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! ×

Renewable Energy Sees Explosive Growth During Obama Administration

Kenneth Bossong, SUN DAY Campaign
August 29, 2012  |  51 Comments

Two recently-issued federal studies underscore the dramatic growth in electrical generation from geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources during the first three and one-half years of the Obama Administration.

According to the latest issue of EIA's "Electric Power Monthly" with data through to June 30, 2012, non-hydro renewable sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, wind) provided 5.76% of net electrical generation for the first half of 2012. This represents an increase of 10.97% compared to the same period in 2011. Solar increased by 97.2% while wind grew 16.3% and geothermal by 0.2%. However, biomass dipped by 0.8%. For the first six months of 2012, wind contributed 3.84% of net electrical generation followed by biomass (1.40%), geothermal (0.43%), and solar ** (0.09%). Conventional hydropower accounted for an additional 7.86% of net electrical generation in 2012 - a decline of 14.3% compared to the first half of 2011.  

During 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration, non-hydro renewables accounted for 3.06% of net electrical generation with an average monthly output of 10,508 gigawatthours. By mid-2012, the average monthly electrical generation from non-hydro renewables had grown by 78.70% to 18,777 gigawatthours. Comparing monthly electrical output in 2008 versus 2012, solar has expanded by 285.19%, wind by 171.72%, and geothermal by 13.53%. However, electrical generation from biomass dropped by 0.56%. 

According to the latest issue of the monthly "Energy Infrastructure Update" published by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Energy Projects with data for the first half of 2012, 229 renewable energy projects accounted for more than 38% of new electrical generation capacity (not to be confused with actual generation). This includes 50 wind energy projects (2,367 MW), 111 solar energy projects (588 MW), 59 biomass projects (271 MW), 5 geothermal projects (87 MW), and 4 water power projects (11 MW).

New renewable energy electrical generating capacity was more than double that of coal (2 new units totaling 1,608 MW). No new nuclear capacity came on line during the first half of 2012. However, 40 new natural gas units came on line with 3,708 MW of capacity (42% of the total). Renewable energy sources now account for 14.76% of total installed operating generating capacity (water-8.66%; wind-4.30%, biomass-1.23%, geothermal-0.31%, solar**-0.26%). This is more than nuclear (9.16%) but less than natural gas (41.83%) and coal (29.66%). The balance comes from waste heat (0.07%).

The numbers speak for themselves — notwithstanding politically-inspired criticism, the pro-renewable energy policies pioneered by the Obama Administration have proven their worth through dramatic growth rates during the past three and one-half years. The investments in sustainable energy made by the federal government as well as individual states and private funders have paid off handsomely underscoring the short-sightedness of proposals to slash or discontinue such support.

Lead Image: Grass arrow via Shutterstock

51 Comments

Register To Comment
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 16, 2012
TO: peter-bradshaw I think you have an excellent point and idea 'Maybe if corporations are people, that corporation should be prosecuted for manslaughter,' Now if we could only get our all knowing and all seeing 7 'Men In Black' who are as corrupt as gov and big biz to agree.This of course is impossible since they are already bought and paid for. The Scumpreme Court is just like our leaders corrupt criminal laughing stock of the world.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
September 16, 2012
per carlekennedy "You've obviously mistaken the US gov't
and big biz as someone who cares about
something other than money."

Well, big business does tend to care only about their subset of money, trying hard to ignore any additional costs society sees due to their actions, but one would hope governments, at least those "by the people & for the people" would have a different outlook. And that the people would see that if they don't, they should be pushed to change in that direction.

The local utility company where I live recently lost a big poorly-constructed and ill-maintained high-pressure natural gas line, which took with it 8 lives and about 24 houses. They have been leaning over backwards to improve their public image ever since, though not quite far enough, I think. There are still issues about compensation levels (and what are the monetary values of those lives, by the way?) Maybe if corporations are people, that corporation should be prosecuted for manslaughter, at least. Not sure how it could be put in San Quentin if convicted, but we could try!.
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 14, 2012
TO: phEl-manke-79191
Dear phEl
I presume you're still researching thorium
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 13, 2012
To phil-manke-79191
Dear phEl
I didn't say it ..... the research links say it. Apparently you've never researched it yourself or you would have something to say constructive either in a negative or positive way. Who said anything about a gov't subsidy. When you have something educational to say one way or the other come on back phEl. In the meantime you might gather a little knowledge through research before commenting

If you do research phEl you might want to spell thorium correctly
it's not thorEum. Having a little nip or two are we phEl?
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 13, 2012
If thoreum is as great as you say, private enterprise should be ble to develope it on it's own, WITHOUT government subsidy. That is why you are pushing the cart, right?
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 13, 2012
THORIUM (Continued 3)

The US and Australia are full of the stuff
Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear
technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering."Once you start looking
more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilization on thorium for
hundreds of thousands of years,
"it's essentially free. You don't have to deal with uranium cartels,"
"it's essentially free. You don't have to deal with oil cartels,"
"it's essentially free. You don't have to deal with coal cartels,"
"it's essentially free. You don't have to deal with ANY cartels,"
You could use thorium in an entirely new
kind of reactor, one that would have zero
risk of meltdown.

Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

THORIUM NUKES
http://www.trendsresearch.com/SubscriberArea/wp-content/2012-Q1/ThoriumTJSpecialReport.pdf

CHINAs THORIUM NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 13, 2012
THORIUM (continued 2) HERE WE GO 1. Thorium byproduct can't be used for bombs(now that's disappointing) 2. Thorium is so plentiful in nature that it is virtually inexhaustible 3. Thorium is cheap, no expensive extraction process needed 4. Thorium is clean, it doesn't pollute the air 5. Thorium is safe, won't blow up and kill millions awwww shucks 6. Thorium produces 200 times more energy than Uranium 7. Thorium produces 3,500,000 times more energy than Coal 8. Thorium only leaves a fraction of waste that Uranium does 9. Thorium waste is only radio active a short time compared to Uranium 10 Thorium eats Plutonium the bomb making waste of Uranium 11. Thorium is ALL potentially usable only 0.7% of Uranium is 12. Thorium has a higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed ??? 13. Thorium does not require Isotope separation, big cost savings 14. Thorium does not require a safety citidal 15. Thoriumcan be used in small underground pint sized 600MW reactors 16. Thorium small underground reactors can form small electric grids 17. Thorium small grids can be everywhere 18. Thorium nuclear power plants would be smaller and less expensive 19. Thorium reactors has no pressurized water so no huge domes 20. Thorium nuclear power IS routine, safe and cheap It's also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 13, 2012
THORIUM clean version
I haven't done much research yet but I'm gonna.

My reaction after reading just 4 articles (see links
below) on Thorium is am I missing something here
am I really really gullible (really me!) Am I really stupid
and I'm missing the reason Thorium is just too good
to be true and somewhere in the articles I read is a
sentence or paragraph that screams out at me Hey
stupid here's the reason this Thorium crap is just that
....crap.

Are all these supposedly intelligent researchers,
scientists college degreed ying yangs blowing smoke
up every body's a** just to keep their well paying jobs
for many years in the future. I mean just WTFam I
missing here? What's wrong with this picture that
everybody but me can see? There's obviously some
problem that is insurmountable and I missed it or it was
purposely left out of these 4 articles to confuse schmucks
like me.

The US and Australia are full of the stuff (thorium)

Lets take a look at what I've (in my kindergarten way) been
able to glean from these 4 articles on Thorium the silvery
grey stuff that's maybe the biggest news on the planet and
has been for years and years and years but most jamoocks
like me are just now being made aware of .....OK sports fans
HERE WE GO
craig nyman
craig nyman
September 12, 2012
Sorry this its from my phone, germany is at least attacking the problem. Reseal realWe are plodding along, still thinking that nuclear is part of the solution. If the real cost were used nuclear power would cost $8000/kwh.
ANONYMOUS
September 11, 2012
Peter writes in comment #40:
"Germany and Italy are doing much better than even California, let alone the US."

Perhaps he could define for us what he means by "better". 2010 data from the EIA:
http://www.eia.gov/renewable/state/california/
lists CA as getting ~29% of electricity from renewables. Germany and Italy are only at ~20% and ~25% with 2011 data.

Germany has extremely high electricity rates and is expanding use of coal generation due to its shortsighted decision to accelerate the phaseout of nuclear power whereas the US is cutting back dramatically on coal usage and has very affordable rates. It is hard to consider German energy policy a great success.
Steven
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
September 11, 2012
To Peter Bradshaw

Dear Peter
You've obviously mistaken the US gov't
and big biz as someone who cares about
something other than money. Sorry Peter
you and all of us americans lose.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
September 11, 2012
Wow, what a lot of angry comments! The real need is for the US, China, and everyone else to move as fast as possible to renewable energy. China is ramping up their PV production, and have just built a huge hydro-electric facility. Germany and Italy are doing much better than even California, let alone the US. Maybe if we stop yelling at each other, and just get moving on installing renewable energy, we will all be better off.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 5, 2012
Soooooo many 'facts' darting around. Wonder how many of these keen observers have actually made use of their factual observations over their lives. Ya must all be quite happy and wealthy, tho it barely shows. My most useful test for factuality is to try putting it in an actual useful linear support for production of a good. I've found that when I complain too much about others it is because I have been avoiding my own completions. When I work on that, I feel less negative, more supportive. I could be wrong, I'm only a retired construction boss and farmer, and have little experience in being a president or CEO.
Mark Kisenwether
Mark Kisenwether
September 5, 2012
mark-hagerty,
Don't you see from the comments here that it's not about creating useful effective products/services that the market will support, it's all about sticking their hands out to grab some of that "free money" ... you know, all the "free money" that already has our unborn grandchildren on the hook for more than $60,000 in tax debt.

Don't you also find it funny how "anonymous" is so certain of the alleged "facts" that he/she hides their identity? But just to play along, trillions is correct, $2.4 of them in just the last 20 years and that's only for NASA, DoE and the general grant fund and doesn't include all the other nonsense and waste. Obama wants $79.5 billion just for the general fund. Over $510 billion just on those three under Obama including $7.5 billion in 2009 alone for "advanced technology vehicles" ... money well wasted since the Chevy Volt is out of production and the EPA won't let Ford sell their 300% more efficient 65 mpg diesel engines here because it's more important to burn three times as much fuel than have 11% higher emission levels - thank you EPA.
ANONYMOUS
September 4, 2012
Mark Hagerty, Your ravings are embarrassing--'trillions'?? That is 1000 billions in case you aren't familiar with numbers. Show us the trillions spent on tech 'the market knew would fail'. Subtract away Solyndra and you still have another 999.450 Billion dollars left to account for. Yes, just go back to your bottle of peach wine since you have NOTHING useful to say. Trillions! LOL--you are an idiot with delusions of grandeur. However, I am somewhat amazed you got the $ number right for Solyndra loan guarantee--Republican ad campaigns haven't been so lucky (saying $500MM when $550MM is correct). Pretty telling that heads of the Rs can't even get that right. Quoting the President of Sunpower is pretty funny stuff since they are getting into the same situation as Solyndra--can't compete with China.
Mark Hagerty
Mark Hagerty
September 4, 2012
The free market is what has added millions of square feet of manufacturing for solar panels and silicon wafers. This is why the cost of solar panels installations is half of what it was 5 years ago. The government has added trillions to the deficit funding technologies the market knew would fail. The president of SunPower said Solyndra is a failed technology and will end up bankrupt. He made this statement a month after Solyndra received $550,000,000.00 of our tax payers dollars. Thats okay at least Solyndra was able to "donate" to Obama before they went bankrupt. Also what else will our children do with their money?? They might as well repay our debt, right???
Mark Hagerty
Mark Hagerty
September 4, 2012
Delroy - I said Obama has hurt my company with his giving tax dollars to his cronies that had failed solar tecnologies, not that my business is hurting, we are doing well. You are so typical hearing and reading only what falls in line with your idealogical agenda and ignoring facts. Also what many incentives are you referring too????? My residential customers have a tax credit, one that is much older then Obama's presidency, that can use. I am not complaining. So to give him credit is stupid at best. Here again you listen to political rhetoric while ignoring reality.
Mark Kisenwether
Mark Kisenwether
September 4, 2012
Kimgerly,
Are you seriously suggesting government should dictate what products or services can/can't be offered in the market? If you really believe that, why don't you go live in Cuba for 20 years and see how you still hold the same opinion. BTW, government manipulation of the markets is the very reason why we're paying to dump >15% of our energy supply and >95% of our viable recycleables into landfills.

How much experience do you have in the CONG and waste industries?
Mark Kisenwether
Mark Kisenwether
September 4, 2012
Phil,
Please check your facts and don't make assumptions about me. Political donation records clearly show 68%+ of Wall Street donations going to the DNC. A little reading comprehension is also in order because the regulations I quoted are for "residential installations". The DOEOA was signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis with the primary purpose of the new consolidated agency being "to end United States dependence on foreign oil and become energy independent". How's that working out?

The "Tea party" comment is uncalled for as you have no idea what my political affiliation is. FYI, the tactic of launching personal attacks when lacking factual argumentative knowledge is boring already, please try to come up with something new.
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
September 3, 2012
"Our focus should be on getting back to the point where innovators stick their necks out to produce viable products and services that the free market will support instead of sticking one's hands out for a government subsidy and all the while ignoring the fact that the government is the biggest problem."

I have to agree with Delroy and Phil. Historically, when market forces do not move in the preferred direction of CONG (coal oil nooklar and natural gas), it's copacetic for the gov't to intervene. But when it's renewable energy's turn (and please let's try to use this operative, because using 'alternative' suggests in the collective conscious of the general public, they have a choice), it's called choosing winners and losers. Hypocrisy much?
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 3, 2012
While I agree about the repeal of "Glass-Steagal", on Carter's CRA, No. The banks were predatory about selling the paper upstream long after that. You really believe that 500 mill for Solyndra, less what was recovered, broke the Fed. Get real. It was a small part of ongoing investment in new tec the government has done for years in all new fields. I agree it smelled bad, but hardly a treasury buster. The GM deal was cooking already with Bush's team. No one wants to consider the trillions for the 10 years of undeclared war for settling (our) oil interests. The USA was, and still is "asleep at the switch." because of pandering to and for campaign money for re-election funding. As long as that is the "carrot in front of the horses mouth", no real governing will take place for the people's interests. I think we should get rid of PAC's and lobbiests in DC and restore Glass-Steagall, and quite soon. .
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 3, 2012
Clinton's repeal of glass-steagall, and expansion of Jimmy Carter's 'Community Reinvestment Act' is what led to the banking crisis of 2008. Since the government was forcing banks to make these bad loans, it bears at least some of the responsibility for their failures. Also, the Bush bailout of the banks (TARP money), has mostly been repaid. What is gone for good is the money Obama used to bail out his union buddies at GM. And his campaign bundlers at Solyndra. Except of course for the amounts kicked back to his campaign.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 3, 2012
Investment firms (and banks) actually donated more, and still do, to the GOP. Many are actually supposed to be 'private companies'. The 'bankster 'fail' and following bailout' was commited, (as in crime), under Bush's tenure. Your failure to understand DOE function shows your obvious 'tea party' disruptive mentality, which is not a compliment as you may believe. Thieves and crooks who oppose any govt involvement are what the 'fences' are needed to keep out, because projects often are in unpopulated areas. It quickly becomes obvious that you are promoting an alternate adjenda from efficient gonernment, and will not will to use reason in anything you see.
Mark Kisenwether
Mark Kisenwether
September 3, 2012
delroy-leslie Quote: "The free marketers always say that government is the problem until they run aground, then they want government to rescue them, 2008 for example."

You mean all those Wall Street and Union people who donated heavily to the Democrat Party, the same Democrat Party that returned the favor with massive sums of our tax money? I have yet to see a single example of any private company getting "bailed out".

Oh, those wonderful government programs like the Department of Energy that was created 35 years ago to "solve the energy crisis" by accumulating 15,000 employees and 15,000 vehicles.

And let's not forget those wonderful regulations like those of the EPA (Employment Prevention Agency) that are not only prohibiting the implementation of renewables but are shutting down more than 13 GW of our conventional generation capacity while simultaneously destroying over 200,000 jobs.

And let's not forget all those wonderful government regulations that have made the cost of domestic manufacturing more than ten times that of other countries so it's impossible to compete with foreign manufacturers.

And let's not forget all those wonderful local government regulations that require such important things as: 8' high fences around any alternative energy system; two independent engineering plans; 300' setbacks from any property line; environmental impact study; maintaining a bond or lien equal to 300% of the estimated remediation costs; just to name a few in addition to all the permitting taxes and that just for a residential installation.

Our focus should be on getting back to the point where innovators stick their necks out to produce viable products and services that the free market will support instead of sticking one's hands out for a government subsidy and all the while ignoring the fact that the government is the biggest problem.
John Bronson
John Bronson
September 2, 2012
Renewables growth would have been the same or better under McCain. It was Bush who made the solar tax credits permanent, and expanded them to utilites. The US was number 1 in wind power under Bush, and has now fallen to number 2 under Obama. Also, Obama waited 3 years to move the blend wall, this could have been done right away.

A lot of the growth is actually due to new technology, and lower prices. Industry, not government. Renewables growth in the next 4 years will be faster, regardless of who wins the election.
Delroy Leslie
Delroy Leslie
September 2, 2012
Bob Plugh, Do not worry too much about China. They are investing heavily in Renewable Energy and are moving slowly away from coal and other fossil fuel, so the level of Co2 that they produce will eventually fall. With a population almost 5 times the size of ours, changes will not happen overnight.
John Martin
John Martin
September 2, 2012
Math is a funny thing; the difference between 2005-8 is 38,772, 2008-11 is 68,892 between those two sets of years, the difference is 30,130 68,892/38,772 x 100=77.6% between the Obama and Bush administrations 54%/44% x 100=22.7% Acceleration. The 2012 data is very supportive and promising. 54%/3yr= 18% growth a year 194,993 x .18= 35,099 The Bossong EIA numbers suggest >20% 194.993 x .2=38,998 Therefore, 2012 alone will be bigger than the years 2005-2008 BOOM!!!! And the doubling time will be ( formula 72constant/18%/annual growth= dt) 4 years (2016). With acceleration 24%/annually doubling time may be closer to 3 years (2015). With this exponential growth the next year that years growth will be bigger than the growth occurring from 2008-11. Currently the RE growth is spotty and uneven. Some areas of the country are experiencing massive growth while others have not even started. The crux of the problem is this. The EIA takes on average 3 years to pie chart this data and renews the charts about every five + years. The result is we have pie charts of energy production from 2008 with 2005 data for our leaders to base sound decisions upon. I saw on CSPAN a DOE official using a 2008 chart only months ago. NonHydro renewables is less than half of todays numbers; Misleading. The coal industry still states 50% of our electricity comes from coal and the nuclear industry uses a figure greater than 20%. The monthly and yearly data does not support this. Coal plants are being closed. No nuclear plants have come on line for almost 2 decades and their available capacity has peaked and is dropping. The important data of what is being purchased now, is rarely shown by EIA. In fact non fossil growth is not factored in. If a renewable has grown say up 20% for each of the past five years EIA projects no growth next year. Very convenient for fossil fuel lobbyist and industry. Figure in the current economic downturn, this R E growth is even more impressive.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 2, 2012
I agree, Delroy.... .Because a mind in hate or madness of any degree cannot reason in depth, even, or specially, to save itself. It can easily be shown that the minions of wall street and endless military spending are the plunderers of the US GDP. Billions, trillions even, have been taken off the top for what? Where Govt has faltered is in NOT doing what it was charged by the constitution to do because of corporate influences, (big money) in it. Money became god, which partners with fear, watching to defend because of the guilt for what it has itself done
Delroy Leslie
Delroy Leslie
September 2, 2012
Mark Hagerty, it seems that with all the incentives that are available for renewable energy, if your company is hurting, you might want to rethink your marketing strategy. You might want to spend more time selling your services to your prospects instead of complaining. Are you sure it is not your constant complaining, whining and political ideology that is turning your prospects off?
Delroy Leslie
Delroy Leslie
September 2, 2012
The free marketers always say that government is the problem until they run aground, then they want government to rescue them, 2008 for example. Government is not the problem, politicians are the problem because they are the ones catering to special interest and lobbyist at the public's expense.

Mark, contrary to your belief, government is one of the biggest supporter and financier of innovation and creativity through various programs like ARPA-E. Programs that were developed for NASA, the military, and other agencies were financed by the government (our taxes). These programs and innovations will eventually end up in consumer services.

While we do not want to be over regulated, when regulations are removed and things go to hell in a hand basket, then we complain that government should have done something about it. Sorry we cannot have our cake and eat it also.
Mark Kisenwether
Mark Kisenwether
September 2, 2012
Don't you see what's going on here? What's going on here is exactly what politicians embrace ... "we the people" arguing like foolish children over a piece of candy while our house is burning down.

The problem is not "getting government to do", the problem is "getting government NOT to do"! The biggest opposition to innovation and implementation is government. Y'all can argue over what a particular politician did or didn't do until the cows come home but the fact remains that every time the government sticks their fingers in anything it gets ruined.

Our schools used to be number one in the world, now they're 27th and falling because government stuck their fingers in.

Our economy used to be number one in the world, now we're 5th and falling because government stuck their fingers in.

Our overall manufacturing ranking used to be number one in the world, now we're 8th and falling because government stuck their fingers in.

I've been in renewables since long before anyone dreamed up the green gimmick. The primary "green" my clients are concerned about is greenbacks they can keep in their pockets and nothing is going to change that fact. Y'all want to promote renewables and make them competitive – then stop arguing over nonsense and put your efforts toward getting government under control and out of the way. Get rid of the worthless, excessive and prohibitive regulations and taxes so we can get our costs under control, rebuild our manufacturing and construction industries and bring our schools back to being the best in the world. End all subsidies for everything, the free market will self-correct as necessary because people are inherently conservative and will always be looking to "save" and they will readily accept viable products that will save both the environment and money.
Bob Plugh
Bob Plugh
September 1, 2012
Hey Phil, while you wax eloquently with large words, the FACT of the matter is that China's CO2 output continues to rise exponentially. China - a better steward of the planet - in a pig's eye to be frank. China does not know much about such things and they will not derail their own economic growth in order to curb things.

Just look at what goes on in this country - child labor - deplorable working conditions - wages - HA - if you can call them that for factory workers - no health insurance - nothing.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 1, 2012
Perhaps the real fear story, and a story it is, is that China may understand itself better than the USA could, and become a better steward of the planet than those who come from weakness and consumption greed. Even though The Chinese are industrializing quickly, they also have demonstrated a common will, however motivated, to move toward sustainability en mass. This may already be underway, as the USA and the rest of the world becomes unable to manage an understanding of sustainability for its culture, and allows the Chinese to adopt for itself what it was willing to sell cheaply to others. For the western politic of consumtive capitalism is a story also, fiction to be sure, not proven to anyone as the way to advancement for any but those who believe in endless monetary wealth. Untill we greatly understand a far more real power, one we already had, and have still, little peace will inhabit the mind of western man, and we will probably attack what we could learn from.
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
September 1, 2012
@Bob-Plugh. Allow me to restate and not point fingers--this planet wrecking behaviour should be taken seriously not just by China and the USA, but by ALL inhabitants. I find his entitlement argument in the west is not only confounding, but selfish--and yeah, it's probably already too late anyway, right? ADDITIONALLY, I think the USA could stand to demonstrate by leading the way and showing by how invoking BAT on a massive scale to invoke measures I offered up. China is only behaving as the USA did back in the 1970s--who are we to deny them a quality of life like the west? What we need to do is lead by a better example in the west and quit making excuses. But, no, we tell the Chinese they have to have higher domestic consumption as the best path forward for their economy; it is, after all, all about consumption. The captains of the ships of fools all talk green, but truth be told, continued consumption is the only engine for economic growth. Of course we have to keep the seven billion busy working and consuming, or the whole global economy becomes like the American housing market. Chinese know KFC is tasty, that V6 automobiles are glorious, and that diamonds are forever. China builds a power station a week, put 400,000 added vehicles on the road each week, and the CO2 in the atmosphere increases by 2 or 3 ppm each year. Why should the Chinese be different from us? They should not.
Bob Plugh
Bob Plugh
August 31, 2012
We studied this whole CO2 problem 4-5 years ago. One thing is certain. The US, by itself, cannot affect much of anything anymore since it is NOT the largest producer of CO2. With every passing year China's role is continuously escalated, which is to be expected since large swaths of China are just entering the industrial phase.

Be that as it may - the US output COULD go to zero and in a few years China will be putting out this much AND MORE. So, should we totally WRECK our economy when the largest polluters simply do as they may? Trying to bring China under any type of pollution cap is like trying to tell a Polar Bear that you're going to eat him for lunch when all you have is a set of chop sticks, in other words, it's not going to happen.

The best thing that could happen would be for all the liberals to move to China, take over the country and work from within to lower their CO2 output.
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
August 31, 2012
I'd like to see some politico comprehend and understand that investing substantively in the world wide energy web 'paved road' for communications infrastructure is worthwhile, so we can actually intelligently and efficiently manage the flow of electrons needed for electrification and 'hot water' heating in the USA--silly Americans. I mean, a great deal of what needs to be done requires A LOT of systems engineering. This might actually get our RE industry somewhere, enabling more conservation, and change in human behavior to be mindful, instead of trying to piecemeal singular RE technology solutions together. We need more policy support for R&D and implementation of hybrid RE systems on existing distribution networks, and support for storage, so we can match explosive results of say, the likes of Germany--they installed 3MW of PV alone in December 2011. '...the nation's PV installations fed 22 gigawatts of electricity into the grid at one point, providing nearly half of the country's energy needs.' http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/05/germanys-day-in-the-sun-solar-hits-22-gw-mark Now, that's explosive!
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
KIMBERLY (KIM) KING
August 31, 2012
Romney's speech was nothing shore of a planet wrecking speech.' Energy independence by CONG (coal oil nooklar natural gas).' Please. Sorry Mark Hagerty, a single mention of renewables does not equate to support for renewables. Poking more holes in our spaceship, anthropogenically exacerbating this climate instability, because of the wanton, satiation addiction to oil?! Not a good idea.

This climate instability positive feedback loop is in full effect. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm. Grim. Not sure what we're doing will be enough, AT ALL, to force a feedback. We need to stop emitting post haste, not drilling.

And agreed with some of the other contributors on this thread, REs in the USA have not have explosive growth. The title of this read a SEVERE understatement. My industry has struggled and continues to struggle.
Fred Widicus
Fred Widicus
August 31, 2012
monty-bannerman-69410, Bush started the renewable ball rolling, there is no denying that (EPACT 2005) was/is real--you can go look it up for yourself. No doubt (if elected) Romney will screw up and kill the solar industry in the U.S., but you can't deny FACTS about Bush's record on renewables. Good luck with your ideological driven arguments but facts are facts and Bush has claim on EPACT 2005.
Monty Bannerman
Monty Bannerman
August 31, 2012
In his newly released energy policy white paper, US presidential candidate Mitt Romney lays out how he would make North America energy independent by 2020. Romney's plan relies almost entirely on dramatically increasing oil and gas production in the US, Canada and Mexico.

http://www.photon.info/photon_news_detail_en.photon?nlang=en&id=69071

Read his actual platform policy and weep.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
August 31, 2012
Any politician would be stupid to not at least mention renewables. If the mark above believes this constitutes embrace and support, he is easily deluded by a desparate embrace of the conservative's platform. Many businsesses, RE included, are not doing well because of the depression you and the world is experiencing, but embracing a policy that does not even exist belies any semblance of seeing the bigger picture of the world economy. It is precisely the lack of 'competent oversight and regulation' that has gotten the national and world economy into the current dilema, and only the restoration of same will keep the white collar thieves off the playground of enjoyable and peaceful life for all. "Conservative" means idealizing the policies, many pushing capital upward, of the past which have failed, and expecting a better result. It also is a definition of insanity.
ANONYMOUS
August 31, 2012
Monte writes in comment #7:
"The comment from anonymous demonstrates that even today, the lemmings among us will stick to blind party ideology and not bother to check facts...."

He apparently has a reading comprehension problem, because he missed the statistics from the EIA that show that there has been little different between the rate of non-hydro renewable growth in the Bush and Obama administrations. Neither administration has had much of a renewable energy policy (Obama had a poor plan that he made little effort to get passed and it didn't get enacted) and the growth rates under neither would qualify as "explosive". Anyone reading the title would assume these was a sharp increase in the renewable energy growth rate under the present administration and this just isn't supported by the data the author references.
Steven
Mark Hagerty
Mark Hagerty
August 31, 2012
I have seen Romney speak a couple of times. I can tell you that every time he mentions energy independence he either states solar and wind or renewables. Last nights acceptance speech he used the word renewables. He has an all of the above philosophy. But when he does try to spur renewables it will be through helping businesses such as mine and not giving tax dollars to contributors that go bankrupt. This bottom up approach will allow thousands of small installers, like me, to start telling the people calling me for jobs, "yes I am hiring". I have always wondered why we feel it is better for the environment to pump oil from the ground that is tens of thousands of miles away, in countries that do not respect the environment or workers safety, then put it in tankers and burn millions of gallons of fuel bringing it to our shores in tankers that can run aground, then it would be to drill here with the most stringent environmental safety laws and employee safety laws. Whether we like it or not we can not stop out dependence on oil tomorrow. Once we become energy independent we will stop sending 700 billion dollars a year to foreign countries, many of which use the money to hurt us, balance the trade deficit, strengthening the dollar, creating tens of thousands of high paying blue collar jobs which will increase tax receipts from the federal and state governments from payroll taxes and corporate taxes.
Mark Hagerty
Mark Hagerty
August 31, 2012
I agree this article is election year propaganda. I own a renewable energy company where we design sell and install solar electric and wind power systems. I can tell you first hand this president has done nothing to help us. In fact his stimulus program that picked solar companies that went bankrupt has hurt us badly. There are very few times now when we have a prospective customer who doesn't ask about how they can be guaranteed the company we procure panels from isn't the next to go bankrupt. We have to explain companies like Solyndra, Uni-Solar etc. etc. were companies that had a failing technology, I.E. thin-film which had a market advantage when silicon was in short supply, etc.etc. This makes us wonder how many more customers we would have had if they didn't have this insecure feeling. So his decision to fund the companies that donated heavily to his campaign has given the industry a black-eye which we have to overcome on a daily basis. This president didn't do anything to make a small business like mine easier to run by removing government red tape or give us a feeling that he understands small businesses. His insistence to raise taxes on small businesses like mine will make it much harder to reinvest profits in new trucks, tools or hopefully eventually a building. If he had we could be twice the size and have hired twice as many people. Being in the renewable energy business during a time when the president talks about us frequently has given a false sense of hope to the hundreds of people who contact me asking if we are hiring. My youngest daughter has been in high school during the Obama administration. We could just as accurately title this article, 'Renewable Energy See Explosive Growth During Hanna's High School Career'. At least she has not hurt my business so it wouldn't be wrong.
craig nyman
craig nyman
August 31, 2012
thank you monty
It seems anonymous has his bread buttered from another kitchen. Drill baby drill is Romney's answer to the problem. We are already seeing some projects on hold because of the election. This has happened many times in th past while subsidies and credits to big oil never faulter. Welcome to the real world and we exist only with our tenacity. Big oil controls 33% of the world GNP. But still we keep getting on. I am inspired.
Monty Bannerman
Monty Bannerman
August 31, 2012
The comment from anonymous demonstrates that even today, the lemmings among us will stick to blind party ideology and not bother to check facts. Anyone who believes that George Bush provided any level of support for Renewables or that Romney will, probably still believes that man is not responsible for climate change and that Darwin's theories are still unproven. I can see why they posted as anonymous. Get real. If Romney wins, its drill baby drill, and that's all.
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
August 31, 2012
carl e kennedy @ Mark I couldn't have said it better Mark, thank you I'm sure glad to see the number of awakened lesser little people(our gov'ts name for us) is growing If obama or any of the corrupt politicians were really concerned about renewable energy they would take the $500,000,000,000.00 annually spent on world wide genocidal war and use it for something humane like renewable energy. Course that would tremendously cut down on the under the table graft money the Wash D C blowhard criminals recieve from the sleazy MIC lobbyists and I mean that in a nice way
Mark Kisenwether
Mark Kisenwether
August 31, 2012
The only "explosive growth" under Obama is the number of government regulators, our national debt and the Chinese economy!
Delroy Leslie
Delroy Leslie
August 30, 2012
The last 3 years of the Bush administration saw the introduction of the PTC and the massive growth of wind generation that caused the then increase in renewable energy. Most of the beneficiaries of the PTC were large investors that were installing large wind farms. That growth stopped with the financial meltdown in 2008 and was revived with the introduction of the Section 1603 that was part of the ARRA introduced by Obama in 2009.
ANONYMOUS
August 30, 2012
"Explosive growth" during Obama administration? Somewhere I detect some election year propaganda. Let's look at some actual data and compare the first 3 years of Obama's term to the last 3 years of Bush's term, so that we can use whole year statistics. From table 1.1A in thousands of MWh generation for non-hydro renewables:
2005: 87329
2008: 126101
2011: 194993

So in the last 3 years of the Bush administration this class of production grew 44% and in the 3 full years of the Obama adminstration this class of production grew 54%. This just isn't a big difference, especially when you consider that 3 extra years of technological improvements have made renewable production cheaper, so we would expect some acceleration in the pace of change. The plain truth is that the Obama administration isn't doing all that much for renewables. The "SUN DAY campaign" might want to rename itself the "spin day campaign."
Steven
Douglas Prince
Douglas Prince
August 30, 2012
carle - Oh, Behave!
Carl Kennedy
Carl Kennedy
August 30, 2012
It's amazing where and how many places obama and gov trolls show up to try and convince people that they are not big biz, big oil, big pharm, big dairy, big agri puppets. Is this kinney from south park all growed up?

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Kenneth Bossong

Kenneth Bossong

Ken Bossong is the Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as cost-effective alternatives to nuclear...
  • 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
  • 2GreenEnergy.com
  • Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  • Met Office
  • Johnson Controls, Inc.
  • W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
  • EcoFasten Solar
  • Magnum Energy Inc.
  • Navigant
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