The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 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
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming 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

Energy: A Nonpartisan Guide for U.S. Voters

PennEnergy Editorial Staff
November 01, 2012  |  6 Comments

While most of us probably take it for granted, energy plays an integral role in our daily lives—in commuting to work, running the dishwasher, charging our mobile devices, and cooling an office building, not to mention the manufacture of every product we buy. For better or for worse, nearly everything we do requires energy, and we use more energy now than we ever have before.

Meanwhile, our energy situation is changing rapidly. Our current energy outlook is far different than what it was just a few years ago; due mainly to a significant surge in domestic oil and natural gas production. In 2010, we imported less than 50 percent of the oil we used, for the first time in 13 years, and that trend continued in 2011. Still, this hopeful bit of news is itself fraught with tradeoffs, mainly environmental.

In fact, there are a lot of critical tradeoffs we will need to confront as we decide how to move forward on energy policy. Many advocate for things like developing infrastructure and technology for renewables like wind and solar power,modernizing our energy grid, or developing “clean coal” technology. The cost of these endeavors has the potential to be massive. In our fragile economy, are we prepared to widen our federal budget deficit for our energy needs?

Our energy policy also has the potential for creating a lot of jobs. People talk about “green jobs” that will come from developing infrastructure for renewable energy, but a lot of jobs (some say more) can also be created from upping our domestic production of oil and natural gas—we’ll need people to build the pipelines and do the drilling. But again, these job creation strategies may contribute significantly to the deficit. 

Understanding the tradeoffs we need to consider for our energy choices is critical. The difficulty is that energy policy represents a “triple threat” of challenges to confront, each daunting in its own right. (Click here to view Public Agenda's new energy infographic)

To help voters reach that understanding, Public Agenda’s Energy: A Citizens' Solutions Guide examines some of the approaches that candidates and policymakers from across the political spectrum support, including:

  • Moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and making investments in renewable sources
  • Ensuring energy security by focusing on domestic fossil fuel production
  • Moving toward a more energy-efficient society by encouraging individuals and businesses to conserve, meanwhile modernizing our energy grid

The guide also examines the pros and cons of each approach, so voters come to acknowledge that any solution will require sacrifices or drawbacks and decide which tradeoffs they are willing to accept.

The guide is part of Public Agenda's Citizens' Guide Series, which helps change the conversation on some of our more pressing public issues. The series gets voters past an either/or, polarized frame of thinking to start focusing on practical solutions. 

Click here to access Public Agenda’s Energy: A Citizens' Solutions Guide (pdf)

This article was originally published on PennEnergy and was republished with permission.

6 Comments

Register To Comment
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
November 5, 2012
'Just look at the Solyndra debacle—after the government sank half a billion dollars into the company, it went bankrupt' OMG. It's hard to respect a report that gets it so wrong. There's a huge difference between amounts of money promised and amounts actually spent as in this case. If this is a study, what did they actually study? Apparently, 9 out of 10 Americans cannot distinguish between a loan guarantee and an actual loan nor a pre-approved loan and an approved loan. Apparently, the fact that coal power is the number one offender for a whole litany of air pollutants and toxic waste is not 'What's bad' about it. Also, apparently methane and CO2 emissions from NG aren't bad either. 'nuclear energy creates radioactive waste' - totally in depth research. Coal is also a leading contender in this category and so is the new kid - fracking. 'All the conservation in the world isn't going to do the job, and improving energy efficiency will do almost nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.' and morbidly obese people won't benefit from going on a diet nor will it reduce their dependence on pizza delivery. What a totally piffloneous statement. And how is energy efficiency an alternative to the other possible approaches when it can actually coexist beneficially with either of the other 'approaches' suggested. Basically, they've dumb'ed it down until it's just plain dumb. But perhaps that captures the discussion in a nutshell.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
November 5, 2012
d ferra; Why .25c? Why as a FIT? FITs are fixed rates inviting political adjustment. SRECs that adjust according to a carbon/solar balance market are more sustainable and equitable, IMO. The states RES can then set the solar requirement and SACP and only tweak it carefully. Any tweaking should also be done with advance notice of one year or so to allow solar businesses, governments, and workers to plan accordingly for the expected changes.. With the advent of electric autos, the carbon levy may be extended unto the petro industry to balance the credited use of solar energy for transportation. This may not be politically popular, but may be far more beneficial if we are to be serious about moving to sustainable practices in energy. Sustainability may be a political hot potato, but that is the problem of a purchased government, rather than a socially and politically focused one.
...........IMO, any energy provision involving "burn-tec" is not sustainable, corporate run or otherwise.
Daniel Ferra
Daniel Ferra
November 3, 2012
Hello, Petition Background
California law does not allow home owners to size their Solar systems larger than what they use. In order to get the California Solar Initiative (CSI) rebate, the customer is not allowed to install a system that inherently over-produces more than what is needed for his home.
The Feed-in Tariff can not be earned if you receive a rebate from your utility company for solar panels or if you are participating in other utility solar incentives programs such as the CSI. It also can not be earned if you are participating net metering, which only pays one time a year under the AB 920 California Solar Surplus Act.
Our Feed-In Tariff should mirror Germany and Japan, where residential FIT is 30 cents - 50 cents per kwh.
The 4 cents per kwh currently administered as a one-time-a-year payment is not adequate and stops our own citizens from participating in our struggle to reduce green house gases.
The California Public Utility commission can change the FIT to 25 cents per kwh, and distribute the solution to all tax-paying citizens, who should not be deliberately handcuffed. Residential home owners should be allowed to participate in the State mandated goal to achieve 33% renewable energy by 2020.
California resident who purchase an electric vehicle can expect a 60% increase in their electric bill, as shown by a study done by Purdue University in summer of 2010.
Due to these laws, we have automatically taken out over 8 million roof tops, that would generate over 11,500MW of power, thats 5 San Onofre nuclear power plants.
We need to let our tax paying, home owning citizens in on a Feed in Tariff that pays 25 cents per kwh.
In the spirit of Bill McKibben and 350.org for our children and eaarth, lets make real global sustaining changes for all of us.
Go to Facebook, Daniel Ferra, Palm Springs Ca. to sign petition.
ANONYMOUS
November 3, 2012
re: central monolistic control of energy

Actually, Energy does grow on trees, flow in the wind, and fall from the sky.

This is about true energy independence, individuals having choice to use this energy directly, not be forced by monolopies (or gov't) control of energy flow to us.

Those that control the flow of most fossil fuels set the price to us, & most of the time, our gov't protects these monopolies most instead of US individuals! The monolopies don't want us to have control of our own energy flow (free fuel from the sky or earth) because they can't profit from us.

Our gov't should not support & protect energy monopolies who own most energy flow. The U.S. Gov't should protect the rights of its citizens to produce & use their own energy at home(or biz) and for fair market competition(NO monoplies) for those who must buy energy from distributors (utilities or oil/gas companies), they must not be allowed to operate as central monopolies having free rein of prices & traditional fuels should not still be susidized(coal since 1918!) after almost 100 years of profiting, they long ago got gov't start up money & have been 'stood up' by our gov't to this day! This is a travestly & rape of American public, e.g. Why should Exxon still get g0v't money when they have been profitable(100's of millions!!) for decades?

Energy does grow on trees, flow in the wind, and fall from the sky. You have the God giving right to use this 'free fuel' and should be protected by our gov't to do so.

WE, the people, need our individual rights to be protected , not central monopolistic companies(now legally listed as 'individuals' to get our rights!!)

WE need to hear & see action from our chosen leaders who truly support 'By...Of... & FOR the People of these United States of America!!
ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2012
"Non partisan" and "bi-partisan" are two different things. The organization Public Agenda is non partisan and partners with conservative organizations Heritage and Brookings Institutes. This guide takes a balanced approach and refrains from the typical hyperbole that has entrenched itself in usually very uninformed political discussions about energy. It also does not even make judgement calls, it just presents options including the one being presented by the conservatives.

I always find it odd that people like GRS get the panties in a bunch over pieces like this. What are these "dozens of assumptions?" I guess "World energy demand is expected to increase by nearly 40 percent" or "Most of our energy—83 percent—comes from fossil fuels.
" or "Renewable energy has serious fiscal drawbacks"?

And what is your problem with Approach 2 (expand fossil fuels)? I guess if you believe that any government is bad, roads build themselves, and greed is all we need then you believe energy grows on trees and we shouldn't even be discussing it at all.
Glenn Schleede
Glenn Schleede
November 2, 2012
Accepting your claim that 'Energy: A Citizens' Solution Guide,' is 'non-partisan' would require that one believe that all political parties accept (1) the dozens of assumptions and claims that underlie the statements in the 'guide,' and (2) are equally comfortable with centralize energy planning, picking 'winning' energy technologies, and continued or expandedfederal spending, credit programs, special interest tax breaks, and regulatory efforts to shape energy markets and energy users choices.

Please note that this approach has been followed by the federal government and has been expanding since 1973 with few successes.

I suggest that you reconsider your 'non-partisan' claim.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 55
    Energy Expert Predicts Solar Could Upend Major Utility in California on Price
  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Massachusetts Solar: Healthy Mix of Business Sense, Environmental Awareness and Public Engagement

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Everblue
  • Solar Electric Power Association
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • SRECTrade, Inc.
  • Solar Site Design
  • Brightergy
  • Associated Renewable
  • Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative
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
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
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