, we shouldn't be wasting billions on solar and wind development schemes (SEE Spain).
Comment
18 of 30
January 28, 2011
Looks like Andrew ignored the links that like most other sources of information on wind energy CAPEX, clearly show that wind is at grid-parity to coal in many locations in the US.

Andrew, here is another attempt: take the $400 billion and spend for 12 years and you have the $5 trillion you were referring to!

The plain truth is that the economics are already in place for large scale penetration of wind with agreeable ROI (Andrew - Return on Investment). TransCanada is planning on building two 3 GW HVDC lines from the WidWest (high wind region) and deliverying it further south closer to the planned Tres Amigas superconducting interconnection. Tres Amigas will connect all three primary grid systems in the US into one highly robust national grid system.

Clearly these massive projects are proceeding largely with Venture Capital and Equity Market funds because wind and renewable energy is not economical Andrew! You must be right:)

By the way, read Glenn Doty's www.WindFuels.com site. Fascinating facts!!
Comment
19 of 30
January 28, 2011
DOE says that in 2016 Wind will still be $.15 a kWh and Solar will be $.25-$.39. That's not affordable. Natural Gas and Coal will be $.08-$.10 per kWh.

Those are FACTS, not your wishful thinking. We need real data, not cheerleading.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2010.pdf
Comment
20 of 30
January 28, 2011
@ Andrew,

The problem with the DOE estimates is that they are nationwide average costs, not best-case costs.

When we (Doty Energy group) talk about wind potential, we are specifically looking at the Wind Corridor - which cannot see much additional wind penetration without our help, but still...

When the DOE looks at wind, they are looking at all wind projects, from Main and New York to Washington to Hawaii.

There is a HUGE difference in final cost of energy between 45% capacity factor and 17% capacity factor. The average falls in between.

Furthermore, the DOE rates the lifetime of the wind turbines at 20-25 years, but there's no evidence to show that will be a median or mean productive lifespan, as 98% of the wind turbines built 25 years ago are still producing at spec.

Give the same projects a 40-year rating and run the numbers, and those numbers look better. There's still the issue of curtailment and the fact that 70+% of the energy is produced off-peak, with 40+% of the energy produced irregularly at night... and you still have some issues, but wind in the wind corridor is profitable until it penetrates beyond ~8% deeper penetration than hydro (which in the wind corridor is quite low).

After a viable path towards grid stability is deployed (ahem - WindFuels), wind should be quite profitable even with penetration exceeding 50%.
Comment
21 of 30
January 29, 2011
@Glen:

The Wind Corridor doesn't include full transmission costs. Texas needs to invest billions to get the electricity to the areas of demand. I also haven't seen evidence that these turbines will last 40 years without significant investments in maintenance.

I know wind and solar schemes can produce some results, but the don't solve our Nation's energy needs - not affordably or efficiently.

We need a breakthrough.
Comment
22 of 30
February 1, 2011
JimW---open the valve to a tank of NH3 and take a deep breathe.

That is why no one wants to use it.
Comment
23 of 30
February 1, 2011
I'll fess up, I'm still trying to get my head around the whole "energy question" and I've been studying it pretty much full time for about a year now.

That said, I have come to some conclusions based upon everything that I've read;

1) Scaling up. Not only is it possible, it's going to be totally necessary! Possible because we've done this sort of thing before. The adoption of cellular technology and of computers was mentioned above, but you can also look at the rate of progress in air flight or the "transistorization" of the world as two other examples of changes that have been made to our society in a relatively short period of time.

Necessary because be it 2009, 2014 or 2094, the fact of the matter is that we're running out of oil and the sooner we accept this fact, the better off we'll all be!

2) There is no such thing as "Clean Coal". From extraction to the burning of it, coal is dirty. When you burn coal, the carbon that is sequestered in it is transformed into a gas that has something like 8 times the volume of the coal itself. While the earth is big, it can only hold so much of this gas.

While technologies may someday be developed to deal with this fact, my guess is that they are going to be very expensive and probably not very effective. Even if they are successful, you still have to take into account all of the other environmental and health problems associated with coal such as the release of toxic chemicals into the environment and degradation to the land.

3) "True" costs comparisons. If you take all of the fossil fuel subsidies (both direct and indirect) out of the equation, wind, solar and other renewables are already competitive without nearly the environmental side effects.

It really comes down to a question of political will and being smart enough to make the switch before Mother Nature forces us to!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
24 of 30
February 6, 2011
I'm afraid that "Clean Energy" means whatever the Public Servants decide it means.

That's not to say hope is lost, the end is near, but it doesn't mean Utopia is approaching either.

Once upon a time, roads were crowded with chromium-plated dinosaurs that pumped lead compounds into the air at a horrifying rate, and everything else in the world was made of asbestos, mercury, DDT, and PCBs.

We are the survivors, and offspring of the survivors of the "Silent Spring". I don't think we are going to kill ourselves or the planet that easily.

I also don't think we're going to realize a paradigm shift from solar, wind, hydro, geo, or the healing power of crystals. I don't think we'll have a breakthrough in fusion, or that someone will put up orbital solar arrays and 'beam' the power back to earth.

We are going to continue to burn coal, and research ways of converting coal, or cleaning the output of coal burners, or something else we could do with coal, and over time, by trial and error, maybe make a little progress.

I continue to have hope that something like the electronics revolution will happen, but that would require something that is now only Science Fiction. The efficiencies we really want and need are still too far out of reach.

Push, forward, onward, upward, and don't worry about what the government says it is going to do. Elections are always just a few years away.

Personally, I am hoping for a return of the 55mph speed limit, this time with the enforcement to make it work. Why?

1] KE=1/2M*V2
2]35,000-40,000 traffic casualties annually

Those facts are a lot more real and decisive than "clean coal".
Comment
25 of 30
February 6, 2011
@ David_Larson: The great thing about breakthroughs is that most people do not expect them.

I don't think anybody expects the government to solve our energy problems. In fact, I don't think they expect them to be solved.

That's why we need to be surprised. With something real. Nuclear has already been dismissed. They need to be resurrected if they want to compete.

I have NO reason to believe that a breakthrough isn't waiting to happen. People just need to seeking it.
Comment
26 of 30
February 6, 2011
Mr.Larson:From everything that I've read, I've come to the conclusion that coal is dead; it, the coal industry and the politicians just don't realize it yet.

Yes, we can bury our heads in the sand and keep mining and burning it, but at what cost? Already, we are creating huge environmental messes such as ash and slurry ponds, not to mention the mercury and other toxins that are a by-product of coal mining.

I've read that something like 14,000 people die prematurely each year in the US as a result of these toxins.

Then there is the issue of "Ocean Acidification" which is the biggest problem that few people have ever heard of. If you're not familiar with the problem, it's basically that as a result of our burning of coal and other fossil fuels that we've raised the PH balance in the ocean enough to disrupt the formation of calcium carbonate shells.

If we only lost a few species of clams, this would be one thing, but we are also losing the coral reefs,which are made up of small creatures with calcium carbonate shells, because before they can reach sexual maturity their shells dissolve. As a result, the reefs are dying.

If you consider that 85% of the oceans creatures spend some portion of their life cycles in the reefs, this is very problematic... maybe even problematic enough to threaten our very survival as a species because if you kill the oceans, we aren't very far behind!

Have you noticed that I haven't even mentioned "climate change" in this diatribe? There's that too!

So, it might not be tomorrow, but eventually reality is going to catch up with us and we're going to have to face the fact that the use of coal will have to be on a very limited basis if we are to survive....at least survive in anywhere near the numbers that we currently have.

Nobody changes unless there is enough pain to make them want to change. That day may be coming!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
27 of 30
February 7, 2011
@FreeAsTheWind:

It doesn't have to be "painful" to motivate change, it can also be attractive or affordable that creates change. Our energy industry is a mess. Having a plan would be a good start. Try finding one online - they don't exist.
Comment
28 of 30
February 7, 2011
Hi Andrew: Maybe on the small, easy stuff something that may be attractive or affordable might bring about a change, but on the big, hard things I don't think that this is the case.

If you're fat and happy sitting where you're sitting, there generally isn't any reason to subject yourself to the aggravation of changing.

Think of the price of gasoline as an example; at .99 a gallon, very few people were even considering alternatives to their gasoline cars. At $4.00 a gallon, bicycle sales are booming!

A plan would be a good start!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Comment
29 of 30
February 9, 2011
"Clean Energy", is that like "Change"? Perhaps he should rephrase and say the end to "Dirty Money". Also 2035? Is he, or any other congressman going to be around then to sign the bill? If he can predict the future, he should be doing something better than being a puppet. If he is being sincere and honest, why not do it now? What will be said in 2035? Oops. Sorry. I thought it would be so. Oh well, we tried. Guess we were wrong, again. Sorry for waiting, but we can't help you now.......
No image available
Comment
30 of 30
Anonymous
February 9, 2011
No Plan, no Progress. That's America.
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

Lindsay Morris

View Lindsay Morris's Profile
About: I am an associate editor for Power Engineering magazine. I cover EPA's regulations for the power industry in detail. When it comes to renewables, I write regula... more »

Advertise With Us

Zep Solar DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability Rich Hessler Solar Business Development Apricus, Inc. ONTILITY Solar Training Quick Mount PV HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters