Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTime For Renewable Energy
After years of opposing or ridiculing renewable energy, the giant oil companies are using a new approach. A recent ExxonMobil advertising campaign puts it this way:
"Oil, gas, coal, biofuels, nuclear, wind, solar....to fuel the future we need them all."
Not an unexpected maneuver from a fossil fuel company that has owned
Washington and received subsidies and tax breaks for decades. What is
unfortunate is that this is the exact kind of energy pitch coming out
of the Obama Administration and most Congressional Democrats. Indeed it
is right out of candidate Obama's 2008 campaign rhetoric last year.
Then Senator Obama gave every energy source its due although he spent an inordinate amount of time pushing the mirage of "clean coal" and keeping nuclear energy on the table.
The problem is that all energy sources are not created equal for purposes of efficiency, and the well being of consumers, workers, the environment and posterity. Regardless of their BTU production, different kinds of energy produce different levels of harms and benefits, short and long term.
Take atomic power. Wall Street financiers have been adamant for years that lending billions of dollars to utilities to construct a single nuclear plant requires a 100% U.S. government loan guarantee. A 90% loan guarantee by the taxpayers is rejected by the Wall Streeters. They want a 100% guarantee on the barrelhead.
The well-known physicist, environmentalist Amory Lovins argues against nuclear energy just on economic grounds. He says he doesn't even have to get to the safety issues to recommend rejection. I know no one of prominence of on the other side willing to debate him. If you do, let me know.
But the safety issues surrounding the nuclear option will not go away. Neither the unresolved permanent storage of deadly radioactive waste, nor the national security problems, nor the risk of a class nine meltdown that could contaminate, in the words of the old Atomic Energy Agency (of the U.S. government), an area the size of Pennsylvania, are going away.
Then, of course, there is the missing "source" of energy from the Exxon ad. This is energy efficiency. Reducing waste. A thousand megawatts you don't waste is a thousand megawatts you don't have to produce. The same goes for not having to waste a gallon of gasoline in gas guzzling motor vehicles. Nothing can compete with the payback ratios of energy conservation which includes building and engine construction and use. Yet again and again it is not at the top of the list or on many lists at all.
Then there are the renewables-wind, geothermal, water and all the wonderous varieties of solar. A few days ago, the Sustainable Energy Coalition had its 12th annual Congressional renewable energy and energy efficiency EXPO + Forum at the Cannon House Office Building in the U.S. House of Representatives.
This year's EXPO featured over fifty businesses, trade associations, government agencies and non-profit policy organizations to hear some members of Congress regale them and converse with visitors.
I found the exhibits and their personable exhibitors to be specific, comprehensive and seemingly convinced that renewables are finally, after some failed starts, on an irreversible road to greater market share.
It was not only the advanced hardware and the use of tax credits that fed their optimism. Renewables are branching out in ways that are bringing them nearer to a level playing field with their heavily subsidized and coddled fossil fuel and nuclear "competitors." More venture capital, better tax credits, rebates and various state and local proposals exist to facilitate financing for users.
One spreading incentive comes from my home state of Connecticut which offers a special solar energy leasing plan for homeowners. The Nutmeg State claims it is leading "the way with the nation's first rate payer supporter residential leasing program for solar energy." Catch the details by visiting ctsolarlease.com or phone 888-232-3477.
The point of this column is to demand thoughtful discrimination by our policy makers between different kinds of energy. Some are clearly better than others. From the federal government on down to the state and local level, a discriminatory approach is a must if the conversion to renewables and energy conservation from fossils and nuclear is to accelerate.
The old energy lobbies are very stubborn and have their hooks into too many politicians who mouth the ExxonMobil party line.
There are far more jobs in the new energy economy with far more health, efficiency, and security benefits than there are in staying with hydrocarbons and radioactive atoms.
56 Comments so far
Show AllPoor Nader, still looking for a capitalist "solution" to what is essentially a problem caused by capitalism itself.
If Ralph got into congress as democrat from Connecticut wouldn't he still have an independent vote?
What difference does it make if he's a green or a dem?
"The well-known physicist, environmentalist Amory Lovins argues against nuclear energy just on economic grounds. He says he doesn't even have to get to the safety issues to recommend rejection. I know no one of prominence of on the other side willing to debate him. If you do, let me know."
James Lovelock, author of "The Revenge of Gaia; Earth's Climate Crisis & The Fate of Humanity"
Robin M. Mills , "The Myth of The Oil Crisis"
Gwyneth Cravens "Power To Save The World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy"
In "The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy" Minqui Li gives a really devestating analysis of the potential of various "renewable energy" schemes to solve the Climate Change problem in a Capitalist economy. He opposes nuclear power on the same flimsy grounds as Nader, but does not decieve himself about the other "renewable" alternatives.
I sure would like to see more ethanol production and it can be produced from a variety of materials, there is no reason whatsoever it should not be used. Ethanol can be produced from cactus, cattails, kelp, mesquite and sweet sorghum. We only use corn because there is so much available for animal feed. The byproduct of the distillation process is a far superior feedstock for animals than plain corn itself, so there should be no concern about ethanol production impinging on food supplies for humans.
http://www.permaculture.com/drupal/book_menu/489/490
Also, there is a company that sells a portable ethanol distiller that you can use at home.
http://www.microfueler.com/
Right on Igardener! Thanks! I could use that distiller.
Even if the world does not grow food at all and uses its entire cropland to grow biomass, the fuel produced would be less than half the world's oil and gas consumption. More realistically, if 20 percent of the world's cropland is committed to biomass production, it may produce enough fuel to meet 9% of current demand for oikl and gas. In fact, the development of new cropland is now barely able to compensate for loss of cropland resulting from soil erosion and land degredation. "There is no possibility that morte than a small fraction of liquid and gas demand could be met by biomass sources".
Ted Trainer; "Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society"
I think Mr. Trainer should take a look at what Brazil has done with ethanol generation before making these assumptions.
Brazilian ethanol producers currently supply 40% of that nation's nondiesel transportation fuel and there are at least 31,000 stations selling ethanol in the country. In addition, sugarcane is grown keyline (close to contour) with swales to prevent erosion and some plantation owners even grow organically. The leftover, fibrous product from crushing the cane (bagasse) is used to power the ethanol plant's electricity needs and the remaining percentage of the power goes back into the grid (23% for the plant, 77% to the grid). Smoke and particulates are captured with special spray recovery systems and the resulting mineral content is returned to the soil as fertilizer. 70% of all cars sold in Brazil since 2005 are flexible fuel vehicles which can run on both alcohol and gas.
I still can't help but ask myself why the hell I bailed out on the last minute on November 1, 2008 and abandoned Nader for Obama. I guess I gave up on him thinking that support for him evaporated just like that. Or maybe I got carried away into being anxious in turning VA blue for once in 44 years. Or maybe I had some glimmer of hope that Obama would turn to real progressivism. God, was I wrong and my wife and I regret our decisions to abandon our votes for Nader on the last minute.
Go Nader.
I proudly voted for you Ralph. If you had been our president instead of Obama, solar and wind would have been mainstream by now. Instead, we have a Big Coal/Nuclear/Oil puppet who never promised to wean us off our dependence. We ain't gonna be seeing solar or wind under this crummy administration either.
Seriously, when solar can be produced for less than any of the others, it will soon become the only game in town. Because who would want to pay more for something less efficient?
http://www.nanosolar.com
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
-R. Buckminster Fuller
Nobody paid me to say this. Honest.
The intermittency and variability problem and the excessively high capital costs of solar and wind energies suggest that it is unlikely for these to make more than a limited contribution to the world's future energy supply. In addition to these problems, it should also be pointed out that the production of renewable enrgies actually depends on fossil fuels and other non-renewable minerals as material imputs. Thus, the expansion of renewable enrgies could be impeded by the limited supplies of nonrenewable resouces.
James Howard Kunstler; "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophies of the 21st Century"
Equivalent costs for various renewable energy schemes are calculated between $180-$250 a barrel in 2000 constant dollars.
"With alcohol fuel, you can become energy independent, reverse global warming, and survive Peak Oil in style. Alcohol fuel is "liquid sunshine" and can't be controlled by transnational corporations. You can produce alcohol for less than $1 a gallon, using a wide variety of plants and waste products, from algae to stale donuts. It's a much better fuel than gasoline, and you can use it in your car, right now. You can even use alcohol to generate electricity. Alcohol fuel production is ecologically sustainable, revitalizes farms and communities, and creates huge new opportunities for small-scale businesses. Its byproducts are clean and valuable. Alcohol has a proud history and a vital future." -David Blume
Please check out the following website to find out more about how to bypass fossil fuels completely.
http://www.permaculture.com/
Hemp and algae don't require dependence on fossil fuels but I think we know why they're not even being considered. Demand will go down when fuel effiency, public transportation, and conservation efforts are improved.
"Equivalent costs for various renewable energy schemes are calculated between $180-$250 a barrel in 2000 constant dollars." I've never seen anything like this for any calculations involving wind turbines. Frankly, I think it's total BS.
Solar is already cheaper than carbon when you factor in the cost of two Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and the tens of millions of illnesses caused by burning fossil fuel.
A lot cheaper.
Right now.
Its sensible.
I hear that nanosolar is what makes thinner solar panels possible. Business buildings could definitely used them without worry. And maybe I might have a better chance of getting my HOA reformed with nanosolar ?
Clean Coal
Military Intelligence
Compassionate Conservative
Environmental Forestry
Christian Science
Bio Tech
What do these terms have in common?
Do I hear 'oxymoron'?
Does the Pope not shit in the woods?
Oregoncharles
"Nothing can compete with the payback ratios of energy conservation which includes building and engine construction and use."
Right on!
Lovins is probably the worlds top authority on energy conservation. he says nuclear is dangerous, which is one reason why it's so expensive. Coal is dirty, and ruins the environment. there are technologies in place that can cut overall energy consumption by at least 25%. solar, wind, geothermal, and CONSERVATION! (sorry for yelling)
Keep your lights off during the day. At night, only if you need a light and then use small, efficient bulbs.
Hang your clothes on a clothesline in the warm weather. I have a wooden foldout one for winter. I still use the gas dryer if I'm in a hurry, but not as much.
Get used to the house temperature at 62, there's no windchill indoors, it's better for your health not to have the heat cranked up. Wear a sweater and a soft cap if you feel cold. For some reason, sedentary people feel colder than do people who get a lot of exercise. My mother keeps her thermostat at 80! So ride your bike or walk to the store and to work if you can.
Enjoy fresh meals of local vegies, fruits, and nuts. We don't need gourmet everyday. I know a guy who bakes bread in his solar oven. He lives in NM.
If you have a yard or even a patio, in the summer, keep a tank of water for your afternoon shower. I can take a quick shower in my yard using a very long hose that I keep in the sun. The water in the hose is enough for a quicky. and in the hot summer it feels so good when the cooler water comes in. and it's fun!
Why don't the energy giants want conservation? $duh$
If you live in an apartment, condo, or townhouse, check with your HOA first before using the deck to hang your clothes to dry. See my response to GWNorth on solar panels.
Two forms of energy --
1. The cost prohibitive and ineffective.
2. The cost effective and effective.
This dichotomy exists for limited dirty energy and for renewable clean energy, including efficiency.
Now this is important -- cost prohibitive solar energy is promoted and widely accepted by people who care about the environment and the future. Cost effective solar energy is vigorously and violently suppressed.
When done correctly, renewable energy and energy efficiency are both cost effective without subsidies and effective.
Examples: One square meter (about 11 sq.ft.) of sunlight is worth one barrel of oil per year in typical climates. One square meter solar mirror cost about $100 and lasts for more than 30 years. Passive solar homes are cost effective. Clotheslines are cost effective. Solar hot water collectors are cost effective. Advanced type III-V high-intensity solar cells are cost effective. And so on.
sunflower333
Once again, good points one and all. Amory Lovins has been promoting exactly that since the seventies. His Rocky Mountain Institute is a great resource.
But it will take generations to achieve a replacement of fossil power in my view. But thats no reason not to do good things as you suggest immediately.
This is interesting. I don't mind what the environmentalists have to say about their caring for the planet but when they vehemently refuse to provide cost effective alternatives such as what you described or for that matter end the drug war and legalize hemp or even try out algae for oil, I mistrust them. So far, the environmentalists are divided on nuclear energy and are willing to fall for cap and trade scams designed to benefit Wall Street while it's nothing more than a greenwashing trap.
While it's true cap n trade is a potential mess, some kind of carbon tax is a necessity. Cap n trade has had a mixed history with the reduction of airbourne sulfur a sucess and other stuff not so much. A straight carbon tax to replace income tax on the first 50 or 100k is probably best, but so far is not getting much traction. At any rate, the nitty gritty is that we can't continue to ignore the social and environmental destruction of fossil fuels and pretend that the price we've been paying is anywhere near the true cost to society.
Now you are talking. Forget the carbon tax per se, would you buy into an idea of taxing excess energy use and taxing the size of engines?
tax carbon fuel, drop capntrade which perpetuates the problem
Your ideas sound kinda tricky to implement. A couple of thoughts: sometimes a too small engine will labor too hard and actually use more fuel than a slightly larger one. If you're saying give each home a certain amount of cheap energy and then the cost goes up, I guess that could work. Of course it's kinda rough on large families. That's not all bad though, I don't much care for subsidizing larger families. We will soon get by with a lower number of power plants simply by using time-of-day pricing to avoid the peak generation needs. That's kinda like 'taxing' excess energy use.
"A couple of thoughts: sometimes a too small engine will labor too hard and actually use more fuel than a slightly larger one."
Hummmm....good point! I need to think that through a bit more obviously. Thanks.
"Of course it's kinda rough on large families. That's not all bad though,"
Another good point.....perhaps a personal allowance of energy at a reasonable price instead of each house?
As important as renewable energy is, it equally important that the sources of such be widely DISTRIBUTED.
What we are still doing is building massive energy projects in one area, then building power lines to distribute that energy over thousands of miles.
Energy CAN be "free" and Free energy will empower the individual. We should be looking at means individuals and or familes or even local communities generating energy for them selves.
Obviously such a system would not allow the Corporations an IN to profit off the same, but that is for the best.
Instead of a Chicken in every pot, how about solar panels on every roof?
This tends to be an advantage of alternate energy -- and part of the reason it's "alternate." If we could have Joe's Bar and Juice generating on every corner, central monopoly of power generation would end -- and with it, centrally monopolized decisions about energy use and production.
Free energy has been under dispute for ages. I like the idea of distributing renewable energy.
On your last question, there is one problem. More people are going to live in apartments or even if they buy homes, there will be more people living in condos and townhouses. In none of those scenarios will they be allowed to install solar panels of their own unless their HOA allows them to and that's highly unlikely unless everyone in the complex teamed up and made them change the HOA, again highly unlikely. Since most of the population lives in urban cities and suburbs where most of them live in those above 3 and not in homes of their own especially given the ongoing mortgage crisis, the only way we'll see solar panels on every roof is if the apartment/condo/townhouse complex owners install them themselves.
By the way, I live in a townhouse and I checked my HOA and talked to the main folks in charge of the complex and they forbid it. Getting even a few people to listen to the idea of solar panels invites nothing but sneers and laughs from my neighbors so no luck there.
Panels have come a long ways from those unwieldy things one puts on the roof. Already they develop a material you can roll up like a sheet of paper that can clad the side of a building that is in fact a solar panel.
Germany is already building condos and apartment buildings that are all but self sufficient in energy.
Building codes must change of course and there has to be a will but the progress in Solar GIVEN the lack of investment in research is very significant.
I would suggest just example that the billions used to subsidize Nuclear energy and the billions more thta then must be spent to deal with the waste is better spent on solar.
If there the WILL there will come the day when everyone can generate the power they need on their own via clean renewable energy.
(They already make clothing that is imbedded with solar cells that can generate the electrictity to run laptops/cell phones etc)
If we converted .0003 percent of the energy that falls to the earth every day in the form light to electricity, we would meet all our energy needs.
Excellent thoughts!
How about some of those lower taxes and tax credits the Right is always talking about if you use foam insulation which is expensive up front but saves bou coup energy?
You are in charge of the US government's energy "public relations" campaign. You are paid a lot of money and are expected to personally consume large amounts of energy. You personally vouch for pushing retail prices as low as possible, offset by ever higher hidden costs, in order to expand public energy consumption indefinitely. Your guiding principle is that ever-expanding economic growth is necessary for the nation's prosperity (never mind happiness and well-being). Are you up to the challenge? You need to be pro-war, pro-empire, for the same reason. You understand that energy and empire go hand in hand.
You must know how to handle uppity leftists who promote renewable energy. In your coursework at Harvard you studied the strategy: Co-opt their movement. When their renewable energy movement gains momentum, you triangulate, leverage the public weakness for "balance", "moderation", "inclusion" and embrace renewable sources along with fossil/nuke. By including more energy sources you can expand overall consumption, with great emphasis on fossil/nuke, while stifling the uppity leftists. When they start complaining that you've allocated only 1% of resources to renewables, you call press conferences to distract attention. When your government gig is over, you go to work for big energy and step up your lifestyle.
Very good. Resumes of NRC regulators pretty much always include power company references, and upper brass tech supervisors in nuclear plants frequently have NRC history as well.
Nepotism and conflict of interest is the rule in this industry, not the exception.
At least Obama's not from Yale.
Twenty years of Yale (Poppy Bush, Slick Willie and Junior) just about wrecked the country.
It was time to give Harvard a chance. Even Nader is a Harvard Man, after all.
FDR was Harvard, as was Kennedy
I hope Mr. Harvard hasn't lost his balls. The country can't take just another in a long line of corrupt Presidents swindling us, hollowing out our nation, and sending our children off to kill and be killed in foreign lands.
We really need all that change that PrezO preached on the campaign circuit.
I did notice that he's awfully general, in an inspirational way, about his definition of change.
He talked the talk, but he don't walk the walk.
Visualize Whirled Peas! Organic ones!
When it comes to electricity, coal's pretty tough to replace and even nuclear only goes so far. Both options are dangerous although I heard that in both cases, it's possible to do it all safely. I have heard of someone once mentioning the idea of hemp pellets for generating electricity although I need some confirmation on whether that idea works and then there's the drug war to end before hemp can be put to industrial use. There are plenty of ways to go green even with our dependence on fossil fuels aside from wind and solar.
Update: I forgot to mention that no one or even Nader is talking about those fascist HOA regulations that are preventing us apartment/condo/townhouse residents from using solar or wind to power up our places. See my response to GWNorth.
The best source is the source of ALL energy; except nukclr/nucular/... nukes!
All hydrocarbons ARE products of the SUN!
Photosynthesis is nature's way of converting the sun's energy to sugar.
Go straight to the source!
FWIW nuclear energy is also ultimately solar/stellar derived, as a remnant from supernovae explosions.
pedantic. we're trying to solve a problem here.
The truth is, we do need them all. For the foreseeable future its a given. And we need the NIMBYS to shoulder their share of the burden in the future.
The truth is we DO NOT need fossil/nuke. 2/3 of economic activities serving US markets are a complete waste. 1/2 of the healthcare dollar is wasted. At least 3/4 of the military dollar is wasted. 3/4 of freight/commute dollars are wasted. You know that rail is ten times more efficient than car/truck/plane, right? 3/4 of building materials and heating/cooling energy are wasted. This is given a tripling of living space per capita, and a tripling of the refurbish/reconstruction rate. You know how "they don't build things like they used to"?? At least this was the lament during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, but not so much today, eh? Because fewer can even remember how things used to be built to last, eh? We accomplish sustainable consumption rates by shifting our individual exchange/association away from the elites and toward our local communities. People are coming to realize their responsibility to DEMAND what is in their better interests from markets/government.
rtdrury
"The truth is we DO NOT need fossil/nuke"
Every single study, every single report and my own observations would lead me to propose that without some new energy source being discovered, renewable energy is decades and decades away from being able to replace oil/gas and Nuke.
Texas leads the Nation by a large measure in Wind Power, but we still only produce about 5% of our powwer that way and it will be years before the system could even supply it to any of the state.
I believe your figures are high on some things but I wouldn't argue the point too much, they are close enough. Building bigger and not as well is what we have beemn doing. No one said we weren't foolish. I believe those days are gone. Economic growth is a given considering our growth in population. We would have to stop all immigration (I believe that would be a catastrophe) and limit births....not something a free society can do.
I frankly don't see how you propose to replace fossil fuels any time soon? I don't see the ability in some of the proposed energy sources. Like ethanol, more problems than it was supposed to solve, eh?
"People are coming to realize their responsibility to DEMAND what is in their better interests from markets/govenrment."
Here we completely agree.
We need to ditch non-renewables as quickly as possible. There is no doubt about that.
That IS the truth.
Coal used to be mined correctly when there were proper regulations such as worker rights and safety. We could bring those back and even implement nano technologies to safely extract the coal and in fact nanotech is being explored for both oil drilling and coal mining. In India, coal is being mined just fine thanks to strong worker rights and safety regulations and use of newer mining technologies to minimize environmental damage.
"And we need the NIMBYS to shoulder their share of the burden in the future."
When the Kennedys came out against the Cape Wind project because it would be in their back yard, I finally understood what conservatives were talking about when they used the term "limousine liberals". NIMBYs in other places around the county (many of them environmentalists) have been successful by comparing wind power to nothing, when the real choice is often wind or coal from mountaintop removal mining.
VAGreen
Exactly. And Mountaintop removal is not the only way to mine coal, just the cheapest and most damaging. We may need it for decades, but the methods we use can certainly be changed.
I believe Mountaintop mining has proved evnviornmentally damaging beyond doubt I think. (?)
Here in Virginia, there is increasing support for renewables, but we still have to fight the new coal plants.
I wished it could be so but I don't expect the oil drilling companies out here in the Sooner (OK) to switch to going solar or wind any time soon. People might supplement their energy sources with solar panels and/or wind turbines but our addiction to coal, oil, and nuclear is unlikely to subside any time soon. I also find it counter productive to just protest the coal and nuclear plants that give us the electricity we need. Why aren't these same protesters going on the offensive and making solar panels and wind powered generators more afford? It has been 20 years and still no lowering those costs. Why don't these protestors help us hardworking people out by forming a counter lobby to help promote solar and wind and put the oil, coal, and nuclear giants out of business if they can?
Nukes have been out of construction since the 1980's. That did not happen because oil or, better, energy companies decided that nukes were not nice. It happened because trying to run plants under public scrutiny got expensive. Increasing public awareness carried with it a risk of plant shutdown, something that costs power companies a lot of money.
In-house industry analysis of TMI concentrated on potential losses of profit to the industry, and they decided that the huge investments involved in construction presented undue risk to stockholders,
Folks, the odd nuclear accident may take out a city here or there, but the big point is that what's inside the plants gets out -- with the waste, with the water, with the air, with the personnnel.
Stop this one.
not helpful... Closing off bad alternatives leaves more room for good ones. You knew that already.
The market for renewables has been slow to come. I'm not sure that all the protesting alone will help either.
Don't forget also that if you're renting an apartment or live in a condo or townhouse, your HOA almost always puts solar panels and wind turbines out of reach. See my response to GWNorth.
[Sorry. double-post]
Conservation's great, but without protest, nuclear regulation can just become more lax so that plant expenses can drop. How much energy we use overall makes a big difference, but how we generate it makes a difference, too.