Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Democrats' Clean-Energy Mandate

By Ron Pernick, Clean Edge, Inc.
November 13, 2006   |   22 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
May the Democrats take their new mandate and turn it into a vision for positive change. The world is waiting!

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.

22 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 22
November 13, 2006
As is usual to this time, little or no reference is being made to extraction of power from ocean waters. Granted it is a difficult and hostile environment, but the power embodied therein should not be ignored by an open-minded group of people. The greatest number of prime sites are available for wave power conversion.
Comment
2 of 22
November 13, 2006
I like poster Kerry's stance in principal - but the devil's in the details.

Take one example - cable TV boxes. My new hi-def box measures at ~75 watts, and has no on/off switch. At about ten minutes per bootup it's impractical to unplug it, so here in CA at marginal baseline rates that's about $16 per month.

Now it would cost Scietific Atlanta about $2 in unit cost to do a decent standby circuit to handle scheduled recordings, but they seem to think their $2 is more important than my ~$1000 spent on power over the unit's lifetime. Pretty sick stuff.

In theory the market would take care of this, but SA's the main game in town, and Charter's the only game in my town, so who's going to make reason happen here? One example where government can help is by requiring cable companies to inform customers of the lifetime power cost of their units, which would solve the problem real quick at minimal burden to industry. This idea alone could probably avoid several new power plants.
Comment
3 of 22
November 13, 2006
All of our enery is subsidized in some form or another. I would suggest that a middle east policy that costs over $500 Billion constitues a subsidy for our oil based energy needs... If our policy was truely about bringing democracy to those that need it, we would be spending more time and money in other parts of the world as well.

Renewable energy is good for our National Security, or environment and our economy. We will probably never go to war over silicon, windmills or corn... that could save us at least $200 billion in military spending...
Comment
4 of 22
November 13, 2006
The supply side seems to get 98% of the interest in the media and by investors. If we are headed for a catastrophe on climate, we may well place more effort in recognizing our organizations of commerce need some overhauling for the demand side. Developing and implementing demand reduction can take place at a fraction of the capital investment cost as the supply side. It must be true that in the U.S., 75% of all energy is waste and inefficiency. Creating an infrastructure of 'absolute off' when an energy resource is not directly, immediately, or insipiently providing a service requires new imagination to technologically intervene. Far more difficult to achieve the necessary human institutions in creating and applying the technology is our challenge. The micro-nano sensor and control revolution has gone just about everywhere except the architectural enclosures we assume should be dead mass material, as though emerged from the dirt just to deflect the cold wind.
Comment
5 of 22
November 13, 2006
The alternative energy movement wasn't affected by the Dems being out of power and won't be affected in any
meaningful way by their new power, if they know what's good for them. If an alternative power needs a government dole to succeed, then that alternative power is pretty much useless. We have way enough motivation amongst the public and corporations for the movement. Let's not allow the US Congress to start mucking up the process by throwing money at programs that will benefit mostly their home constituents. Let's not forgetthat it was the Dems that originally pushed hard for ethanol and for a hydrogen based economy. Their minions produced that pack of lies about GM's EV1, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" claiming that everyone needs a $45,000 grocery getter that costs $4500 per year in batteries and can't get you to the seashore and back, or to any destinationover 45 miles away with certainty.
Comment
6 of 22
November 14, 2006
<p>Energy conservation can stave off the day of reckoning, but in the end you can't conserve what you don't have. <b>An energy policy that leaves us with no alternative but swilling more oil is suicidally stupid.</b></p>

<p>Using its political and lobbying clout, King Oil
has been able to maintain its hegemony over energy policy, its stranglehold on the economy, its preeminence over the environment, and its priority call on military action.</p>

<p>Plenty of contenders for the energy crown now held
by fossil fuels are already at hand: wind, solar, even nuclear, to name a few. But many believe the successor will have to be a congress, not a king.</p>
Comment
7 of 22
November 15, 2006
A stirring piece and some great comments. Let's hope the Dems come clean.
Comment
8 of 22
November 15, 2006
Self-contained energy consumption and generation allows self determination. Power your home and transportation by generating your own energy eliminates dependence on the Oil companies, the Utilities, or ultimately BIG government. This new battery technology is key because it now gives us the capability to store and consume from a single DC source. This also means we are taxed by government once, at your initial program start-up. I find it interesting that congress and lobbist lobby for coal, nuclear, ethanol, gas, or oil; and our auto companies couldn't/wouldn't develop these same technologies. Do you think that maybe government saw the "writing on the wall" and discouraged the auto companies.
Comment
9 of 22
November 15, 2006
Kerry, visit Altairnano's website. A new Lithium-ion battery technology using Altairnano's materials expertise, Boshart Engineering's battery pack engineering, and Phoenix Motorcar's SUV and SUT vehicles have combined for some impressive results: 10000 times more charge/recharge cycles, 8-10 min. recharge time, 150-250 mi. per charge driving range, and can hit speeds up to 95 mph, and all with minimal cold weather degradation.
Comment
10 of 22
November 15, 2006
The true economics of energy always seems to hinge on subsidies, in one form or another. When oil companies are allowed to remove oil from public lands without paying extra when oil prices peak, because the government (US Minerals and Management) casually removes this clause from their public leases, this is a subsidy. But, when wind energy prices peak, the Production Tax Credit phases out in the carefully worded Energy Policy Act of 2005, this is a subsidy too, albeit with a cap.

I'm looking for a good White Paper (or chapter in your book?) which dispassionately compares government subsidies on ALL energy sources: fossil, nuclear, and renewables.

Only then will the Dems or Reps have the knowledge to write energy policy that promotes the right energy sources.

Lee Montz
Energy Today
214-257-8603
Comment
11 of 22
November 15, 2006
I frankly do not expect to see any subtantive changes in the way our energy policy (or lack thereof) is handled. The dems will jealously guard their porkbarrels and earmarks are not going away. Renewables will, in my opinion, still grow in importance slowly and success will be measured on commercial value (profit) and not on whims of flip-flopping governmental programs. What can help is to accelerate the basic R&D needed to make biomass conversion and solar conversion more profitable and this work is seldom in the bright lights of politics.
Comment
12 of 22
November 15, 2006
It is indeed a good article that gives information on renewable energy which is going to be the energy of the future to save the mother earth.
chilukuri rao
Comment
13 of 22
November 15, 2006
Bravo on your excellent article. The associated comments are also on point and highly relevant.

I've linked to this article directly from my new blog http://TotallyFixed.blogspot.com

I'm always impressed at the material available on this web site.

Keep up the good work!
Comment
14 of 22
November 15, 2006
It's not clear that there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans on the business of renewable energy. In fact, the boom discussed in biofuels, wind, and solar has accelerated under the Bush years and consider:

§ Then-Governor George Bush in 1999 passed the first successful renewable portfolio standard (state mandate for minimum percentage of renewable energy) in Texas in 1999. 19 other states have followed suit and Texas is now number 1 in wind capacity.

§ The US was #1 in the world in new wind energy installations in 2005 and passed Brazil as # 1 in ethanol production.

§ Senators Kerry and Kennedy in Massachussets have not been friendly to wind energy in their back yard (Cape Wind project).

§ 2 democratic senators (Chuck Schumer (NY) and Diane Feinstein (CA)) attempted to strip the renewable fuels standard (7.5 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012) out of EPAct 2005.
Comment
15 of 22
November 16, 2006
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/qa/story?id=46546

Comments 27-30. Thus to James: My apologies, I had referred to the factor of 5-10 reduction (at least) need in the USA, on another discussion thread on renewable energy access. Please read those...I leapt to the conclusion that I had done so here as well.

Rod
Comment
16 of 22
November 16, 2006
(cont)

De Beers is not a neophyte when it comes to technology. They would not be making this level of investment in this new method of making biodiesel (and cellulosic ethanol) so to me it means that one new path is being blazed that is not based on corn. Also, as you read those links, note the footprint that this new method with large tanks of algae has, compared to the acreage needed for crops for biodiesel that exist and are used now (flax, sunflower, rapeseed, etc). Finally note that the feedstock is CO2 exhaust from utilities, and that these algae effectively convert NOx to nitrogen and oxygen as well.
Comment
17 of 22
November 16, 2006
James, msg 19: Yes, we need to conserve much more than we are. I mentioned a "factor of 5 to 10 reduction" is called for in the USA. If we had a factor of 5 from your quoted statistics, we would then be on par with the rest of the world. A factor of 10 would see us as a leader in terms of being eco-conscious.

I would like to ask that you consider msg 16 and carefully reading the links I cited.

(cont next msg)
Comment
18 of 22
November 16, 2006
With about 6 percent of the global population that consumes 25 - 33 percent of the world's resources, that is growing each year, the USA needs to do something else besides changing to relatively expensive renewable energy sources that also increase our reliance on imported fuels and cause their own air, land and water pollution. We need to CONSERVE energy. In fact this is a MUST. Ethanol cannot come even close to providing our gasoline replacement needs unless we dedicate almost all the land area in the USA to corn prodution. I have heard about cellulosic sources for ethanol production for many years and have come to the conclusion that this is just smoke and mirrors. We are headed towards an irreversible destruction of this planet and the good old USA is leading the charge. Why do our legislatures not see this? Is it becuse the situation is politcally unpopular? Where are the statesmen that we need to replace politicians?
Comment
19 of 22
November 16, 2006
(cont)

If one considers the enormous transfer of American wealth out of our country for oil since we went into deficit in terms of domestic oil production, and our current precarious condition in terms of our astronomical national debt, we cannot move to renewables fast enough! That is--even ignoring the environmental costs (which I do not advocate doing, they should have been factored in all along, then we would not be where we are with our too large world population, with enormous per capita ecological footprints as we have in the USA, Australia, Canada, with global warming, deforestation, desertification, falling water tables, deteriorating soils, etc.), one still would conclude that we should have turned to renewables with enormous emphasis 35 years ago: just based on the rising cost of oil and incredible transfer of our monies to the oil-producing countries.
Comment
20 of 22
November 16, 2006
Lester Brown discusses "tax shifting", which has been implemented to a certain degree in Germany and Sweden.

www.earth-policy.org (see Plan B 2.0)
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/index.htm

The goal of tax shifting is to cut income taxes dramatically (freeing up availability of labor) and to correctly value the ecological costs of any product, and to tax those accordingly. Also, to completely remove subsidies, so that real costs would be transparent.

This is helping (per Brown) Germany to move from 40,000 involved in the Wind Turbine Industry, to what is estimated as a dedicated workforce of 100,000 by 2010.

(continued next comment)
Comment
21 of 22
November 16, 2006
With respect to biodiesel and also cellulosic ethanol:

http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/alg-all.html

and then

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/11/greenstar_produ.html#more

Further: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/06/university_of_n.html

and http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm

-Rod
Comment
22 of 22
November 16, 2006
On an energy equivalence basis, either as E-10 or E-85, it costs more to produce a gallon of ethanol than it contains; users realize substantially reduced MPG in their cars; its high RVP results in increased volatile emmissions; the production of corn to produce ethanol results in the additional use of petroleum based fuels for farm equipment, transportation and fertilizers, a large quantity of which are imported and also cause air pollution; and the destruction of the nation's aquifers for corn irrigation and pollution of rivers and lakes, ad infinitum. Increased corn demand for US government mandated fuel ethanol use is causing higher prices that results in increased costs for animal feed and corn flakes. In addition, the increase in the annual federal subsidy that goes to gasoline ethanol blenders will go from over $2.0 billion this year to more than $4.0 billion in 2012.
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

Solar FlexRack Natural Power US Solar Institute DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association European Wind Energy Association
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