The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 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! ×

U.S. Energy Policy: The Fierce Urgency of Never

David Meyers, Graduate Student
March 27, 2011  |  14 Comments

America is yearning for leadership, and energy policy is another area where it is lacking. Democrats argue we must do more to promote and develop alternative fuels. Republicans counter that there is no alternative to oil and gas in the short term and that we need to increase our domestic output to secure our energy supply.

Both of these positions are correct, but they are also dogmatic. So instead of a realistic energy policy that actually does something about the problem, all we get is more and more political bickering. Democrats and Republicans are fiddling while our energy supply, literally, burns. 

Proponents of renewable energy unfairly criticize Republicans for being beholden to big oil and refusing to help find new, alternative sources of energy. Many of these activists demand that we immediately reduce our consumption of oil even though we don’t have sufficient alternatives to meet our energy needs. This is not a serious argument. 

Nonrenewable fossil fuels account for more than 85% of the energy we use. It’s unrealistic to claim that we can meaningfully reduce our consumption of oil in the short term because there are currently no real alternatives. And many of the energy proposals designed to reduce our consumption of oil will only exacerbate the problem. 

President Obama’s fuel efficiency requirements won’t do much to reduce oil consumption in the short term. The President claims, with some validity, that we have to start somewhere and we can’t afford to postpone action.  But what he doesn’t realize is that in the long term, policies such as this perpetuate our dependence on nonrenewable energy. 

By setting goals to reduce oil consumption instead of focusing most of our efforts on alternative energy, Obama is conceding that fossil fuels will be America’s main source of energy for decades to come. Instead, the President should be working towards an American economy that is fueled by new, alternative energy sources. 

In a recent press conference on energy prices, President Obama spent nearly all of his time discussing ways to boost domestic oil production. Then he threw in this line: “By 2035, 80 percent of our electricity will come from a broad array of clean energy sources.” But besides the typical rhetoric of biofuels, clean coal, and wind power, he offered no specifics. He also didn’t explain why or how he expected his plan to succeed when similar efforts from presidents of both parties never got off the ground. 

We do need to increase our domestic oil production in the near term to meet our pressing energy needs. But unless we make a serious effort to find new ways to fuel our country, we are just perpetuating the problem, endangering America’s security and prosperity, and kicking the can down the road. 

Fossil fuels drive our economy and account for more than 85% of all the energy we use. It is only a matter of time before these fossil fuels dry up. We are on an unsustainable course. The longer America waits to address the problem, the more serious the problem will become (see Social Security and Medicare). By contrast, by finding and creating new energy sources we can avoid the problem, make America a world leader on energy, and create a new, extremely profitable sector of our economy. 

What we need are serious efforts and policies to help spur innovation and increase funding for new sources of energy. Instead, politicians in Washington are calling for tax increases on energy in the middle of a recession. This will not solve the problem. Energy Secretary Chu has said he would like to see gas prices rise, presumably in part so that Americans will consider alternatives. But unless there are alternatives, higher gas prices will just be another burden on the American people. 

Republicans have a chance to take the lead on energy policy, but they haven’t done so yet. Like President Obama, they are focusing their efforts on increasing domestic production, while only mentioning in passing that we need to find new and alternative energy sources. 

This is not the energy policy that Americans want. A recent Gallup poll found that 66% of Americans chose “development of alternative energy such as wind and solar power as the preferred approach for addressing energy concerns, while 26% [chose] production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies.” As is usually the case, good policy makes good politics.

And the political party that embraces good policy will win the support of the American people.  

14 Comments

Register To Comment
Fred Kesinger
Fred Kesinger
September 19, 2011
Without a comprehensive U.S. Energy Policy it will be very difficult to make any substantial progress on the current energy crisis. For the foreseeable future we must continue our energy efficiency initiatives, and all known energy sources including fossil fuels, all renewable energy and nuclear. We must clearly offer the consumer attractive choices that he or she can afford in spite of the U.S. economy.
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
May 30, 2011
Aaron again: Pls think of this. Many people go to work each weekday, leaving their windplant and PV cellbank capable of charging a large [ampere-wise] battery bank in a garage, carport, toolshed-sized building, or other appropriate place.
'Industrial'-sized batteries can be purchased [used] but still
in good condition, or a 'bank' of large automotive or 'boating' batteries can be placed on sturdy shelving and be
fed thru fuses from the PV-cells or windplant. While away at work, perhaps two days worth of energy can be stored: Thru the
night, the battery bank can power a few lights and recharge the electric vehicle. On dark, gloomy days, the windplant provides the juice; on hot, sunny, no-wind days, the PVs pour out power. On windy, yet sunny days--the best of recharging!..Every few months, retire the oldest batteries, trading them [core and any pro-rating]at a good shop that will give you a good deal on their 'orphan' batteries--several months old and not yet sold--perhaps because of their unusual size or rating? Do the same for the EV if it has 'automotive-like [black-box cells with posts, screw-lugs, or
boating-type wingnuts...Keep charged!..Aaron Allen...
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
April 11, 2011
1. Prove that HHO-gas blended into the air-intake of petro-fueled vehicles, home heating equipment really works. 2. Determine which engines work best on bio-fuels and are simpler and less fussy that 'knife-edged' ones that cost more to buy and maintain. Only use these engines--quit wasting time and money on 'engineering' higher complexity and price! 3. Everyone shud 'follow WW II', that is only use:
A. Nonessential drivers--3 gallons per week; stay off high speed roads and drive as little as possible...B. Essential commuters--8 gallons per week or more--if you really need it. Drive at 55 or less if possible and take riders who work with you or nearby...C. Doctors, clergy, other essential persons who drive their own vehicles 'at work'...Affix a 2-3" letter A, B, or C. on your windshield [to the right of your rear-view mirror--where it
can be seen but does not block your view..Inflate your tires to their safe maximum pressure and don't fill up your tank or carry lotsa heavy stuff in your trunk...When cheaper bio-fuel comes to a place near you--buy-it-n-try it! If necessary, adjust your HHO device...Aaron Allen...
Dave Johnson
Dave Johnson
April 5, 2011
Don't take it personal...the facts on the ground are what they are...This is not a matter of personal preference...50 years of usable oil...100 of nat gas...What matters is what the people buy in to, which will be whatever is easiest...
Joanne Ivancic
Joanne Ivancic
April 5, 2011
First, don't rag on Republicans. Plenty of Republicans are the ones putting significant amounts of whatever investment there is (as little as it is) in renewable energy. And, that includes biofuels and advanced biofuels. You think all those farmers are Democrats?

Second, if we are looking for realistic replacement for fossil fuels used for transportation, biofuels and advanced (2nd, 3rd, 4th generation) must be included. Concerns such as energy density, infrastructure, keeping much of the revenue in the home country (whatever it is from Australia through the US to Zambia)need to be considered. Take a close look at developing research, installed and operating commercial plants and pilot and demonstration biorefineries. You can read a brief overview of some examples in Renewable Energy World's articles in today's e-newsletter and go to www.AdvancedBiofuelsUSA.org for a library of nearly 5000 articles on the subject in an easy-to-research format.
ANONYMOUS
April 3, 2011
We must go in two directions. The first is conservation which requires downsizing the transportation vehicles. this can be done by a combination of weight limits on new cars and trucks used for commuting, and using new engine technologies that have higher efficiency. Several companies like Turbine Truck Engines (TTEG), Axial Vector (AVECD) and Cyclone Power (CYPW) already have these engines so why aren't they being made for American cars and trucks? Generating electricity from waste oil, heat and biomass raises efficiency as well.

The second direction is to make liquid fuels that will use the installed infrastructure. Except for some local fleet use where Nat gas may work, we can make liquid fuels out of CO2. There are two companies (maybe more) that can do this and they are Carbon Sciences (CABN). We should concentrate on liquid fuels and electric cars for transport. EVs are best for short range with Plug in hybrids being the best overall.
Dave Johnson
Dave Johnson
April 1, 2011
Here's what I tell my conservative friends, "Drill it but don't spill it...and don't come crying to me when it's gone.."
Garth Barker
Garth Barker
March 30, 2011
Its deeper than that, even the utilities avoid innovation IF its a threat to "business as usual"; some how some time the masses will wake up and hold the government and quasi-government administrations accountable but we can't wait for that to happen. We do what we can with what we have while making sure we're successful with that effort.
ANONYMOUS
March 30, 2011
We have millions of acres if rooftops on which solar energy can be produced at the point of use.

Government subsidies (my tax money) is being handed out to industrial scale solar and wind projects that destroy open lands and make a negative visual impact on our remaining open and rural lands.

Wind turbines from start to finish are not green in their manufacture, shipment, installation or use. They are a huge disappointment to environmentalists because of their unreliability and inability to produce the power promised in a manner utility companies can use.

Bulldozing open lands with natural green CO2-consuming vegetation is an exercise in misguidedness in the use of the sun to generate power. Not only do utility scale projects destroy habitat, the increased building of power lines to get their energy to metropolitan areas will just compound the damage.

President Obama has just announced his support for the drilling of oil by countries in the Western Hemisphere except the U.S.
But his Department of Interior has been scrambling to pay out big bucks for renewable energy projects that are easily as environmentally destructive as any new oil drilling. Oil companies such as Chevron are achieving permission to scrape off desert habitat for solar generation...yet they would not be allowed to drill for oil in the same location.

And many wells are capped that could begin producing right away to increase domestic production for the short term.

And many rooftops and parking lots are there for the asking, with only a tiny incentive from government to get solar generation off the ground. So to speak.

The problem is some things are too simple. Please don't anyone pooh-pooh this as being too simple. Simple is good. Individuals producing energy where they use it is good. Because utility companies have only a 19th Century business model in their corporate minds, they resist buying from individual producers. If they can't own the production, they don't want it. That's all.
ANONYMOUS
March 30, 2011
Pickens, is correct, and in the near-term the only viable alternative to imported oil is to leverage our growing natural natural gas production and reserves in the transportation sector, by converting all existing heavy and medium duty vehicles to compressed natural gas and LNG. This will also subsitute a cheaper, lower carbon, and cleaner burning fuel for LSDF, reducing the black carbon impact on the warming arctic. A combination of electric hybridization and natural gas would be even better, since the higher efficiency would complement the benefits of fuel substitution. The resulting reduction in U.S. diesel demand would enable the U.S. to phase out oil imports from the highest risk petroleum exporting countries, thereby significantly improving energy security. Considering the $2 Trillion dollars the U.S. has spent in the past decade on oil wars, with little or no return on that investment, the up front cost of vehicle conversions to CNG would be a bargain. In the electricity sector, zero emission natural gas powerplants utilizing CCS could eliminate carbon emissions from this sector at a lower cost than most renewable technologies, and would provide clean baseload power for renewables to build on.

There is little doubt that absent corruption at all levels of the U.S. government by interest peddling and entrenched industries, (e.g., Coal, Oil, Labor Unions, etc.) a rational energy policy would emerge and be enacted.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
March 29, 2011
@ Anonymous,

Thanks. I'm sorry to report, however, that ARPA-E is not the success that they claim.

We strongly supported the ARPA-E legislation, and once ARPA-E was up and running we eagerly submitted... as did thousands upon thousands of other novel concepts.

In the end, ARPA-E invested in completely derivative companies that had little novelty to them at all... it was the same crap that the DOE has been flushing money into for 33 years. There were only ~30 "winners" in the DOE, without many new ideas among them and very little chance of shaking the alternative world. It's a farce.

We'll submit again, but ARPA-E has shown itself to be either completely incompetent or corrupt, so we have little hope of being "selected" (drawn from a hat?).

Again, there were THOUSANDS of submissions... some of which were new ideas, new projects... new directions. ARPA-E chose to throw its money back to a few projects that might as well have submitted to the DOE. Their "success" that has been touted has revolved around the investor money that flowed into the companies that ARPA-E invested in... but investment doesn't mean success. Look up GreenFuel: an algae-based company that got tens of millions in support from the DOE... they were able to leverage the DOE money into 70 million in outside investment (investors are always eager to follow the DOE's lead)... Within 2 years they were bankrupt having made only ~200 gallons of fuel. (There's no chance algal oil will ever compete.)

I suspect that will be the story for most of these "successes" that are drawing investment after ARPA-E gave unwarranted money to the projects. In the end, it will always be the viability of the technology that matters, and some of ARPA-E's choices have little innovation and even less potential. I'd be surprised if even 5 of their picks make it.

For the thousands upon thousands of submissions they had to work with, they did a terrible job.
ANONYMOUS
March 29, 2011
@ glenn-doty-175949

I would advise you to look at a somewhat new DOE program called ARPA-E. This program does exactly what you say DOE does not do. Hopefully you will be presently suprised as this program has been touted as quite successful.

I also would like to say that solar is more than "barely" economical in the southwest. With new financial mechanisms, places like New Jersey and Massachusetts are seeing large investments in solar as well.
Peter Hill
Peter Hill
March 28, 2011
In reality, the alternative energy technology we need to replace all fossil fuel systems on Earth does exist, and has existed for decades, but the public, including the politicians, are largely ignorant of this fact. And not by accident. For the rest of the story, go to http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index.html
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
March 28, 2011
David,

First you have to actually HAVE an alternative to oil before you can embrace it. Your criticism of Obama's efficiency emphasis is unfair - as is the democrats critique of pushes to increase drilling.

Right now, all that is out there is wind, and in a few isolated regions there are opportunities to expand geothermal or hydro... and in the Southwest solar is just barely becoming economically viable with extensive subsidies...

That's not going to power our cars, and electric cars are a farce. So Obama is calling for better fuel economy. That's smart for a country that has only ~3% of the oil reserves on the planet and no realistic alternative.

What you SHOULD be criticizing about both sides is the complete lack of support for new alternative technologies. It's not solar or wind that will replace gas - at least not directly... something new must be developed. That will require support.

I can attest that there is NO mechanism out there which offers any support for an alternative energy path that wasn't funded in the 1970's. That is absurd. The pathological egotism that informs such a policy is simply insane, but the fact remains that the DOE only funds projects which have been demonstrated - ie projects that have previously received millions of dollars in funding to set up demonstration plants. They've held this policy for ~33 years, which effectively means that no idea that hadn't been tried (fully funded) before the DOE was chartered has been given a chance since. Those ideas that WERE funded pre-1977 have been funded every year, even though they've now had 33 years to prove their economical viability - or lack thereof.

THIS is the most crucial change that must take place in Washington. There has to be room for innovation, so that we might HAVE a realistic alternative.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
David Meyers

David Meyers

David Meyers served in the White House from 2006 to 2009, and later in the United States Senate. He is currently pursuing graduate studies at Columbia University.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
  • Active Communications International
  • CleanEdison
  • Solar Energy International (SEI)
  • Planet Solar Inc
  • Canadian Clean Energy Conferences
  • Associated Renewable
  • Solar Electric Power Association
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