Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Time to Step Out - Walk the Talk

By Scott Sklar, The Stella Group Ltd.
October 30, 2008 | 21 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

I begin this column with a tad more care than I usually do, when I am angered about some policy or market issue. In a short time the American electorate has to make decisions on candidates. I have preached throughout my political career that clean energy is not the child of any party, any politician, any ideology. The bottom-line – it's good for America and it's good for our planet – we all know that.

And even as energy prices begin a downward descent because of the cooling economies worldwide due to the financial crises, we all know as soon as the economies begin to "rev up," energy prices will again increase. And we also know that even now, the crumbs from importing our energy fall into the hands of those who want to kill us and our traditional energy sources produce emissions that not only are changing global climate but seriously harming human health.

For those of you interested in energy efficiency, renewable energy, global environment and sustainable development, there is only one choice for President: Barak Obama. Over the last two years, the Senator sponsored five clean energy bills and cosponsored an equal amount while Senator McCain has no legislative record for renewables.

Their articulated energy plans are starkly different, as well. McCain's plan promotes a focus on oil drilling and 45 nuclear power plants, while Obama's plan delineates a US $150 billion commitment over 10 years explicitly to energy efficiency and renewables with the goal of fostering a long-term clean jobs strategy to re-industrialize America.

Now I have worked in the Senate for a Republican for 9 years and I support several Republicans for re-election including Senators Gordon Smith (OR), John Ensign (NV) and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD) — and I have admired Senator McCain's stands for addressing climate change and increased vehicle mileage standards in the past. But he has actually changed his stances by several degrees as he has run for President, I assume to woo the money or constituencies pushing back. There is really no choice here, and I feel compelled to make that clear.

In the Senate races, we have two starkly pro-clean energy candidates that have long legislative histories — Mark Udall (D-C) who has co chaired the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus for many years, and Tom Udall (D-NM) with a bullish record on clean energy. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge them and their work during this election season.

The other real challenge for all of us in this community is to sort out the rhetoric and promises and force them into reality. During the Clinton/Gore Administration, President Clinton made an historic speech at the United Nations calling for a million solar roofs — yet no incentives were made available to truly drive this program. And even with Vice President Gore's strong stance on advancing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EPA Administrator Browner was adverse to use that agency's programs to significantly drive zero-emission technologies into the marketplace beyond traditional energy efficiency.

So we must pay attention not only to the rhetoric but the details in the transition and the people whom they select — whether they are just good at PR or actually focused and experienced to drive effective programs. For those of us that are Washington, DC-based, we have lived through many Administrations, sessions of Congress, announced initiatives and somber expressions of caring or at least objectivity.

But unless we have national interconnection standards adopted to connect to the electric grid, a national efficiency and renewable portfolio standard to blend our sustainable resource base, extensions of all efficiency and renewables tax incentives to the length of the solar incentives, a climate change bill that actually prioritizes energy efficiency and renewable energy, leveraged government procurements between federal and local governments, critical infrastructure investments to meet our homeland security goals, and enhanced and coordinated federal programs in agriculture, defense, energy, environment, homeland security, housing and interior (national parks and tribes) — our industries will not reach the scale needed to address the problems we profess to solve ...... significant energy import reductions, significant greenhouse gas and clean air act emission reductions and significant aggregate energy produced with the national jobs spread geographically to actually pull it off.

So vote on election day — and make sure your family, friends, employees and coworkers, investors and customers do so as well. And then get ready to give your input to those elected to keep their promises.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Hydropower, Hydrogen - Fuel Cells, Ocean Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

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.

21 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 21

dominic-jermano-62365

October 31, 2008

Hello Scott: This is what I see and think.....I am not a fan of solar or wind generation because of several reasons that can be found in my article here...

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/give-me-energy-independence-or-give-me-death

McCain and Obama say nothing about what I propose for our Worlds Energy Independence...We place too much emphasis on the USA instead of the World....and this is another reason why we fail...

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/bridge-prosperity

Creating jobs around the world is our objective....not just in the USA. We need to develop a world community.....not a USA community only. Once we have an Energy Independent World that harnesses the power from Geothermal as the main grid provider....we are stepping into the future..where terror is no longer pursued because people have the things they need and want... When we are able to educate the people in the world through funds by the United Nations who go online for degrees we have marked a mile high standard in achieving the needed Education and Energy Security the World needs. We can not rely on militaries or Nationalistic Views of Government to achieve our destiny because the worlds agenda is much greater than individual conquests. By gaining energy independence we gain our individual needs.

I voted for Obama....

Let's hope he is ushered in.

Comment
2 of 21

debbie-luyo-155139

October 31, 2008

Thanks for your efforts to educate us all on what the real issues are surrounding renewable energy. I agree that Obama is the only candidate with a policy that makes sense. I do not understand how a candiate can mention the building of 45 new nuclear plants "right away" during the debates, and none of the media talking heads ever calls him on it! Great piece today.

Debbie Luyo
Nowpowercentral.com

Comment
3 of 21

bob-thomason-36439

October 31, 2008

It always amazes me when proponents of small government support nuclear power. Talk about a contradiction.

Comment
4 of 21

marco-varela-160272

October 31, 2008

I agree with everyone here, we must stop the old guard and their selfish greed and move on to renewable energy. I also think we need:
1-100% recycling, we are not doing enough, it will create jobs and save virgin lands from the decimation that comes from mining and deforestation
2 - We must have another federal law that states that "everything that can be produced with bio-degradable plastic, must be produced with bio-degradable plastic" Look around the USA sized areas of floating plastic in the pacific! it's disgusting what we are doing to our planet
3 - We must get rid of the gasoline-only engine and produce hybrids to reduce further the need for oil
4 - We need to stop using food grains to produce ethanol and bio-fuels, it's food the world needs, we can make bio-fuels from other sources as part of the recycling program, like methane and oil derived from plastic and turkey guts
I could go on, but I know everyone here is with me on this

Comment
5 of 21

william-griffin-66088

October 31, 2008

Amen, Scott! For anyone seriously interested in the political part of the equation for good renewable energy policy, it's OBAMA time! Thanks for all the good work you do.

Comment
6 of 21

Sundiver

October 31, 2008

I never thought I'd say this but there is a time and a place for objectivity. That time and place passed in 2000. Ralph Nader is on my ballot. I agree that the two party system might not be the best but come on, let's get our priorities in order.
Obama is saying some things he doesn't mean to get elected. He doesn't really think we will expand nuclear power. He's well aware there's no money for it from the investment community. So maybe we're all just too gullible (selfish?) to make the right decision if we are told the truth. I'm glad someone has stepped up and is doing what's necessary to save us from ourselves. The time for objectivity is passed. Thank you Barak and and thank you Scott for stepping up.

Comment
7 of 21

jeff-kelly-146257

October 31, 2008

I agree with the article. McCain's allies and fundraisers are enemies of clean energy, regardless of what the candidate might say. Everything is in the implementation. Clinton's heart might have been in the right place with renewables, but with oil historically cheap during much of his presidency, massive expeditures on renewables were not politically feasible. Besides which, there have been tremendous technical advancements since the 90's (such as dramatically larger and more economical wind turbines) that have made the this time for renewables.

Generally I am a supporter of nuclear energy, although there is no way the industry will find the capital for 45 new reactors, much less 100 (McCain's latest proposal). We should develop the potential of uranium from seawater (already demonstrated) and increase reprocessing to reduce the waste problem. Yes, that's a risk, but anything to stop planetary Death By Coal. I believe that just one year of the cumulative worldwide environmental cost of coal mining and combustion is equal to or greater than the environmental and human cost of Chernobyl. The Coal Chernobyl is just less spectacular and more spread out. A trip to China helps make this clear.

The government should really be pushing two things: grid improvements to bring the renewables online, and a massive new investment in electricity storage, by hydrogen production, flywheels, or any other means. That will be a huge enabling technology for clean energy. I think the tax and policy incentives should be pushing energy storage harder than anything else, and the renewables will follow.

And also algae based fuels!!

Comment
8 of 21

e-patrick-mosman-41976

October 31, 2008

Mr. Sklar joins T.Boone Pickens as another lobbyist with his hand out for the government to force their favorite uneconomic alternate energy sources on the masses with the 50% of wage earners who actually pay 97 % of the federal income taxes paying the costs. No doubt Senator Government is the man to lead and change the USA into the USSA, United Socialist States of America. No doubt both will be disappointed when their pet projects are nationalized, ala President Chavez, to insure that capitalists don't profit from energy, apparently a basic right under a socialist regime. Could Mr. Sklar please explain what 'climate change' he refers to since global warming peaked 10 years ago, the 3,000 Argo ocean monitors, having gone operational in 2003, have shown that the oceans have not warmed, even a slight decrease in both global measurements, while CO2 levels increased slightly? Mr.Sklar also keeps up the fear factor refrain about that petroleum products are imported from " those who want to kill us" when the facts are that Canada, Mexico(both members of NAFTA) are the No 1 and No 2 largest suppliers of crude oil, Saudi Arabia is No 3 and has a supply contract with Shell USA, Venezeula is No 4 and owns Citgo and Nigeria is No 5. Those out to kill don't own crude oil, exception Iran and Senator Government intends to sip tea and chat with its leaders without preconditions, they own guns and explosive devices.

Comment
9 of 21

william-hughes-66196

October 31, 2008

If local, state and federal governments are serious about encouraging the uptake of renewable energy, there are a whole raft of measures they can take, most of which do not dip into the public purse.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/07/solar-electric-government-role.html

And smart grids combined with renewable energy will greatly increase the efficiency of our use of both existing and new power sources.
http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2007/10/excess-energy-what-to-do.html

But if President Obama wants to really make a difference he needs to manuver the American Domestic Vehicle industry into making practical Electric cars. With our global culture/economy, where America goes the rest of the world will follow. As America converts to electric vehicles, demand for liquid fossil fuels will plummet and with it the price. This will ensure liquid fuel supplies long into the future for heavy trucks which are unlikely to ever run on electricity. Carbon dioxide emissions will also plummet. The discressionary spending of oil producing countries will plummet and with it their support of terrorist organizations. Money which supports the Mafias in many oil producing countries which they use to supress their own people will also dissapear. Best of all, the reduction in the demand for oil, would remove the need for America to send each generation of their young people into wars that leave them brutalized. The electrification of the American domestic fleet would leave us with a world much improved on many fronts. I wish Obama well in this quest. The vested interests arrayed against him are a formidable, blinkered, powerful bunch of greedy fossils.

Comment
10 of 21

mary-saunders-73470

October 31, 2008

Hello E. Patrick Mossman,

The U.S. and allies control fossil fuels now, but few countries want to be manipulated by oil prices. Their regimes understand they need to develop their own sources to avoid manipulation, which makes them look bad. I believe Putin may not be pleased with current oil prices, e.g.

I am putting in a wood-burning stove to burn the coppice that appears on my city lot, rather than paying the city to take away yard debris. If power goes down, I don't have to rely on the city, the gas company which just announced a 40% hike, or the electric company which will soon want more also.

I would have put in ground-source, but I guess it's not optimum in earth-quake-prone, mild climates, and I lost too much money in the mess.

I may still figure a way to put in PV--that's still in process. Then I could maybe bug people on here even if power goes down.

I guess my point is that working-class people in some places band together to make ourselves difficult to subdue. Sometimes we also have good enough parties that spooks want to come, and sometimes we convert them to our side.

Obama can come to Portland in shirt sleeves with little security, but Dick Cheney had better not--not that he would want to come here anyway.

This country is unruly. Command-and-control everywhere is not an option, notwithstanding the distressing breakdown in the Bill of Rights in recent years.

The best defense is making like a bee and buzzing around in different activist groups. I do Ron-Paul groups and trendy-lefty anarchist groups, both of which are exceedingly entertaining and oddly in agreement about problems and addle-headed big-'ol-boy proposed solutions.

My righty friends know how to use guns, while I don't, and my lefty friends actually have friends in government here. I figure I'm covered, as long as I'm with the right fringe when excrement hits.

Comment
11 of 21

mswyers

October 31, 2008

To Mr. Mosman:
Argo data also are pointing up weaknesses in the current understanding of climate change. Between 2003 and 2007, Argo floats measured no appreciable warming in the upper oceans despite the fact that temperatures on land have continued to break records. At the same time, sea level is rising faster than can be explained by melting glaciers alone, said Josh Willis, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.

"The lack of warming over a period of a few years isn't really that surprising, because of all the natural variability," he said. "It's a bit of a mystery what's going on with sea level."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004322876_apwaclimatebuoys.html

Comment
12 of 21

james-scott-80525

November 1, 2008

Several comments. I am a white American, born in NYC. I am presently living in the US Virgin Islands and sadly I can not vote for president while living here. Obama is my choice, has been for 5 months.
I like many, am mostly concerned with how we treat our planet and that we have a world economy which can only prosper with continued growth. Our world economy would collapse with 1% growth but would recover if growth was reestablished. Unending growth increases exponentially over time, as our planet (spaceship earth) can not. It is unsustainable, a fact. Mankind's long term survival can only be assured if we can establish a world economy which does not require continual growth. Good luck!

While Solar and wind are viable energy sources, a cost effective energy storage solution is the problem right now preventing their viability and requiring our dependence on oil with what we have now. Obviously this must change.
"Clean" coal is a myth. It's only cleaner than dirty coal, it's not clean. Taken by it's self , it's still dirty. It's like saying I washed one finger, I now have clean hands. Using any coal releases allot of carbon into the air, inform yourselves with the numbers. If you support clean coal.

The known and proven dangers of nuclear power are to great for my approval. I feel, only lack of knowing and understanding the topic allow people to believe that it is a viable option. The media won't cover or explain them. FYI, Three Mile Island's core melted down, in 1979. It was partial but a meltdown occurred. Only because cooling water was restored when it was, was it prevented from melting down to the point where it would have breached the bottom of the reactor floor. This was unknown and not released until 1983. Supporters of nuclear power should read http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/ if you are to give informed approval.

Geothermal is way under developed and utilized. If OTEC (wiki it) is viable with 40 deg difference, geo's a snap.

Comment
13 of 21

e-patrick-mosman-41976

November 1, 2008

Mr.Swyers,
The records show that the global temperature has leveled off since 1998 and that last winter showed record cold temperatures in many countries in both the northern and southern hemispheres. This summer has been one of the coldest in Alaska and a number of European countries. Very early snow fell this week in parts of the USA, Northern European countries and in London just as the EU ministers were meeting to discuss global warming. That is the "AL Gore effect" as Mr. Gore gave one of his Chicken Little doom and gloom GW talks on a record cold day in New York several years ago.
"The lack of warming over a period of a few years isn't really that surprising, because of all the natural variability," is a strong indication that nature trumps human activity in determining the earth's climate. Dr. Willis also insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant."
Probably accurate but would NASA or NOAA or the IPCC– the UN's climate experts — shrug off even a "very slight" warming. For certain it would be broadcast far and wide as yet another sign that man is destroying the earth. Dr. Willis's spin on to NPR is a classic case of scientific doublespeak as he describes the results as follows "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR."
In real science-speak that is cooling.

Comment
14 of 21

e-patrick-mosman-41976

November 1, 2008

Ms Saunders,
The actions you are taking as an individual show the character of early Americans do it yourself and not be a WOW-WOW(Waiting on Washington-While Opining Whining).If the founders of IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, and any number of others waited on Washington to fund research, development, infrastructure the slide rule would still be king. And throw in Ebay, Google, Yahoo as recent successes of individual's or private capital effort along with the car, the plane, the electric light, the telephone, TV and so on.
Unlike entrepreneurs of the past, today's want the government to clear the playing field by passing laws to force the use of their products, to restrict or forbid the use of lower cost energy sources, to force the American taxpayer to provide subsidies and pay for infrastructure to make their projects economic for them and more costly to the end user.

Comment
15 of 21

thomas-schmidt-36371

November 1, 2008

You may have heard the story of how simple minded people can solve the Rubics cube with little to no effort. Maybe its an urban myth, maybe not I don't know. I tend to look at that from the perspective of that nursery song, sung in two part harmony, with the inch worm measuring the marigolds while the butterfly is telling the inch worm to stop and see how beautiful the marigolds are.

Even if you are a devoted atheist the following words should have a deep meaning. Unless your psycopathic as well.

There is a war going on, a war for absolute controll over the planet Earth. The opponents are simply the forces of; good and, evil. The weapons they use are human beings. If you doubt this, then obviously you know nothing of the history of mankind on the planet Earth.
I can imagine your arguments. Maybe you have a problem with my terminology of "the forces of good and evil." Those are just words, right? There is nothing real there to see, it is inanimate so it cannot possibly control people. There is nothing there to measure.
You want me to put a face on good and evil for you, give you names like god or the devil, fire and ice, wet and dry, republican or democrat.
I cannot give you that. That can only come from within yourself. Look within yourself for what you seek. Do not look out toward other men for your answers. That other person may be a weapon of the enemy but, then again, they may not. How do you tell? Do you pull out you ruler and measure that person up? How much money does he or she make? What kind of house does he or she live in? Is his wife pretty? How many kids? Are they smart?????
Or, you can just stop and, see how beautiful they are.
Re learn what it takes to enjoy life on Earth. Dont waste your time on this Earth trying to "figure out" why.
There is a word I would like for you say, but you have to say it out loud! Shout it out loud in public!
Hallelujah!
Just try it and see what happens. What could it hurt? Its just a word.

Comment
16 of 21

thomas-schmidt-36371

November 1, 2008

ELECTRICITY!
There are those that would like to have renewable energies as a way to live an independent, self reliant lifestyle.
Then there are those that would have us take out a 30 year mortgage to obtain it. Or worse, pay a little each month for our entire adult lives.
Either way, we are going to pay for it.
We, as human beings on this Earth have been conditioned over thoudsands of years to spend the greatest part of our lives in survitude to those that are wealthier than ourselves. Even though we cannot or do not want to see the "chains" that bind us, they are there. Remember the goat the Little Rascals had harnessed to a make-shift wagon. They would hold a carrot at the end of a stick in front of the goat to make it pull them where they wanted to go. Even when there was plenty else to eat all around.
Whats at the end of the stick in front of you? Electricity.
You could break or at least weaken the chains that bind you by turning away from electricity. Human beings on the planet Earth do not need the electricity we take for granted today in order to live a meaningful life.
Just say no, to electricity.

Comment
17 of 21

dominic-jermano-62365

November 1, 2008

Say no to electricity? You can't! it is in the stars, the world, the universe. God made it...say Hallelujah. How can it hurt?

Comment
18 of 21

ray-bryars-75633

November 2, 2008

My hope is that any focus that the next president has on energy efficiency or conservation will include buildings. Over 40% of US energy use is consumed within buildings, much of it because of poor practices regarding energy efficient design, little effort to construct to a tight standard and no performance measurements of the final product.
We can dramatically reduce our use of imported fuel and unclean coal by ensuring that new buildings are built and tested to tighter standards and by implementing nationwide efficiency programs for existing homes.
Living and working in leaky homes is like driving a car with a hole in the gas tank.

Comment
19 of 21

mary-saunders-73470

November 2, 2008

Hello Ray Bryars, I hope you are using track-back and that you will get this.

Building to LEED standards has become standard in Portland because that is where the demand is. Projects that do not do this don't get built. I belong to a group advocating for legalizing simple retrofits for existing housing. Some of the participants work in situations where they encounter architects and planners working on new construction, and this is what they see and hear.

Retrofit is a tougher project. A group called the Community Energy Project provides indoor vinyl storm windows that roll up for summer, some caulking, weatherstripping, outlet insulation, and some other simple fixes for low-income households.

They sell supplies to households above the threshold.

It is possible that a project like this will be encouraged by a new administration.

Some fixes are not code, but they get done anyway. One of my son's college friends insulated a mobile home with straw bales.

Interest in this topic crosses social and economic boundaries. It can bring people together in special-interest-groups (SIG's), other than the SIG's getting bad press these days.

Comment
20 of 21

e-patrick-mosman-41976

November 2, 2008

The in the tank for Obama media failed to inform voters that in January 2008, Obama spoke about his approach to global warming and cap-and-trade systems, and he had a warning for anyone foolish enough to invest in coal:

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
Voters, especialy in coal states should watch it on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

Yesterday, several looks at Obama's notions of government finds him sending "price signals" to change behavior that it finds objectionable, especially on energy. This is the way Obama intends to do it. Coal provides 49% of domestic electrical power, and any rise in the cost of producing that energy will raise its cost to consumers and reduce the amount produced.
This comes as no great shock, pun intended. Obama already called for a 15% reduction in demand for electricity — at the same time he and his allies want transportation to switch from gasoline to electricity. Obama never explained this particular contradiction. How does one switch tens of millions of vehicles from gasoline to electricity while not Increasing demand, let alone by cutting it 15%? And when trying to break free from a recession, the nation will need greater production in energy, not a reduction.
The coal-based economics of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and other states will be the first to feel this new policy. Let's hope the voters there pay attention.

Comment
21 of 21

peter-gawain-161346

November 2, 2008

There is now a new coring technique that allows for efficient deep vertical drilling, which makes it possible to core a 10' diameter hole 10-12 miles down into the lithosphere to tap the earth's heat for power production. This technology is called 'Geothermic Energy' production (not Geothermal), and can be done anywhere on earth (land), thus it is now possible to provide continuous emissions-free, Renewable Energy, and even the heat from the steam is recycled back down into the earth so that the heat does not contribute to man-made global warming; a huge contributor that no-one ever seems to mention.
Each vertical tunnel can produce 2,000 mw's of power indefinitely into the future without disrupting eco-systems or the environment. The implications are immense for all continents and cultures, with the ultimate possibility of replacing the need for fossil and nuclear fuels.
The company that produces this technology is called SIREX, is located in Prescott AZ and is run by one of the Physicists who worked with Werner Von Braun years ago. Approx 8,000 of these holes across the globe will power the world with no adverse effects for as little as 2 cents/kWh.
This is truly Green Renewable Energy at its best.

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!

NEW Smart Phone App

Scott Sklar

About: Scott, founder and president of The Stella Group, Ltd., in Washington, DC, is the Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves... more »