President Barack Obama has launched what is to be a new era of clean energy development in the U.S., announcing that this could be a “Sputnik moment.” During the Jan. 25 State of the Union address, he urged Americans to rally around a new goal: Obtaining 80 percent of America's electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.
While to some, Obama’s announcement means the accelerated growth of renewable energy, “clean energy” can be broadly defined. To conservationists, "clean energy" would likely mean 100 percent renewable energy. To others, "clean energy" could mean 100 percent clean coal. My understanding is that President Obama is referring to a combination of all the resources – renewable energy, nuclear, natural gas, and yes, even clean coal.
“It is a very ambitious goal, and it is also a very vague and broad goal,” said Jeff Davis, co-head of the renewable energy practice at the Mayer Brown law firm.
Currently, the U.S. coal fleet generates roughly half of all electrical output. “There are reports that we’ll still be using the same percentage from coal in 2035. It will just be clean coal,” Davis said. According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, coal-fired generation will drop to less than one-third of total generation by 2030 – less than half, but still a sizeable amount.
While the definition of clean coal is unclear, renewable energy is expected to continue to grow in the coming decades. Davis said that the ripening of this “low-hanging fruit” – wind and solar is “key to the continued support of clean energy.”
In order to reach the goal of 80 percent clean energy by 2035, Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said renewable energy incentives and policies must reach a place of predictability allowing that “energy sources that will never run out ... instead of keeping renewable energy on a constant one-year footing.”
In December, the U.S. House approved the passage of a tax bill that includes a one-year extension of Section 1603 (Treasury Grant Program). Incentives for renewables typically have been extended one year at a time, leaving renewable energy industries little room to plan long-term projects and investments.
“It’s time to reorient the tax code to predictable policies,” Bode said. “Predictability of the permanent incentives for conventional energy sources is as important as the amounts.”
Davis said that incentives for renewable energy are a must, but the source for funding incentives is questionable. “A large part of the State of the Union address focused on deficits and reducing them, but at the same time the President is talking about providing incentives for clean energy. How do we pay for these incentives?”
The President seemed to signal that energy incentives could come from the reduction of oil subsidies. The oil subsidies vs. renewable energy incentives debate will be an interesting one to watch as it unfolds in the new Congress, given the historic way in which the different sides of the aisle have voted.
According to Obama, clean energy is an “investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet and create countless new jobs for our people.” If clean energy is defined as renewable energy, then this goal could prove to be lofty. But if clean energy is a mix of clean coal, nuclear, renewable energy and natural gas, then this goal is undoudtedly attainable. The current and proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions control regulations alone are enough to guarantee that all existing coal in 2035 will be "clean."
“It’s advantageous to define the goal broadly in order to achieve it,” Davis said.
While the bar has been set, it will be up to Congress to pass legislation that allows the goal of 80 percent clean energy by 2035 to come to pass.
1 of 30
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.