EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Election Puts Solar Energy in Danger
The Republican takeover of the House would likely give us John Boehner of Ohio as the new speaker. It would mean that the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce committee would reportedly fall into the hands of either Joe Barton of Texas, Fred Upton of Michigan, Cliff Stearns of Florida, or John Shimkus of Illinois.
All of them voted against major clean energy legislation passed by the Democratic majority in 2009 or 2010, with Boehner, Barton, and Stearns earning a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Boehner staged an infamous hour-long mini-filibuster against the House climate-change bill. He has also railed that any international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions "will devastate the Ohio economy and will kill more jobs at a time we can least afford it.''
Barton was the congressman who embarrassed even some Republicans by apologizing to BP for the grilling it got on Capitol Hill in the wake of its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He promised that if he becomes the chairman of the energy committee, he would "aggressively oversee the Environmental Protection Agency,'' to the point of reviewing the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health.
Upton, who reportedly has an inside track on the chairmanship because Barton is such a lightning rod, has said he would eliminate the House select committee on climate change, calling it a "wasteful committee.''
In a recent op-ed column in the Washington Times, he seconded Barton's pledge to attack the EPA, calling the agency a "regulatory train wreck'' that is "smothering the economy . . . If the EPA continues unabated, jobs will be shipped to China and India as energy costs skyrocket.''
This of course, is all a smoke screen for the fact that our inaction on climate change and alternative energy, led by the Republicans and fossil-fuel-state Democrats, is already shipping jobs to China. That nation is currently on pace to produce more than half of the world's solar panels. The New York Times reported last week that just as many American solar energy projects are getting off the ground, the federal loan guarantees and tax credits promoting their construction are about to expire. Analyst Ted Sullivan told the Times that the failure to renew the incentives "could stall a number of projects and even lead to the failure of some.''
The city of Boston, anticipating the end of the incentives, announced this week it will cut building permit fees for projects that include solar power. But Jim Hunt, the city's environment and energy chief, fully admitted that it only will partially let the sun shine in on alternative energy. "I think the federal investment tax credit and the utility funds that are available to subsidize solar far outweigh what cities can offer,'' Hunt told the Globe.
Studies laying out the economic benefits of solar, wind, and other renewables are at the point where researchers from the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, two think tanks often on opposing sides of the political spectrum, joined a call last month for the government to spend $25 billion a year to promote clean energy. Sadly, there is not such bipartisanship in Washington between Republicans and Democrats. If the Republicans take over the House and they are as obstructionist as they promise to be, we may fall so far behind in solar that we may never catch up. It is bad enough we allowed ourselves to be beholden to oil. If we do not watch out, we will have no say in solar, either.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


10 Comments so far
Show AllBig deal. Nothing "solar" passed under either party in power but oily always gets its dough. It doesn't matter who gets elected. We need peak oil before solar gets its ways.
So are you denying every fact in this article?
You have fallen off into some kind of Tea Party Style fact-free zone.
Have you visited the belt of wind turbine farms going up on the Allegheny Plateau from west-central Pennsylvania through east-central West Virginia? None of these enviromnmentally beneficial and job-producing projects would be going up without the renewable energy credits in the Energy policy Act of 2005, the Energy Act 2007 and earlier acts by Democrat-Majority congresses. All this is likely to be repealed, and ther is zero chance of anything replacing it once Republicans take over the comitteeships.
Fell free to rebut, but please cite facts, not fact-free emotion like your remark above.
He only mentions a few big cities. We could have had solar changes going on noticeably in rural and suburban America but the idiots in Washington had to keep us hooked to oil again ! If you think I'm a Republican or "Tea Party" member, then you don't understand me or the anger of the American people. I hate it when some article tries to equate solar with stupid elections.
"Mentions a few big cities"? Are we reading the same article?
Let me summarize gist of the article:
The existing 2005 and 2007 bills and the 2010 house energy bill (failed in Senate) provide tax incentives and utility portfolio requirements for renewable electricity generation. These incentives are vital to the continued developement of utility-scale wind, small-scale hydro, and solar (the authors favorite), like the wind energy development in PA, MD and WV. These incentives are also currently available to home-scale renewables and for purchases of hybrids, high-efficinecy furnaces and insulation, and other energy conserving stuff.
The Republicans hate such environmentally beneficial stuff becasue they believe only their mythical "free markets" should decide these things. So, the Republican will not renew these programs.
The only mention of a big city was the mention that Boston may try to fight the loss of these programs by reducing building permit fees for renewable and energy efficient construction.
SaboCat, both parties do more talking than action. I think it is up to us to deploy renewable technologies as the economy is so far gone they will not put anything into it. The MICS war drums are beating and Wall Street is crying the blues. There is no change left for the rest of us no matter who gets in. Sadly look at the Space Shuttle Program. Tomorrow will be the last shuttle ever. When all is said and done the banks and war effort will get about 14 trillion dollars. The Moon program cost 125 billion (in todays dollars). Look at the technology developed from it used today. Just imagine how it could have been. What a waste.
Thanks AD for further explaining. It's all sprinkles from there.
Well, SaboCat, sounds like you're involved.
Solar and Wind infrastructure have a heavy
oil platform footprint, ie: can't be viable without cheap oil.
Neither Solar or Wind can "store" output without,on a very small scale, battery banks(more O.P. dependency)Of course, some wind/ solar can make your meter "spin backward", but they require input from the Grid to function, or an "inverter and battery bank" when the Grid goes down.....
But...
Twined with existing Hydro, The water behind the dam
is the battery..... when there is S or W, the stored water is held from the turbines.
The fallacy of Alt Energy Bills world-wide is that investors
were initially suckered by promises (contracts) that projected
"Rates for power produced" between 4 and 10 times current rates.
Then when the installations,both W&S went on line the
agreements were reneged.
This is a scandal world wide, because it's still all about oil.
PS,I have 40 years with home/business using alt power, both S&W
as a user, not an investor... I also have a 20kw diesel gen set.
"Solar and Wind infrastructure have a heavy
oil platform footprint, ie: can't be viable without cheap oil."
Not if you use hempseed oil in place of crude oil. Algal oil can also be used and unlike hempseed oil, it is the chemical equivalent of light sweet crude oil.
I've put in some fairly robust remote and utility interconnected wind systems and did some hydro work. The legal issues even with small (diversion type) hydro can sometimes be rather complex. Building a dam or reservoir is also quite challenging. I do like hydro and prefer the Canyon units. Anyone who would be interested in small to mid-range hydro should see this link.
http://www.canyonhydro.com/guide/index.html
I highly recommend them.
I miss Eugene, Oregon. They have a municipal utility, basically a co-op. They offered and optional program to customers to pay a higher electric utility rate for wind power. The customers who chose the higher wind power rate paid a couple more cents per Kwh. The higher rate basically was a F.I.T. for the wind farm, guaranteeing the wind farm a profit. The people spoke with their wallets, a clean energy business was successful, and the all the local utility had to do was bill some customers higher and sign a P.P.A. for the wind farm's output.
If anyone has a co-op electrical provider I urge you to go to a meeting and present this idea to the utility. The utility wins by also getting toward the needed share of renewable energy in their portfolio as is required by some states.
It's a win/win/win free-market solution!