Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Don't Throw Away the Crumbs

By Scott Sklar
August 15, 2005   |   16 Comments
An Energy Bill Perspective

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"While the renewable energy credits are all set to expire after two years, the nuclear credits run to 2020, clean coal to 2015, natural gas pipelines to 2010, and coke gas incentives to 2009."

- Scott Sklar, RE Insider

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

16 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 16
August 15, 2005
Scott,
I can barely rationalize the $3.1 billion to electric utilities (although I know of none to be short of cash, which may be a reason Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway. likes them), if that money is used to upgrade the electrical distribution infrastructure (Utilities don't like to waste "good cash" on that sort of thing.) and (heresy) increase nuclear power production. For the hydrogen economy, nuclear power is the only way to produce huge quantities of hydrogen. It appears we have given up on electric cars and need to turn our electricity into H. Finally, the $2.6 billion to the oil and natural gas industries is pure "nose holding" pork. Over the past decade, energy companies bought resources and nurtured their stock prices rather than looking for oil or building refineries. Could this $2.6 billion buy them enough conscience to keep us in fossil fuels just long enough for renewables and H to come to the rescue? Perhaps the later, but don't count on the former.
Comment
2 of 16
August 15, 2005
I wonder why, though, the bulk and breadth of the subsidies goes to industries that we know are a) mature and profitable, b) unsafe from a political and terrorism point of view, and c) bad for our environment. Personally, yes, I'm delighted that we got anything given this current administration and their relationship with fossil fuel - and I don't believe we should be sulking - but celebrating the crumbs thrown our way only allows the 'business as usual' folks to ignore us a bit longer.
Using these funds to build renewables, get the word out, build public sentiment is critical. Maybe come 2008 we'll have a better outlook - either driven by a shift in public sentiment against the war and oil or simply better 'inside the belway' leadership.
Comment
3 of 16
August 15, 2005
Hello. You are stating that the new energy bill expires after two years. But that might be just enough to push the alternative ways of creating energy into the "steep" area of a rising curve.

http://sharp-world.com/solar/generation/shipment.html

As you see in the above graph, Japan and Europe are allready in that "steep" area. I hope with the energy bill you are wrting about, the us will also enter that area.

When a lot of producers are on the market, it is unlikely that the trend of sharp's rising curve will reverse, at least soon. Using especially solar photovoltaics needs time.
Best regards, Ron Jansen, the Netherlands
Comment
4 of 16
August 15, 2005
I can't help but feel that the industry is in danger of going back to an old habit - sulking and infighting instead of striving and unifying.

With tiny DC resources, solar and wind obtained credits critical to their continued growth. With an installed capacity less than 1/100 that of conventional energy, I am personally amazed and proud that we obtained the policies we did.

The question is, do we use these credits to grow, bring in new stakeholders, and make the big push for a true sustained program, or mumble and kick at the dirt because we didn't somehow "beat" a trillion dollar sector in the bill? Do we want to make an industry, or just make a point?

I personally am willing to let go of a cherished victimhood if it puts one more panel on one more roof, but the reason I ask is because you will have a lot to say in this regard, Scott - your referring to what was done by the "inside the beltway players" is like hearing Tom Cruise refer to "those kooks in Hollywood..."
Comment
5 of 16
August 16, 2005
Let's not forget state-level incentives.

States are competing to be the hubs of activity in the new energy technology industry. One of their competitive tools is incentives that bring costs down and accelerate adoption.

<a href="http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/02/2005_energy_bil_1.html">Westinghouse and GE</a> may be dancing with glee, but <a href="http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/08/smart_grid.html">Washington state</a> and GA are adding jobs and industrial tax bases in cleantech, renewables, and smart energy.
Comment
6 of 16
August 16, 2005
After looking at the energy bill, I wasn't sure who my government works for. So I have a choice of spending $20K on the political process to try to get my people in power or spend $20 K on energy self sufficency. I cannot beleive that educated people are leading this country. I could do my diatribe on the difference between lawyers (unemployed english majors) and scientists and economists looking at the future of this country. Letting go of the sarcasm, I am full of grief over the energy situation.
Comment
7 of 16
August 16, 2005
Scott got it right of course. This is a person who has labored for years and years in RE. And he is clearly inside the Beltway savvy. Don't you know it must break his heart that this Energy bill was the best that was able to emerge out of the Republican controlled Congress of 2005. Yes, thank God for the crumbs. May that they might yet feed the masses. And prey to God that we awaken from our stupor before the future is lost on our watch.
Comment
8 of 16
August 17, 2005
An excellent review and it is gratifying to see the quality of the comments from the readers.

I too am grateful for the "crumbs". It is a start but also discouraging to see the attitudes of the political leaders of BOTH PARTIES who are more interested in distributing pork than solving problems.
The biggest disappointment was the lack of a national renewables portfolio and interconnect standards without which, we are making very little progressfrom a pragmatic perspective.

I'm aware of at least five large agricultural anaerobic digesters being built now without provision for utilizing the produced biogas for anything except heating the digester itself. The remaining methane will be flared off into the atmosphere because the utilities won't pay a reasonable price which will allow the farmers to invest the capital.

These alone amount to a potential output of 5,000 kWh or 16,000 + gallons of LNG per day.
Comment
9 of 16
August 17, 2005
Remember that when dinosaurs ruled the earth, back when all those lovely hydrocarbons now locked deep beneath the surface were floating around the atmosphere turning our planet into a sauna, the mammals were there. The mammals were small. They lived on the crumbs dropped from the big guy's leftovers. They survived because they were beneath the notice of the giant lizards.
However, when the environment changed and the climate no longer provided the warmth and vast quantities of food needed for the dinosaur economy, the dinosaurs died and the mammals expanded to become dominant.
Kind of like today.
So eat those crumbs. Use them as efficiently as possible. The climate is changing.
Comment
10 of 16
August 17, 2005
In 1963, when I first entered the industry of renewable energy, I had a dream. The dream that I had was that renewable energy sources could produce all of our energy requirements at a real cost less than the real cost of fossil fuels.

That was 42 years ago. I still have that dream. Whether or not renewable energy sources receive adequate subsidies is irrelevant. If renewable energy is to become dominant, it must be able to be produced at a real cost, not a subsidized cost, equal to or less than the cost of energy produced by fossil fuels.

If we are to be successful, our focus must be on reducing the cost of renewable energy to competitive levels, not whether or not we got our share of taxpayer subsidies.

Thank you,
Charles Butterfield
Comment
11 of 16
August 19, 2005
Mike Bailis */19?05
Paul is right on the $$$. The tax credits and rebates surely help the industry move forward "cautiously aggressive" however ultimately the increased cost of fuel, and electricity, and all others fuels we are dependent on will "persuade" most people to consider the alternate choices. Our job is to look for the most cost effective applications, and aggressively market our products and services to them. The more succesful we are the more likely we can go back to the governments and utilities and say see "this works and you need to invest in everyones future"! Good selling eveyone!
Comment
12 of 16
August 19, 2005
Charles, you hit the mark with your comment. Subsidies will never drive us to where we want to be. While they can help, the biggest support for Renewable Energy is happening right now.

$60 oil
$3 gas
$10 natural gas

It doesn't matter if the government funding was crumbs or a full meal. It will never drive the RE engine like high priced petroleum. Although no one here can control it, $100 oil is the BEST thing that could ever happen for Renewable Energy.
Comment
13 of 16
August 19, 2005
From the perspective of Wall Street, the energy bill was a non-event. I support Scott in asking for stronger political leadership in renewable technologies but reality is....banks, brokers, investors own more traditional energy. Coal, oil and gas dominate investment dollars and demand political attention. Scott is right to complain about the short term PTC and lack of a federal RPS. At least the MBTE liability still rests with the private markets. These traditional investors may eventually realize oil companies are just annuities with marginal net returns whereas energy technologies like PV and wind offer growth. This energy bill allows the natural market progression of the global decarbonization trend...that has been in existence for over 100 years! We are on this track and only bad politics could stop it. Maybe we are fortunate to have an energy bill that does not obstruct the global trend in sustainable energy
Comment
14 of 16
August 20, 2005
I agree with Charles Butterfield and Paul Johnson. The very best incentive for renewable energy is the huge price increases in the fossil fuel industry. Renewables will soon or can maybe even now provide more BTU's at more favorable prices than fossil fuels. Consumer's can appreciate simple supply and demand economics and the resulting price increases. They can be educated by renewable industry marketers on how to make changes that will benifit their expenditures. Sell them! If the renewable industry has any market forces whatsoever, then they will find a way to compete favorably against fossil fuels and win more market share. In Europe, where petroleum prices have been $3-5 a gallon for a long time, solar and wind energy installations more than double what we have in the US.
Comment
15 of 16
August 21, 2005
I am ashamed that we have a government which is satisfied in giving us crumbs for renewable energy development. Is this what the government of Germany is doing?

Crumbs are good for cakes but not for any serious plan to change our nations dependency on foreign oil. Our political leaders seem to be rejoicing a the great job they have done but I think their actions show a travisty of clear thinking on the matter at hand which is where to get our energy in the future without begging, borrowing, buying or stealing it from other countries.

Let us see what happens on this matter as I believe that OPEC will become the dominant energy controlling force in the world as the years go by.

Crumbs just ain't going to be enough, Washington. We don't want cake either.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
16 of 16
August 22, 2005
Paul Johnson has summed it up perfectly and with few words!

$100 oil will cut through all the governmental "bungling" and pork in a hurry.

Excellent analysis!
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

Advertise With Us

European Wind Energy Association Westinghouse Solar Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut) Prudent Living, Inc. SMA America, LLC ESI Inc. of Tennessee Zep Solar
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