Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Strategic Imperative for the U.S. Senate to Pass an Effective Energy Bill

By Lou Schwartz, China Strategies LLC
September 30, 2009   |   28 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

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.

28 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 28
October 1, 2009
Lou, you have quite a naive view of Iran's need for a nuclear weapon. And at that, a naive view of China's and Russia's need for Iranian cooperation. It has nothing to do with your assumption below:


"If the U.S. is able to demonstrate to China that it is truly dedicated to leading the transformation of the new energy economy, China may become less bound by its economic interests in Iran, freeing it to join with the U.S. in confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions."

China doesn't care about renewables nor anything else in the world, only oil. Especially if it can be obtained from the 3rd largest known reserves... in Iran and elsewhere. China is scrambling to secure more oil, spending $10 billion to developing Brazil's new finds in the Tupi fields, helping Cuba and Venezuela develope off shore oil in the Gulf...50 miles off the US coast (where we forbid US drilling), and allowing genocide in Africa's oil rich but devastated countries as long as China can obtain more.

Russia has no need for renewables. Putin who actually runs Russia needs Iran to help control its nationalized natural gas lines to all of Europe. How else can he wield power over them? To appease Iran, he'll sell S300 SAMs to Iran. The only missle to be able to down all US aircraft (except the F22 Raptor-but which Obama just canceled).

Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb. Not for power, but for the absolute annihilation of the world, allowing the coming of the 12 Imam. Listen to Ahmadinejad's prayer to Allah during the most recent UN speech.
Comment
2 of 28
October 1, 2009
We need a solid piece of legislation for leveraging ability in Copenhagen. We are at a missive disadvantage if we do nothing before Dec.
http://envirogy.wordpress.com/
No image available
Comment
3 of 28
Anonymous
October 2, 2009
We need national setbacks from residential housing and our residential rights protected before these commercial wind turbines that take our rights from us.

Massaachusetts has proposed the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act that does the exact opposite of what it sounds like ! This makes the governor the ruler of a state .The beneficiaries of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

Whether you are for or against wind farms in Massachusetts you should be aware that the pending Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009 is a threat to your freedom and constitutional rights. This Act is currently being fast tracked through the State Legislature with virtually no on-the-record public debate at the insistence of Governor Patrick, the wind energy industry and their financiers.
Comment
4 of 28
October 2, 2009
The US will likely continue to be a non-factor because entrenched energy monopolies are blocking real change through their influence of energy policies. Even Obama does not support feed-in tariffs like do all nations with effective renewable energy programs. Besides, monopolization of the entire US economy, especially health care, has made the nation so broke it would be difficult to do anything anyway. Europe can't lead because it lacks a venture capital market, while Russia is tied to fossil fuels. Either China will develop a renewable energy future for the good of the northern hemisphere and mankind or there will be economic, environmental and military insecurity.
Comment
5 of 28
October 2, 2009
Building Soil Carbon is the bond that unities all political persuasions,

Senator Baucus is co-sponsoring a bill along with Senator Tester (D-MT) called WE CSHAR. Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration Act! It focuses on promoting biochar technology to address invasive species and forest biomass. It includes grants and loans for biochar market research and development, biochar characterization and environmental analyses. It directs USDI and USDA to provide loan guarantees for biochar technologies and on-the-ground production with an emphasis on biomass from public lands. And the USGS is to do biomas availability assessments.
WashingtonWatch.com - S. 1713, The Water Efficiency via Carbon Harvesting and Restoration (WECHAR) Act of 2009

Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

Another significant aspect of bichar and aerosols are the low cost ($3) Biomass cook stoves that produce char but no respiratory disease. http://terrapretapot.org/ and village level systems http://biocharfund.org/ with the Congo Basin Forest
Fund (CBFF). The Biochar Fund recently won $300K for these systems citing these priorities;
(1) Hunger amongst the world's poorest people, the subsistence farmers of Sub-Saharan Africa,
(2) Deforestation resulting from a reliance on slash-and-burn farming,
(3) Energy poverty and a lack of access to clean, renewable energy, and
(4) Climate change.

There are dozens soil researchers on the subject now at USDA-ARS.
and many studies at The up coming ASA-CSSA-SSSA joint meeting;
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2009am/webprogram/Session5675.htm
Comment
6 of 28
October 2, 2009
Sounds like I'm the only skeptic here. I am not convinced of the data supporting anthropogenic global warming. The entire precept of the Kyoto or Copenhagen conference rests on C02. Here's my problem: we put out 27 billion tons of C02/yr into an atmosphere already containing 3,600 billion tons of C02. Thats only 0.75% of all C02 is man-made. And the largest greenhouse gas is H20 and clouds, contributing up to 90% of all effects. The other 10% is from CH4, N0x, S02, SF6, fluorocarbons, and C02...and all the 3,600 billion tons accounts for only 2-3% of the of the 10%. So even if we cut our production in half, the 13.5 billion tons left doesn't seem enough to be of any significance. And its only now that we beginning to understand the effect of 55 million tons of plant produced isoprenes/yr that react with 0zone and water vapor to produce dihydroepoxides that now is known to produce the haze (other sources are volcanoes, sea spray, and air pollution). These affect total solar irradiation of the planet. So are we wasting our time on this subject? So far I think so...wsy?
No image available
Comment
7 of 28
Anonymous
October 3, 2009
Wow Wesley, now you can add climate scientist to your self-reported long list of professions. And I'm going to nominate you for the Nobel Prize for proving thousands of climate scientists wrong right here on this blog.
Comment
8 of 28
October 3, 2009
LOL anonymous. If washed-out-almost attorney Al Gore can win a Nobel Prize for Climate Science, I guess anyone can, including my high school drop out friends. In the mean time I guess I'll just have to wait for someone to show me data to disprove my skepticism. And if Gore would like to debate me on AGW, I'd be happy to. So far, the lack of debate has been deafening.
No image available
Comment
9 of 28
Anonymous
October 3, 2009
LOL Wesley, actually Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, which doesn't require any science. I think you deserve much better debate competition, like with real climate scientists. I recommend that you submit your comment above to Nature for peer review and publication. Good Luck.
Comment
10 of 28
October 3, 2009
Anonymous, Al Gore did get the Nobel Peace Prize for "educating the world" about the "dangers"of AGW....using "science" as per the IPCC. The "InterGOVERNMENTAL panel on climate change" a political motivated pseudoscientific panel is motivated by governmental ideology rather than science. Skeptical scientists were excluded as they would detract from the ideology. Al said, "the science is settled, the debate is over..." Sounds like what allegedly the US Patent Administrator, Charles Duel, said in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented "...

So I still don't understand Al's win for peace? What peace was fostered? and why does the Nobel Prize Committee denigrade such a prestigious award in the name of pseudoscience/political
No image available
Comment
11 of 28
Anonymous
October 3, 2009
Wesley, I thought of another opportunity for you, if you can forget about the straw man Al Gore for a second. James Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma, recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming." They sound just like you - TV weathermen, economists and a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts.
Comment
12 of 28
October 4, 2009
Anonymous, you are correct. I'm not a prominent scientist in climatology or weather. And as you have mentioned, the 400 prominent scientists Inhofe mentioned were excluded from the IPCC, exactly for that reason. They all had doubts about AGW. Interesting the only "real scientists" are those who all agree with each other!?!. No questioning the data or extrapolated assumptions, because if you do, you are considered invalid and a quack. As a former scientist in enzymology, Cathepsin B and H (human proteases) and carnosinases A and B, skepticism is a necessary element of the scientific pursuit. Each time data was published, we tried to recreate the same results in our lab. And a few times we were able to correctly disprove previously held assumptions in these systems. Yes, by being skeptical. The greatest skeptic of Einstein's Theory of relativity was....yup, Einstein himself. Remember the cosomological constant?

So I assume you have some data to discredit mine...and if you are correct, I'll conceede and you can take the Nobel Peace Prize home...lol. PS...you can google (w sugai, jf lenney) to see my old stuff. I'm just an old solo country doc and these 2 am C-sections for 25 week premies-500 gramers is just making me grumpy after a 90 work week...but thats another story.
No image available
Comment
13 of 28
Anonymous
October 4, 2009
Good article about the global warming deniers:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/print.html
Comment
14 of 28
October 4, 2009
Of course, a medical monopolist supports the energy monopolists. The US needs free markets in health care as bad as it needs them in energy. Just like you are bankrupting the nation, the energy monopolists are blocking low-cost answers to the buildup of CO2.
Comment
15 of 28
October 4, 2009
Nice article anonymous. Seems like it was written for some general newspaper. Basically confirms my point of 1). If you question the IPCC/Al Gore "science", you have invalidated yourself. Total obedience and acceptance is expected. Deviation from the norm is punishible by ____. 2). James Hansen has no longer considered a reliable scientist as he has let his political ambitions over rule his scientific abilities. 3). Still no data to discredit my thesis above. Only vague generalities provided by only 1 source, the IPCC.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=504637&Ntt=carbongate

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=480787&Ntt=carbongate

Articles 1 and 3 show how the Obama administration silences skeptics. #2 shows that the sun...yes that big bright thing in the sky is responsible for ...omg...our weather?

And mike holley...I have no idea what you just said. Did you participate in the Pittsburg demonstrations during the G20 summit ? I suggest you do some sort of research and not just succumb to "theology of conspiracies".
Comment
16 of 28
October 4, 2009
Perhaps you can understand if I tell you the medical profession limits its profession and utility monopolies have rigged both state regulatory processes and deregulation. If you still can't understand keep telling yourself it's not true or it is just a conspiracy theory.
No image available
Comment
17 of 28
Anonymous
October 4, 2009
Wesley, you are one with the Obama conspiracy and the article confirms none of your points except in your own mind.
Comment
18 of 28
October 4, 2009
I guess we can agree to disagree. But for my education, can any of you disprove my thesis? I'm willing to change my mind but...I'd like to see the hard numbers and see if AGW conclusions are infallible per Al Gore.

Yes, on the economic side Obama is a big disappointment. This past week unemployment rose from 9.7 to 9.8%, jobless claims remains in the 550,000 range, and in sept we lost another 263,000 jobs. So much for stimulus. Obama just threw Isreal under the bus as he coddles up to Iran. His words are weak, naive, and emboldens our enemies. But this is another topic for another forum....

And mike holly....your words still mystify me. As a solo practice physician, am I monopolizing the health care and oil industry? I did not realize I had that much power. It would be great if I did...ROFL.
No image available
Comment
19 of 28
Anonymous
October 4, 2009
My point is climate change is a very complicated technical issue that I leave to full-time climate scientists involved in research projects. In addition, I think you are still over-rating the importance of Al Gore.
Comment
20 of 28
October 4, 2009
The medical profession is considered an oligopoly, a form of monopoly within the health care (not oil) industry.
Comment
21 of 28
October 5, 2009
Anonymous, by your last statement, I assume you have not done any homework and rely on what you are told. It seems you have succumbed to the religiosity/cult of AGW, accepting whatever is stated as the "whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Al Gore". I suggest you extricate yourself from this cult and hopefully, if you can, educate yourself and refuse to accept IPCC "sermons" as gospel.

mike holly. I continue to be befuddled by your statements. You accuse me of being an oligopoly? And that my profession has bankrupt the country? I am sorry, but you have now relegated yourself to the relm of irrelavency. But to answer your statement, yes, we need free markets to create jobs in this devastated economy. Obama and his advisors are woefully ignorant of economic forces...just as you are. Government has never been able to pull a nation out of any recession, including the "great depression". It was wrongly attributed to Keynsian Economics, but its been shown that it was a dismal failure and the primary cause of a 10 year depression following the market crash in 10/29.

By the way, I'm not a rich doc. I work in a very isolated rural, poor area, accessible only by air. My welfare patients account for 80% and you may or may not know, welfare (Medicaid) pays roughly 50 cents on the dollar, and my overhead runs 50%, so 80% of the time I'm basically donating my time with no profit. Most docs see 25 patients a day and have 10 inpatients/month. Because of our shortage area designation, I see 55-60 a day, and see 25-30 inpatients/mo. I put in 80-90 hours a week. I sleep with 2 phones, damn, I even have 2 phones in the bathroom as I can be called out at anytime. I have to ask the ER or Labor/Delivery if I can go shopping or even to a restaurant for dinner. I hate being called out during a nice dinner with my wife. As is, I don't see her enough.
Comment
22 of 28
October 5, 2009
Hi All:

My my, aren't WE all fired up. First, there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Its all just business opportunities. Those who are in on the business and those who are not.

Climate IS an incredibly complex system. But, perhaps one can just step back and say with 6 billion people and growing rapidly on this planet, consuming matter that was created millions and millions of years ago over millions of years, and releasing its contents in only a very, very short amount of time comparatively, does it not make sense that there are likely to be consequences..??.. The agents of most "burning things" are harmful to human health when released into the air. Nature does this as a natural process on this planet. But, everything we do gets ADDED to this already big number. Putting fourth the idea, that a 1 or 2 percent change in one of these contents is unlikely to matter much, is like saying there must be at least a 10 percent difference between human and monkey DNA in order to see a big difference in the result. Scratched your head lately to get a Banana? Complex systems often hinge on very small changes to retain a balance. There are hundreds of examples of this and I am not going to list them!! As for religious fanaticism, sure there is. As Joan Allen put it in the movie, "The Contender", the separation of church and state exists not to protect religion but to protect the government from the grasp of religious fanaticism. But beware, there are many forms of fanaticism including the relentless pursuit of power and money, even if it threatens your own existence.

.....Bill
Comment
23 of 28
October 5, 2009
Bill...Interesting points. And there is only about a 2% difference between human and a "monkey" genome.
Comment
24 of 28
October 6, 2009
WS 54660:

Exactly.... the point being a very small difference for a very big difference in the final result.....

.....Bill
Comment
25 of 28
October 13, 2009
A bit off-topic with the comments.
As far as the US commitment to a renewable energy future goes, who cares if the planet will actually kill humans off in some grand biofeedback loop if we don't change our energy sources and consumption habits? The fact is that burning oil and coal is hazardous to our health, from extraction to end-use, and renewable energy systems are far less hazardous, and sustainable. In addition, oil and coal burning is extremely wasteful and inefficient: unsustainable. If China interprets US leadership around renewable energy as important to it's own energy goals, great. I'm not holding my breath though, the Chinese have some real energy issues to resolve. But how is one to interpret their decision to displace 50 million of their own people to build a big hydro project? This project effectively deals with the possibility of man-made climate change, even if it causes other environmental harm. It can be seen as a priority judgement. They have through their actions supported a renewable energy future, one that makes irrelevant the battle over oil. Americans' preoccupation with the military is tragic for the world, and the resultant logic is ridiculous: "China cares only about oil" claims one post. Possibly, substituting "the US" for "China" will resonate a little more with readers. China has demonstrated a greater commitment to renewable energy than the US has. The US is the country bound and gagged by the oil industry. You haven't seen China invading and occupying oil-rich lands, have you? To think the US is in the middle east for some nation building exercise, or to eliminate terrorism is a naive perspective mythologized by right- wing conservatives. It couldn't be further from the truth. A renewable energy future is at once sustainable, and stabilizing, in it's focus on local need. This is an appealing concept to the Chinese, as I understand it.
Comment
26 of 28
October 13, 2009
Michael, now that I'm a right wing conservative, neocon, schwastika carrying-gun toting ...etc...Its ok, I've been called worse. Can you elaborate on the "China has demonstrated a greater commitment to renewable energy than the US has. The US is the country bound and gagged by the oil industry." Cap and trade will increase your electricty by 90% and gasoline by over 50%. All based on pseudoscience of C02 AGW. Can you provide data to correct my assertions in comment #6. I find your comments about the oil industry and geopolitical global situations quite naive and sophomoric.

And have you or any other posters put your money where your mouth is? I have. I've got an 8 Kw PV Sun Power Si system already in place (the 1st of 3 units, each costing $22,000), as well as solar water heater(Solahart), and solar lighting systems(SolaTube) in my home. I'm building a rain catchment system for irrigation, and gas for cooking and drying laundry. I've done a lot of research into PV from silicon to CIGS to microinverters. And I drive a Civic. Jeez guys, talk is cheap.
Comment
27 of 28
October 14, 2009
WS54660:

Had my money where my mouth is for "ever" when it comes to solar and RE.
My home is still a WIP but getting closer to the end game, net zero retro fit.
..and for the past almost 5 years evac solar has been my business...
You might want to read, "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin. ISBN: 0-671-50248-4.
Its a long read but it really gives a good accounting of where and WHY we are today.

.....Bill
Comment
28 of 28
October 14, 2009
Bill, I appreciate your comments and have a greater respect for your input. Many posters lack practical experience and just "shoot from the hip". And I am still looking for practical PV units. Cost of electricity in my area hovers about $0.45/Kwh so efficient systems will pay for itself relatlively quickly. With Cap and Trade fiasco, I'll be looking at $1/kwh so I'd like to be off grid ASAP. If you have additional information about CIGS, CdTe, amorphous Si, etc, systems, I'd appreciate any input. I'm also putting up a commercial office bld and trying to get it LED certified. I've looked at Solyndral, Heliovolt, and others.
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

Louis Schwartz

View Louis Schwartz's Profile
About: Lou Schwartz, a lawyer and China specialist who focuses his work on the energy and metals sectors in the People's Republic of China, is a frequent contributor t... more »

Advertise With Us

AREDAY Solar Electric Power Association National Solar Trainers Solar Energy International (SEI) OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners American Solar Energy Society
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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