The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, May 23, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Obama Calls for 80% "Clean Energy" by 2035

Clean energy advocates applauded the bold initiative, but cautioned against the inclusion of nuclear, clean coal and natural gas in a "clean energy standard."

RenewableEnergyWorld.com Editors
January 26, 2011  |  29 Comments

In an unprecedented move, last night U.S. President Barack Obama put clean energy front and center on the agenda of the American government -- calling for an 80% clean energy target by 2035.

In his yearly State of the Union address to the nation’s lawmakers, Obama said that it is time for America to invest in the energy of the future and stop supporting the energy of the past.  He called on Congress to remove all subsidies for fossil fuels and to reinvest the money saved into clean energy initiatives.

The President said that he hopes America can obtain 80% of its energy from clean sources by 2035, the most aggressive target ever set forth by a president.  While renewable energy supporters were thrilled with the bold target, they were reminded during the speech that Obama’s idea of clean energy is broad: His target includes nuclear energy, clean coal and natural gas, in addition to traditional renewables like wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydro.

“Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas,” he said. “To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”

Here are some reactions from industry leaders:

Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, was in the House chamber for the speech and was happy with the President's call to level the energy playing field. 

“Wind energy can deliver right now on its promise to deliver new electricity to Americans more affordably than any other energy source, if we have a level playing field to compete with the permanent entitlements that fossil fuels have enjoyed for over 90 years,” Bode said.

She was cautiously optimistic about the broad-based “clean energy standard," saying that AWEA looks forward to reviewing the proposal. 

“It is important from a jobs perspective to focus on deploying clean energy sources over the next few years. Wind energy is ready to go now; we don’t need to wait nearly three decades,” she said.

Rhone Resch of the Solar Energy Industries Association was tweeting during the State of the Union address. He called the President’s agenda for clean energy “ambitious,” and said “solar is ready to do its part to create jobs, innovate and keep U.S. competing.”

Linda Church Ciocci of the National Hydropower Association applauded the President’s bold initiatives and said that hydropower is poised to meet the mandate. 

“With the potential to double its contribution, expanding our hydro resources is key to achieving the President's vision of the future,” she said.  “We strongly support a national standard to expand clean and renewable energy that includes and promotes development of affordable, reliable and available American hydropower.”

A “clean energy standard” that includes nuclear and clean coal is a mistake according to Scott Sklar of The Stella Group, who has written commentaries on the topic on RenewableEnergyWorld.com. 

I hate to put my professor hat on, but excuse me, how is coal clean? Even if you could sequester carbon, it emits mercury, carcinogens, requires much water, emits other greenhouse gases, leaves us with coal ash waste piles, and drives the blowing-up of our mountain tops ruining waterways and farmland. 

Nuclear energy, with its multi-thousand year wastes, imported uranium, and susceptibility to terrorism is another ploy to re-label non-renewable technologies and ooze them into our brand. This reminds me how the high fructose corn syrup industry has recently relabeled itself the “corn sugar” industry or how the food processing industry is fighting labeling requirements so that consumers might infer that they are “organic.”

Sklar’s advice to lawmakers has been not to accept the dilution of clean energy with nuclear energy and clean coal.

As Congress now buckles down to get to work trying to implement some of the President's policy initiatives, it will no doubt be an interesting debate to watch. The U.S. has failed to pass minimal national clean energy targets, let alone something so aggressive. The likelihood of geting something passed this year is slim.

But with continued Presidential leadership on the issue, the trends continue to move in a positive direction.

29 Comments

Register To Comment
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 31, 2011
@ Tam_Hunt:

The "markets are going gangbusters" because of billions in free money. From DOE grants to stimulus fund "guarantees" solar has achieved a lot of interest. But, anything would with free money. It's not real. NOBODY is investing in Solar because it is 'clean, affordable electricity,' they are investing because the government has taken the risk out of the equation.

You are a cheerleader and you make money if people believe in solar. I get that. You have a stake in everything you write here. I don't. I'm an objective investor and nothing I've seen about solar leads me to believe it is efficient, effective or a solution to our energy challenges. If you paid me to ignore those facts - like many that comment here, I might skew the truth.

Go ahead and cheerlead. The free money is almost gone. Get what you can now because when we actually consider solving the problem it will be because of the merits, not the subsidies.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
January 31, 2011
Andrew, I'd really appreciate it if you would go back and read my responses to your anti-solar rants in other threads. I've addressed all your points and demonstrated that solar power is cost-effective today when compared to traditional peak power sources. This is the accurate comparison, not a comparison to retail rates, because solar power is a reliable peak power resource.

The bottomline, however, is not what you or I think about solar power cost-effectiveness. Rather, all we need to do is look to the markets and see what's happening: they're going gangbusters, with solar around the world doubling in capacity about every two years. It grew 50% in the US alone in 2010. This is because technology costs are plummeting, people are realizing the economic value of solar as a peak resource and because of concerns about climate change and peak oil.

'Nuff said.
ANONYMOUS
January 30, 2011
How will we get to 80%? Will we give up anything?
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 28, 2011
Tell "MorganSolar" to talk to DOE. Solar is overpriced and underperforming.

Solar is NOT a SOLUTION.
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2011
Andrew_W, 5 years mate, not from traditional PV, but see www.morgansolar.com and other innovators. Solar is not exempt from innovation and thinking outside the box!

Also take into consideration that solar is Peak Energy, which is much more valuable than base load power like coal or nuclear. Wind is at night. Only hydro and gas have the same capability for peak output. So as long as people get paid base load prices for peak energy, surely solar is not price competitive.
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2011
Andrew_W, 5 years mate, not from traditional PV, but see www.morgansolar.com and other innovators. Solar is not exempt from innovation and thinking outside the box!
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 28, 2011
According to DOE, solar generated electricity is $.25-$.40 per kWh. It needs to be less than $.10 per kWh to be a valuable contribution to our energy independence.

That's 20 years away.
Jon Bohmer
Jon Bohmer
January 28, 2011
$2/W solar is less than 5 years away. That price target is not the problem, it is the subsequent scaling. Taking solar from 10GW/year to 500GW/year in a few years is the REAL challenge, and current solar manufacturing systems are way too capital intensive and constructing new mega-factories takes way too long.
Steve Poppitz
Steve Poppitz
January 28, 2011
IDEA:We could pull soldiers "standing watch" at over 700 military sites in Germany, Japan and the like out of those do nothing jobs and have them build our new energy backbone HERE at home, so that wind farms, solar farms and the like can connect to that backbone easier and faster. All the time, these infrastructure projects will be for sale along with the wind and /or solar utility sites to private utility companies. As fast as one is sold another can be started, and see how fast we actually could get to an 80% renewable #.And least we not forget that for every barrel of oil we DON'T import, another job is created, another live is saved and another knotch in the debt is carved. We can do it with or without some techno.breakthru (and they will come)BUT WE NEED ACTION. So, ask your state and local elected rep. what they are doing?
Write your senators.Buy your own PV system. etc. etc.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
January 28, 2011
Burning stuff is not such an efficient way of producing energy when all the bads are considered, as we are being forced to recognize, if we wanna. So, life as we know it, is not cost effective by more recent past standards. Yet, we must adapt, or deny and die. Those species that do not improve their living environment for the generation will perish. 3.5 billion, or so, years of evolution have stated that, except for a few parasites and deep ocean life forms, and it is not debatable, it is widely known history with accepted evidence, unless you want to be among the parasites. That is OK too, but then get off this thread and go back under the rock. We simply have been building an environmental debt that we have been able to avoid compensating for a long while. Entrenched interests will scream and rant at their impending demise, but it must come. Their are no easy answers, but their are solutions for the willing. We get the government we vote into office. We must wake up or conflict will certainly narrow the field in battles. The financial inertia of the bully USA is not a proud thing of late, being so poorly managed and of perverted vision.
Ralph Perez
Ralph Perez
January 28, 2011
There is no proof that it will take 25 years (2035) to be 80% efficient. Technology is advancing in quantum leaps. Education is going virtual (using multimedia) books are digital, from grade school to college. It sounds foolish to predict a rate of advancement. Although this statement may have been included for coal and oil investers. They must have been breathing a sigh of relief.

http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/electric-vehicles/electric-car-solar-charging-stations-tva-epri/
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2011
Energy production systems have to operate within the parameters of the laws of physics and thermodynamics. There is no such thing as a free lunch, nor will one be invented. Fossil fuels are amazingly good at storing, transfering, and producing high quality energy. A Chevy Volt's driving range is exceeded by a Yugo with a 2-gallon gas tank. We've had it easy for the last 125 years, but the party's ending.
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 28, 2011
When solar reaches less than $2/Watt it might make sense. that's another 10-20 years from now. Fund research, not these silly development schemes.
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2011
Solar will see breakthroughs, as there are so many possible form factors and materials in addition to traditional PV. After all, mirrors will always be cheaper than silicon and there are thousands of ways of doing this.

But the elephant in the room is thermoelectrics - imagine all the waste heat from coal plants, factories, cars and so on which could be converted to electricity using solid state devices. There are a number of promising developments in the field and within the next 5 years we will have thermoelectric devices that are more efficient - and much lower cost - than current mechanical turbines. My guesstimate would be 30% of energy needs would come from thermoelectrics.
michael hromanik
michael hromanik
January 28, 2011
It's time to toss your old Jane fonda movies and live in reality. Nuclear is as clean of an energy as you'll ever get in a large scale power producer. They have to be part of the solution to eliminating fossil fuels. In fact they have to be the primary solution. Wind and solar are intermittant energy producers. You build them, yet you still have to back them up with "dependable" power sources. And they will never be the primary source of electrical power unless the U.S. standard of living slides back to 1905 energy consumption, in which case we'll have alot more problems than just CO2.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
January 28, 2011
Solar is already at $1/W for thin film and $1.50/W for crystalline and still going down while large scale installations are less than $4/W now. Technology will help to bring the cost down but mass production, an American invention, will bring it down even faster. The Chinese and the Koreans and the Taiwanese know this. Obama is right - wake up and smell the coffee.

US solar prices are more expensive than they need to be: a) because product is shipped half way around the world b) countervailing trade measures drive up the price and c) regulatory processes are the slowest and most expensive in the world.

One good question: why does the US have trade barriers on Chinese made solar and wind equipment but not Chinese made dirty coal equipment?
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2011
You have solutions: wind, solar and hydro work. Each is advancing technologically at a very fast pace; at the same time costs are declining while the cost of all the others is going up. Efficiency is the most important factor since net cost of generation is inversely proportional to it. All of these green power sources have available and emerging technology that goes directly to efficiency. Also, resource management which is an integration of satelite imaging, weather data and computer software has a proven capability to increase capacity, particularly for hydro.

Hydro electric power is a massive case of benign neglect - many operational projects use antiquated generator and switch gear technology, runner and turbine designs and antiquated resource management methods. Worse, the 'big think' among utilities and aversion to distributed generation means that the majority of existing flood ponds are unused. Why has hydro capacity gone down when technology has permitted efficiency to increase by over 40% in the last 30 years?

Solar can go almost anywhere but the midwest is a solar gold mine. Remember that cost of generation is a function of insolation - more sun == more power. On that score the US has a huge advantage over succesful solar adopters like Germany, Denmark and Japan and even Spain. The continental US average is 5.5 Kwh/m^2; per capita US electricity consumption is ~13,000 kWh/a: with 16% modules, you need 40 m^2 per capita to meet the entire energy demand; a bit less than 5000 square miles (~0.16% of land mass) to meet 100% of US demand. That much wouldn't be necessary since hydro and wind and geothermal would still all exist and be viable.

Conservation is the most powerful available technology. Here's a 'breakthrough': go to Germany or Denmark and copy what they do in order to have virtually half the per capita consumption of the US!

OR ... 'drill baby drill' & 'burn baby burn'
john Atkins
john Atkins
January 28, 2011
A common thread in most of the comments is that solar is (too) expensive. Not true for lots of commercial installations today. Here's why...

Fewer and fewer commercial system are bought outright by users every year, but more and more are funded and owned by private third party investors, who provide solar power to users at rates lower than the local utility through leases and PPA agreements. For these users, price parity has been reached and surpassed. And investors can make a decent, stable return.

For info on a third party approach, see www.TerraSharesSolar.com. You can probably find others, too.

Research and manufacturing breakthroughs, easing of permitting and rebalancing of subsidies are highly desirable things, but they are NOT NECESSARY for solar to explode right now. Even in states, like Tennessee, that offer no incentives of any kind for any reason. The only ingredient needed is for private investors seeking moderate, stable returns to learn about well planned renewables and turn on the spigot.
William Barnett
William Barnett
January 28, 2011
If we are looking for a renewable solution that will address our current energy consumption rate, a real miracle will be required. I look at all the lights turned on for a night time football game, or the lights used to brighten a highway, winter thermostats at 70 while walking around the home in a t-shirt, office buildings on a snowday where maybe 15% of the staff make it in to work, but the whole campus is heated whether anyone is in the office or not. Americans aren't ready for clean energy - it is too expensive and we use too much of it.
Practical matters aside, I am a fan of local generation and use. Let each community develop its solutions. Depending on where the community is it can go as green as it can afford and take advantage of local resources. In any case, our society is not ready for renewables. I don't think the average consumer has any idea how much power they use and can visualize the equivalent amount of fossil fuel or sunshine/solar panels they need to sustain that.

I'm not optimistic - I say every man for himself.
ANONYMOUS
January 28, 2011
I found a more comprehensive solution at

http://blogs.fanbox.com/howtostopclimatechange

See "Cornerstone #5"
Matt Snyder
Matt Snyder
January 28, 2011
The breakthrough the world has been looking for has been trying to break through to the world. Please see http://www.scipiobiofuels.com

All it takes is the collective will, and capital. So far we haven't seen enough of either to justify a heated conversation let alone commercialize. With adequate capital it can be done long before 2035. This is not impossible in the slightest.

Matt
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 27, 2011
@ fireofenergy-150745: You asked: "Do we have the time for a breakthrough?"

We DON'T have a choice. We haven't SOLVED the problem.

Plus, we're not really looking for a breakthrough - we're pretending wind and solar are the solutions.
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 27, 2011
@ fireofenergy-150745"

"Solar persecutors?" This is the kind of delusional activism that damages ALL attempts to solve our energy challenges. It isn't smart. It isn't helpful. It isn't informed.

I know all the solar-cheerleaders are hoping for some kind of "manufacturing-miracle" but it hasn't happened. Solar is too expensive and has been for the last 20 years. Subsidies allow some developers to make some money, but it isn't a SOLUTION.

Solar capital costs are still +$4/watt. Manufacturing won't fix that.

Instead of pretending solar can solve our problems, we should keep seeking a breakthrough.

True-to-form the promoters and developers of Solar schemes will attack that idea. We must be smart enough to dismiss the promoters and invest in a real, sustainable solution.

S o m e d a y solar and wind may be affordable and reliable - until then, let's look for a breakthrough. Sure, developers touting are making money from solar and wind schemes, but only because we are providing massive subsidies. That isn't smart - because it creates a false hope that solar and wind will save us. It creates a false idea that solar and wind are affordable and they are not.

If you care about America and you care about our energy challenges - we must find a solution. We must find a breakthrough. Wind and solar are not.
Andrew W
Andrew W
January 27, 2011
80% by 2035 won't happen without a breakthrough. Wind and Solar are too expensive and make little sense without massive subsidies.

We need to pursue a breakthrough of "clean, affordable electricity." We haven't found it yet and it needs to be where we focus our attention.
ANONYMOUS
January 27, 2011
I can't think that stupid, tell everyone how coal is clean energy ( oh leave it in the ground ). Also nuclear really isn't clean because we can not dispose of it ( oh I was going to suggest we send it in space but forgot we ready dirty that up as well.
Anthony Huff
Anthony Huff
January 26, 2011
Let's continue to push for de-subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and educating the public about a level playing field.
V. Bruce Stenswick
V. Bruce Stenswick
January 26, 2011
I think the solution is tax-and-rebate. Start small, $1 per ton per year for 10 years, and then $5 per ton per year every year after. This will halt any new fossil fuel plants. The marketplace will figure out the solution, with numerous local battles over nuclear, wind siting, etc.
Joseph Fournier
Joseph Fournier
January 26, 2011
As a Canadian, renewable enthusiast, and environmental R&D scientist I would like to offer the following advise to Amercian readers:
1.) While wind power does not continue to create environmental waste after installation, it is important to consider that wide spread growth of this sector will have a impact simply from the massive requirements for neobyium. Life cycle analysis of the volume of toxic tailings produced from the production of neobyium for (~ 1 tonne / MW) as well as other metal components. The mining industry represents a significant liability for all forms of energy generation regardless of whether that energy is conventional or alternative.
2.) Clean Energy will only be as clean as the terms & conditions set forth in each project's approval.
3.) The US Clean Energy Industry must obtain bipartisan support to be able to move forward with long term government guarentees and therefore Venture Capital committments. This means comprimise is critical on what defines Clean Energy.
4.) Nuclear Energy must be given the opportunity to evolve technological from its present state. Consider Bill Gate's Terra Power micronuclear concept - runs on nuclear waste materials.
5.) North American natural gas reserves/resources represents a transitionary cleaner source of electricity and liquid fuels (GTL) versus coal. Remember GHGs are not near as toxic as are mercury, PM2.5, ozone and acid rain in terms of immediate and local impacts on human health and the environment. In this light, natural gas represents an improvement versus coal on all these paramters.

Thank you
Dennis Houghton
Dennis Houghton
January 26, 2011
I am surprised that a resident of 1940's London, George Orwell did not include "clean coal" in his NewSpeak dictionary.

Clean coal is only that which remains buried, untouched and unburned.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
REW.com Editors

REW.com Editors

Renewable Energy World's network editors help deliver the most comprehensive news coverage of the renewable energy industries. Based in the U.S. and the UK, the team is comprised of editors from Pennwell Corporation's myriad of publications...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 15
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Martifer Solar USA, Inc.
  • EnergyDreams LLC
  • HelioSage
  • Upsolar
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • AR Power Company, Ltd.
  • Festo
  • Westinghouse Solar
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information