Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Obama: Sticking to "Promise of Clean Energy"

By Lindsay Morris
January 25, 2012 | 18 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

In his Jan. 24 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama reinstated his commitment to renewable energy. Despite the demise of solar manufacturer Solyndra looming over the past year of his term, Obama said that he “will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.”

Obama called for a commitment by the Defense Department to purchase 1,000 MW of renewable energy. He also referenced the long-standing Interior Department commitment to permit 10,000 MW of renewable energy projects on public land this year.

The President called again on Congress to pass a “clean energy standard” that would require electric utilities to glean 80 percent of their power from natural gas, nuclear and renewable sources by 2035, and a permanent extension of a federal production tax credit for wind power.

With uncertainty over the future of the PTC, which is set to expire at the end of this year, layoffs have already begun in the wind industry, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Bryan Ritterby of Holland, Mich.-based wind turbine manufacturer Energetx Composites was First Lady Michelle Obama’s guest and also mentioned by Obama during the speech. This was the fifth time wind power has been mentioned in the SOTU in the last decade, by President George W. Bush in 2006 and 2007 and previously by President Obama in 2009 and 2011.

The speech also reflected a commitment to the solar industry, which has been experiencing challenges due to photovoltaic debates brewing between China and the U.S. over illegal dumping.

“I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

Obama said that despite challenges encountered in the renewable energy industry, solar, wind and hydro deserve the same federal subsidies that oil and gas companies have received for decades.

“It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs.”

Solar Energy, Wind Power, Solar Tech

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.

18 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 18

Anonymous

January 25, 2012

The SOTU speech was bloated with bromides intended to influence the electorate rather than the congress; he was trying to campaign rather than govern. A call to extend the PTC for 5 years is something that could pass the congress, a call for a clean energy standard is dead on arrival. After Obama's denial of the Keystone pipeline and his combative stance in the SOTU, the renewable energy community should expect very little help from the congress this year and a congress that is even less receptive to its needs in 2013. Renewable energy support at the Federal level has now become a divisive campaign issue whereas a more-limited plan could have become a consensus policy.
Steven

Comment
2 of 18

brian-ballek-52819

January 26, 2012

I'm afraid it was already too late to avoid renewable energy support becoming "a divisive campaign issue". It was probably also impossible for Obama to say anything in the SOTU about renewables (or indeed anything else) without campaigning. It's an election year and it's pretty clear the GOP is going to be gunning hard against renewables in the wake of the Solyndra and Evergreen insolvencies. So while I would be in full agreement (and equally annoyed with Obama) in another year, I think in this SOTU he's doing the only thing he can: make a clear statement on his stance toward renewables and attempt to rally renewable supporters. Should he have gone for a more achievable, 5-year extension of the PTC for wind power? Perhaps but I think it would have entailed a double-risk: (A) that the GOP-controlled Congress rejects even a 5-yr extension just to thwart Obama in an election year (though I think they'd do that in ANY year, no matter what policy Obama put forward) and (B) that the "mere" 5-yr extension would weaken his standing among more die-hard renewable supporters. Given that, I think there's a strong tactical justification for his stance on the PTC. Political pandering, to be sure. But you're going to be getting lots of that from both parties starting now. Pick your poison.

Comment
3 of 18

Anonymous

January 26, 2012

Sigh.
Delta Petroleum, Getty Petroleum Marketing,OZ Gas, etc, - petro chapter 11s with one at #12 for the year at 1024 million. Seems like a good reason to get out of the oil and gas business.
Or how about #1 @40,542 million -- time to wind up the commodities and derivatives business don't you think?

Don't you just love 'never miss a chance to take a shot' politics? Yesterday's benchmark: 0.13% of all motor vehicles caught fire (1 every 64 seconds)while 0.013% of all Chevy Volts caught fire - Obviously, it's Obama's fault that the NHTSA took so long to warm the public about this huge safety risk because he is the reason that the US fed owns a piece of GM; 'yah ... that's the ticket'! Sadly, this cut and hack pollutes every discussion. From the debates you can see how badly Republicans are willing to treat each other; just imagine how much farther they will go against Democrats e.g. "Congress wants to keep pizza and french fries on school lunch lines, fighting back against an Obama administration proposal to make school lunches healthier."

Comment
4 of 18

GregorS

January 26, 2012

Like most political discussions, the State of the Union, and the President did pass up the opportunity to raise the discussion of mini-wind energy systems that can and should be incorporated within the strucutures of homes and commercial properties that have less than 4,000 sq ft. In so doing you you can improve on the possibility of just a solar component or just a Geothermal component, but adding to other systems, including construction conservation methods, coming up with a significant aggregate effect of zero energy use achievable even for mid-income families. Combine this concept with feed-in tarrifs and it becomes a passive income source as well.
I'd like to be associated with those who also are thinking that combinations just might be the long term solution to energy independence for residential and small business owners that are concerned about future energy costs as well as current ones!

Comment
5 of 18

Anonymous

January 26, 2012

Regarding the remarks of GregorS in comment #4:
Small wind systems are uncompetitive except possibly for off-grid applications. Furthermore, it would be unwise for the President to be seen as advocating particular technologies because the notion that Government should pick winners and losers is deeply unpopular in the US congress. There is probably just enough support for the notion that businesses need longer term market stability to push through an extension of the extant wind, solar, and geothermal incentives. Had the President been willing to approve the Keystone pipeline, he might have used that as a bargaining chip to gain some marginal adjustments to renewable policy in addition to the timely extension of the PTC. Anything more would be seen as a campaign ploy rather than an attempt to govern. Grand plans do not pass in election years and grandiose Presidents do not coast to re-election.
Steven

Comment
6 of 18

steve-poppitz-157135

January 27, 2012

Get real. The Keystone project will cost billions (maybe a trillion)to build, and extract $8+/gal. tar-sands oil. Let the Chinese buy all they can. You made the right decision Mr.President.For the next decade or so, we will be extracting light sweet crude from the Bakken Reserve in North Dakota which is even closer to the mega-refineries in Houston. With the money saved there the average American will be able to drive PEH vehicles soon. The Pres. should have spent even more time on that BATTERY ISSUE.The best gallon of gas is the one not burnt.Oil is seriously old school and if you are on this site you probably know that. More focus on the future guys.

Comment
7 of 18

GregorS

January 27, 2012

Well, the President has the right idea for now, that natural gas could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources, but it will hurt those trying to manuever into new oil plays and those going the entire fossil fuel route. As for the ineffacy of residential products that can affect the impacts of fuel costs at the residential level, I suggect that if the fiscal options to do it were enabled, the private market would show just how beneficial it can be since wind and solar dual source products with the correct inverter systems has been shown in Oregon and California as well as in Colorado, not only to be beneficial, but prefered, since multiple inputs offers greater savings over a 20 year period, and gives local utilities a distribution edge for lower transmission loss costs. It isn't unfeasible, it is just not well explained. And as for the Pipeline, it was not well thought out, since it crosses some serious water sources and at its size, it is impractical to protect it without serious cost overruns and for what outcome? Exporting the oil? It is a Canadian dream, not an American one. We already have three smaller pipelines working their way across Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, so that Cushing, Oklahoma can more easily divest its 500 Billion Gallon facilities of excess capacity it does not get paid enough to maintain. The idea is to reduce the price difference between Midland Sweet crude and Brentwood English rates, which are out of sync and not reasonably fair. The difference in refining the two are very minimally impacted by higher sulphur content. Best we get Natural gas to school busses and heavy industries that can best use the differences in costs to enable more positive growth and ease of supplying since it is all American fuel, not imported from OPEC or from Oil monopolies in regional markets in the USA.

Comment
8 of 18

John-Bronson

January 29, 2012

Pocketbook issues are what affect voters. Obama's big blunders are the Gulf moratorium, the Keystone pipeline, and delaying the blend wall decision. When gasoline hits $5/gallon this summer, voters will be angry.

Comment
9 of 18

steve-poppitz-157135

January 29, 2012

do you mean You'll be angry John? I had a party when the Keystone announcement went down. I hope the Canadians can sell all the high sulpfur sludge oil they can to the Chinese. We Americans will be refining light sweet crude from the Bakken reserve and building lithium ion battery plants BECAUSE we have an intelligent president ... for a CHANGE. Wanna bet he's re-elected right after that summer of discontent?

Comment
10 of 18

John-Bronson

January 29, 2012

No Steve, I'll still be happy. Most Americans don't care about Keystone or the Gulf, but they do care about the price of gas. And your "intelligent", "clean energy" president squandered away a trillion dollar stimulus on "buy the vote" cash rebates, and welfare deadbeats. We could have had a trillion watts of PV with that money. Yes, I'll take that bet.

Comment
11 of 18

Anonymous

January 29, 2012

@steve-poppitz, regarding comment #9:
Celebrating a Pyrrhic victory is sheer folly. Stalling the Keystone pipeline will not reduce tar sand oil production a single drop. What it did do was insult a staunch ally, delay, if not scuttle, a major source of new jobs and secure oil, and make the president seem doctrinaire and out of touch. He handed the Republicans a very useful campaign talking point and missed a decent chance to couple the pipeline adoption with some modest programs supporting renewables. This president is the worst bargainer to occupy the office in some time. Perhaps the president is intelligent, but he is surely unwise. Maybe he will be better suited to his next position.
Steven

Comment
12 of 18

GregorS

January 30, 2012

John, first of all, with 500 Billion gallons of crude sitting in Cushing, Oklahoma right now, I would strongly doubt that $5 a gallon, unless you are talking about Europe, where it has often been that high already. The facts are that the USA has plenty of supply of oil, both domestic and foreign at the present time. The Oil companies want IRAN to do something foolish. They are gambling on their short plays and their buys, and just like all companies that bet on unrest and difficulties, they might or might not suceed in getting their price break to happen, but I've seen the results of gambling with short sells and the like. Bankrupt companies dealing with oil sales line the courts today, especially from Oklahoma and Texas. SO do not bet on it...We have consistent production that can easily make up any difference in foreign issues with OPEC or with Iran. But they will still sell the scarcity issue, since they can make big profits like they have done many times in the past, despite controls set in place for price gouging. It happens, but it shouldn't. Once Americans get smart and convert to their own personal electric supply, not having to interface with the public grid, then those who took that small risk will be huge winners, and those that stuck with oil will be stuck in smaller and smaller markets. Natural gas has 20 years to get their marketing right, but after that, the cost effective choice will be solar and Hybrid Electric cars that can run on multi-fuels and can recharge at home overnight. Then the rule of oil will be so reduced, there will be no need to subsidize Big oil or NG as is being done these days and has been for 6-7 decades.

Comment
13 of 18

John-Bronson

January 30, 2012

@GregorS

What you have left out of the equation is the Fed's money printing operation. It's not just the supply of oil, but the supply of dollars chasing that oil.

A few years ago OPEC said $75/barrel was their target price. Now it's $100/barrel. Soon it will be $125, etc. We keep printing money, they keep raising their price targets.

Comment
14 of 18

GregorS

January 31, 2012

Although not all things are the result of Republican politics, that surely is one component that is, since the FED has always been coddled by the Republican party, to the irritation of Libertarians that now find they are a part of that (REP)party and clearly wish to change that Keynesian idea. Trouble is, that the FED is a hard thing to dismantle. They are so used to interfering in the money supply, it has become an addiction to all Keynesian government activities, making Hayeckian philosophy seem much more warrented than it is. Oil is just one component in that issue and it is so complicated, it will take years to come to a sufficient adjustment that does work, so much so that it may be too late to avoid the Greece and Italian issues of failing economies in the USA. We aren't that weak yet, but the dollar is subject to both "Too Big to fail", and "The FED can always print more" rationales set forth by Republicans that see the dollar as a safety net, since the world oil economies go by dollars and not by the Euro. But, for American companies, it harms their profits, by diluting the value of the dollar. And also, it endangers the dollar as a medium of exchange, especially if China eventually decides to devalue the dollar by pushing its own currency. America is at risk in that regard, so there is a state department connection to oil sales as well. But it will all go away if the USA switches to other fuels, and thus, those with dollars find they need to prop it up, simply because they own more of them. The result of that will be the FED restricting dollars by drying up excess credit, since the cycle is coming around to that point again. If the USA switches to NG and Solar, Wind, and GEO-thermal, watch how the game rapidly changes!

Comment
15 of 18

steve-poppitz-157135

January 31, 2012

GregorS, good comment. if you'd like to read opinions on our completely corrupt FED (which is not Federal, and not a Reserve) go get THE CREATURE OF JEKYL ISLAND. And, I am half way thru THE LONG EMERGENCY by James Kunstler. Very interesting so far. It is one man version about the effects of Peak Oil on our economy and life style. It was published in 2005. So far I haven't got into many predictions, but his history and observations are good. I wish that I could agree with you that "If and when we switch to NG,Solar,Wind and GeoTh.(and we are SLOWLY) that there would be a "rapid game change" but I'm affraid we are going slowly into a dark period. Less travel. Less luxury. Local food. Isolationism. And watch counties that are early adaptors of R.E. do better, ie,Germany,Brazil,Spain etc.

Comment
16 of 18

John-Bronson

January 31, 2012

@GregorS

Republicans create deficits? Really? You better check your facts there GregorS, because Obama has spent as much in 4 years, as Bush did in 8 years.

And the programs that cause those deficits (welfare, food stamps, unemployment comp, etc.) are favored by the Democrats.
These types of "free money" giveaway programs are what destroyed the Greek economy, and they will destroy the US economy if allowed to continue.

In the state I live, you can earn $50,000/yr and still collect food stamps. Then use those food stamps to buy steaks, lobster tails, and caviar. The welfare deadbeats not only get get free food, but free housing, free medical/dental, free car insurance, free cell phones, and a check on top of that. Why work?

Comment
17 of 18

steve-poppitz-157135

January 31, 2012

John-Bronson,
You ought to find the Rush Limbaugh site.

Comment
18 of 18

GregorS

February 1, 2012

John, you should be aware that it is the Congress that appropriates money, not the Administration of the period when a President is presiding. I do not doubt that Obama has issues, but George Bush actually started with a balenced budget from Bill Clinton, and proceeded to end any hope of balanced anything, creating huge deficits by cutting taxes and not paying debts. The national debt rose very high under his period in office. It has always been the Republican's weakness.
But in your situation, your state is a fault, not the Federal government that does not establish the rules for each state. Your state is to blame for your current dilemmas. As for Free money, you should check on all the free money the oil and gas industry gets every time they drill, and the depreciation allowances they get to cut their taxes when those depreciation allowances should rightfully go to the royalty owners, whom oil and gas people are abusing by forcing production taxes and debts they do not owe upon them, while themselves taking the benefits of those, as if they had paid them. Now thats a rip-off all royalty owners want to see solved as well! As for the role of energy in all this, under a realligned US Department of Energy, where all the forms of energy are correctly developed and managed under one agency, then we would see real changes that would benefit all Americans and would not favor Oil and gas so much, allowing new industries that do not require EPA oversight to deliver the majority of American power and energy.

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!

Lindsay Morris

Add to my network

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 »