Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Crafting National Standards

By Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider
February 5, 2010   |   8 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
8 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 8
February 5, 2010
With such diverse resources in the different regions, a blanket of a national renewable energy standard is not the way to go...yet. Perhaps as new technologies emerge, and prices of these technologies decrease every state will find their niche in RE. Once every state is involved in some way, the government may want to step in create some minimum requirements for various types of RE.
Comment
2 of 8
February 7, 2010
A national RES absolutely IS the way to go. Every state has SOME kind of renewable energy potential, and the RES proposed in CEJAPA does not pick what kind of RE, only that the renewable goal be met.

There are 24 states with mandated (accountable if fail to meet) standards. 5 more have "aspirational goals" (unmet) The states with mandates have lowered their ghgs already. The states that don't have a RES are the ones dragging the US down: (Wyoming, Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Tennessee (or Kentucky) with 90% coal.
Comment
3 of 8
February 10, 2010
How about a free and fair market-based economy rather than perpetual subsidies for corporate crime?

JPChance.wordpress.com

When Congress and the Treasury serve the public, abolish the Federal Reserve Corporation, and issue legitimate currency, most institutionally created problems will diminish rather than expand.

BoobsNotBombs.Net
Comment
4 of 8
February 10, 2010
Our renewable energy company COULD support a national renewable portfolio standard ONLY IF it is combined with national feed-in tariffs OR the current method of setting prices for renewable energy, competitive bidding, is restructured so all renewable projects are offered for bid, all renewable technologies qualify, and the lowest-cost bid wins (otherwise utilities will keep favoring their own company, affiliates and friends).
Comment
5 of 8
February 11, 2010
I would suggest if a federal mandate is set, that smaller states be allowed to form co-operative mandates so their smaller size doesn't work against them in developing projects. Also, I don't like the idea of using wood for burning. We got into this climate mess *because* we based our energy use on burnables. That's something we need to get away from, at least until after we have brought down the CO2 levels to manageable numbers where it's finally safe to use renewable sources of carbon in this manner, but in limited quantity to prevent causing the same problem from re-occurring. It won't happen in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our currently living relatives.
Comment
6 of 8
February 11, 2010
Any federal standards must not prevent states from enacting more stringent requirements. Advocates of the status quo tend to try to use federal standards as a back-door way to undermine local environmental laws.

The practical reality is that the coal-dependent states for the most part haven't come around to accepting renewable portfolio standards and so any federal standard will be blocked. Until the marjority of the coal-dependent states have their own renewable portfolio standards, there won't be sufficient support to get meaningful federal standards through (except as a way to gut the standards in states that are moving more aggressively).
Comment
7 of 8
February 19, 2010
@ therese-shellabarger, if you mean old growth forests then I agree. If you are including woody biomass crops, then you are wrong because that usually doesn't produce a net generation of CO2.
Comment
8 of 8
February 20, 2010
Mike-Holly, I believe that as long as harvesting crops includes use of CO2 producing machines, you can't escape calling them net generators of CO2. So it doesn't really matter what you use, it's all part of the problem. However, I'm not unrealistic on that score, I just think we need to re-think our entire energy chain and eliminate as much as we can "burning" and go more towards other things. So geothermal energy is 24 hour, wind might work 24 hour in some places, less often in others, tidal energy is 24 hour, and then there are a variety of solar options for daytime, as well as methods of building that capture heat to warm homes and buildings overnight, etc. Those who claim we must use nuclear or coal sequestration clearly do not know the entire spectrum of what is out there and need to learn more science.
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

Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative IntertechPira BBI International AltE Natural Power Geothermal Energy Association RussTech Inc.
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