Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Biden Says U.S. Will Lead Energy Revolution

By Bill Scanlon, NREL
May 26, 2011   |   19 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
19 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 19
I am glad he has a can-do attitude. The problem in this country is our refusal to deal with climate change. If you formed two teams, Team Green consisting of 500,000 scientists and engineers who wanted to make 'green' energy cheaper than fossil fuels, and Team FF, consisting of 50,000 scientists and engineers trying to keep fossil fuels cheaper, I am not sure who I would bet on. We need cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, or strict mandates on GHG emissions.
Comment
2 of 19
May 27, 2011
Bruce, I'd bet on those working on fossil fuels, but only because they own too many members of Congress. As a result, we continue lavish tax-payer support of this mature and highly profitable industry. Unfortunately their focus in not on cheaper energy, only prolonged dependence.

However, Vice President Biden's vision of the U.S. leading the global clean-energy revolution is in trouble, not because we don't have the ability to innovate but because we are mired in a dysfunctional regulatory environment that took ten years to approve Cape Wind - our first offshore wind farm. The same regulatory "safeguards" authorized BP's Macondo ultra-deep drilling fiasco in a less than six months.

Already, the regulatory agencies are massing to build careers on the backs of renewable energy, all in the name of saving the environment. Don't they realize that preventing or delaying our switch to renewables is the the very worst thing that could happen to the planet? Surely if the ills of geologic fracking are immune to the Clean Water Act, then generating clean power from the wind, waves, and ocean currents deserves some relief.
No image available
Comment
3 of 19
Anonymous
May 27, 2011
Of course China or Brazil or India or Spain will lead the clean-energy revolution. The U.S. will retain the priviledge of paying for the costly and high-risk R&D effort, after which the taxpayer-funded technology (and job creation, except for a few short-lived pilot-plant manufacturing positions and boom-or-bust construction work) will be seamlessly transferred to the aforementioned countries through various "joint-venture" and "strategic partnership" schemes for profitable commercialization.
Comment
4 of 19
May 27, 2011
It doesn't have to be that way. All it takes is genuine energy leadership from the administration and a level playing field from Congress. If no ocean-based renewable energy projects happen in the U.S., then you can't expect to see the manufacturing.
Comment
5 of 19
May 27, 2011
Attitude is important. But in order to make a "good" decision you have to understand what you are looking at and how that compares to what else is in the market and how feasible it is for the technology to not only "work" but also be a commercially viable product that sells for more than it costs...I really think this is an important element that is missing. We still are in the old - that's the way we have to do it because that is the road we are on.....
No image available
Comment
6 of 19
Anonymous
May 27, 2011
Hollow words from a man who knows nothing about it.
Comment
7 of 19
May 27, 2011
Go Joe,

We are looking for the spark, Bring it on !
Comment
8 of 19
May 31, 2011
Strikes me that "innovation" and "government" is an oxymoron. Further, I seriously doubt the national labs will lead the energy revolution, as they are essentially government bureaucracies.

If you actually want innovation, stop throwing obstacles in front of private industry.
Comment
9 of 19
May 31, 2011
I find it suspicious that any efforts to effect development must come by stimulating big business R&D. It is not the penchant of the capitalist economic "miracle" to respond to market forces? It would seem, therefor, that stimulating the market by providing incentives in buying ability of the general public through FIT's or preferably SREC's trading would provide a level field of market blooming across the country, and not mega bucks for big business alone. The government knows nothing about what and where development must occur. They have proven this time and again. The people of the US (citizens!) need support in purchasing the hardware in these difficult economic times, not big businesses, which are awash in stimulus money being spent in aprehension of more failing policies. Need we be reminded that for the billions spent in bailing out the banksters, each home could have a distributed energy system as its primary source in energy provision, thus negating the expansion of easy capital that the fools in receipt cry out for. Carpet-bagging, big business compromise must stop. Haven't they proven it is not the answer. Give the already established venues a chance to be employed. Let us (US) have a chance to develop the existing solar rennisance of hardware that already exists but cannot be afforded in the present economic climate. Q-Would our economic system really collapse if most domestic and small business energy supplies were to be derived from freely distributed sources that are divorced from large ongoing corporate fuel and power provision? Aren't the government programs designed to maintain this corporate control over energy sources, and the political payback it engenders? Aren't the Demublicans and Republocrats at the root of this problem? Lastly; Aren't we stupid (again) to expect them to correct the problem they benefit from? In my view, they are posturing to merely arrange the peas under the shells before presenting them to our choice.
Comment
10 of 19
May 31, 2011
Phil - suspicious ?? Maybe borderline criminal. Why a GE needs an extra $3MM to do something they we already doing is a simple but accurate example of why Government does not work...

BTW why do you prefer SREC's over FIT's - just curious
Comment
11 of 19
May 31, 2011
Thanks, Peter;
Well, it is only criminal if we had a judicial system independent enuf to call it so, and some legal body to prosecute it so.

On Solar RE credits. I prefer SREC's because they reward performance, or production. They may have less paper work up front. FIT's reward installations, right? So if a solar energy system, PV or thermal, is installed and doesn't work or performs poorly, it is credited up front anyway with a FIT, so small loss. FIT programs require gold standard, (read: expensive) testing for the brand alone. If, under an SREC program, the production is paltry, so is the reward. It, (the reward) is paid over time, for KWh's of production, so it aids the cost of money and hardware for systems that work. The poor banks and scant government coffers should favor it, because it doesn't use their money, but the ute's. Why they don't belies their real anti-solution adgenda. The good news is that the way out, for anyone, is to adopt solar energy and be on the recieving end instead of the paying end.
My complaint about solar thermal SREC systems is that they still require SRCC OG-300 certified systems, which, in itself assures nothing but higher prices because of test certification costs. It should be according to performance alone, because no one would want to have a system installed that does not perform well. Expensive hardware alone does not assure this. Performance alone also opens the door to new developments, even home built innovation, as long as there is an approved metering KWh or BTU meter in line.
Another problem is that many, most states do not have a RES with a solar carve-out in place to enable SREC trading. Why they don't is puzzling. It must be Ute' resistance lobbying.
Comment
12 of 19
May 31, 2011
Phil - understand. I have a solar company working in NJ and the SREC's are incredibly complex. I think a well designed, with all your points taken into account is the answer. Because the big problem with SREC's as they are evolving, at least in NJ, is that the best you can get is a 5 year deal. Uncertainty is the death of deals and the best point about FIT's is length of applicability.
Comment
13 of 19
Doubt it
Comment
14 of 19
Hon Bidden is a politician, he is due for reelection one year hence. So he has to keep the electorate happy or optimistic.Leading the energy revolution is a different game altogether.
While accepting the fact that your scientists are reported to have done a lot in this field, I feel that the only result had been a string of Ph.D, a string of research papers, and publicity.

Let us look at some of the proposals.1st generation bio fuels ( as made in the US) the net energy ratio is negative, high capital investment ( it has to be repeated yearly) high maintenance costs ( repeated application of agro chemicals and fertlizer ) high water consumption in areas where the aquifers are drying up, leachate having adverse results on marine life and worst of all the loss of CO2.from the soil ( soil is reported to hold x3 times the CO2 held by the atmosphere).No body has proved that by using these plants mostly grasses, that the excess CO2 can be sequestered or that global heating can be reduced.

On the other hand there are fantastic proposal coming up as Goe engineering. Spraying the atmosphere above the earth with sulphur dust, a hood orbiting above the earth and the peach by Dr.Steven Chu to paint the roofs white.and finally the Discovery channel showed few dys ago, an experiment to sequester CO2 in caustic soda.

There is nothing wrong with these proposals in theory, but are they practical? can they be implemented, the finances for it.Dr. Chu's proposal has one more short coming, even if all the roofs in the world are painted white, what about the roads, both gravel and macadamized are they too going to be painted white? Secondly since the bulk of the worlds population is found in the poorer countries, who is going to finance the supply of paint?
Comment
15 of 19
July 26, 2011
Upwali, who would suggest the biofuel scenario you describe as an energy revolution? I see no mention of it in the article. Similarly, carbon sequestration has no part of such a revolution. Both of these activities are but distractions from what needs to be done and, logically, what Biden and the folks from NREL are trying to move forward.
Comment
16 of 19
The solution is not found in the US actually not in the whole of US but confined to the tropical areas of the US and the rest of the countries in the tropical belt.

There is plenty of land deserts, dry lands sub fertile lands grass lands and even homesteads ( one plant per homestead ).
Secondly these are areas where poverty is high, people lack food and water, regular droughts and most important one can find a committed work force where the wages are comparatively cheap ( Africa) Without free handouts lasting another century get these people to participate in this project.

2. Get dedicated plantations, dedicated to a distillery ( alcohol refinery ) where the input of capital will 1/10 ( that is at ten year life cycle as against one year for corn or sugar cane)where the distillery and the plantation will be self sufficient in energy, agro chemical (fertlizer) and water.CO2 sequesteration will be massive.

This will contribute to a very low ex factory price for ethanol or even butanol.

If it is ethanol, use the technology already published to use hydrous ethanol as a transport fuel.which make it still cheaper.If one require anhydrous ethanol, go ahead it will be priced at about 50% of the present cost.Of course there is an cost center not mentioned so far - cost of transport.Be it crude oil or ethanol made in the mid west, there is a significant cost of transports.

In my studies I have identified a combination of four plants that will make this project a success. The critical factor in these is the canopy, the long life cycle and the ability to help the soil retain water, automatic improvement to the soil and biodiversity..
Comment
17 of 19
Cliff_Goudey
Sir,you read only a part of the comments.Carbon sequestration is sine quo non in the context of renewable fuels.Otherwise why search for renewable fuels,with the new technology the world can last at least till 2100 with the fossil fuel resources identified and to be identified.The problem to which one seek solutions are (i) fast depleting fossil fuel resources,fast depleting water resources,global warming, ice caps and glaciers melting and many more.

Lastly movement of the human being is now a fact of life for which people use vehicles. The cost of alternate transport technologies place the average man outside the facility of using transport for his movement
Comment
18 of 19
July 26, 2011
Upali, there may be merit to what you are now suggesting, but I do not understand why anyone proposing such an idea would launch their rhetoric by disparaging the audience.
Comment
19 of 19
Cliff_Goudey
Sir, Accepted. My apologies.
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

Talesun Solar Schletter Inc. Intertek Applied Energy Technologies (AET) Growth Energy Schneider Electric IntertechPira
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