Obama ups clean-tech cred at convention

Clean-tech venture capitalist Nancy Floyd spoke at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, saying Barack Obama's energy proposals would make the U.S. economy more competitive.

The speech by Floyd, founder and managing director at Nth Power, is a sign that clean energy and the environment are high-profile issues in this year's presidential campaign. Indeed, Hilary Clinton used her speech to tout "green collar" jobs.

Nancy Floyd, managing director of clean-tech venture capital firm Nth Power.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET News)

Floyd has been doing energy investing for decades and often called on policy-makers to support the domestic renewable energy business.

In her talk, she took the same tack, arguing that Spain, China, Germany and other countries are taking the lead in the green technology field because of "smart, stable, forward-looking energy policies."

She said that the Obama energy plan, which he detailed in a speech in Michigan earlier this month, has the elements to support entrepreneurship in the field and address pressing environmental problems. An excerpt:

Green technology is where the computer industry was in 1984, the year the Macintosh computer was introduced. Think about how far we've come since then. That's how far-reaching and how transformational green technology will be. Thousands of new companies. Millions of new jobs. In fact, investments in wind and solar technologies have already created 2.4 million jobs.

Obama's proposals call for giving U.S. consumers a tax credit for purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles, a renewable energy mandate for electricity utilities, and a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions.

Floyd appears to represent many of her fellow clean-tech investors political leanings this year. A poll by Earth2Tech found that a majority of clean-tech venture capitalists support Obama.

[Manhattan2]

If green collar jobs are paid for by the US citizen for renewable energy programs with poor return on the investment then those unfortunately are jobs we should not be giving out. The solution has to use science and engineering to be more cost competitive with oil. Sure there are lots of add-on cost that go into bringing oil up and over. There is sense behind becoming Oil independent but not if it puts us into the dark ages or bankrupts us. Research solar transfer and you will see where our jobs and solar investment should be going. Contact us if you need to learn more or have questions. We are not selling you anything yet. Just sharing our research for now.

[fokkwp]

We are in the process of spending 3 trillion dollars - 3,000 billion dollars - of tax money to project power into the oil regions of the planet via our military, contractors, agents, and so on. This is the price of oil: tens of thousands of dollars in current and future taxes for every taxpayer. All this is corporate welfare, spending tax dollars on GE, Halburton, Northrop, and on and on to subsidize the price of oil. And yet when it comes to green energy development - our chance to harness the likes of MIT and University of California and hundreds of startups to create an energy industry that would lead the world, licensing our US products and technologies to major countries as oil becomes ever scarcer - we ask, will it pay for itself in six months? This is a bizarre and short-sighted calculation; throwing away trillions on last century's technology, spending virtually nothing on our national future.

[open-mind]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like the Obama and McCain energy plans are pretty similar, but with two key exceptions.

1) McCain wants to pursue off shore drilling and nuclear energy, in addition to all the energy technologies that Obama likes. Obama dislikes nuclear and off shore drilling. I think more energy sources are better than fewer.

2) Obama wants to take money away from big-oil when they gouge people too much, then distribute it where needed. Kind of a socialism approach. McCain prefers to let capitalism and competition (among new forms of energy) eliminate that gouging. In general, I prefer capitalism over socialism.

So overall, I think I like the McCain policy better.

Am I missing something?

[stlwest]

I agree and think this is one reason we should start using our own resources and raise royalties that the oil and gas companies pay to drill on our land from 12.5% to 25%. Although we only have 3% of the worlds estimated oil reserves the figure is enough to generate over 1 trillion over time that could be focused solely on renewables, energy efficiency, and low interest government guaranteed loans allowing people who don't have the up front money to act on projects that will pay back over the period of the loan. Plug in Hybrids make sense, but so do hybrid trains that could operate and charge off electric for a certain percentage of the tracks, mandating a percentage like utility mandates are probably a good idea, there will be no instantaneous transition but we do have to begin taking action. The government should certify systems based on thier feasibility in certain regions and then provide loans for those systems that make sense and have 10 year or less pay back periods.

[Manhattan2]

Feasibility in certain regions is only part of the answer. Parabolics and Heliotropism is key. Get the most for the least investment is our answer and it is coming soon. So keep your solar dollars in your pockets. Our solution will generate 2-4 times more power for the same invested dollar over the life (30 years) of the investment with less upkeep and replacable parts.

[thabassman]

obama 08

[stlwest]

my thought was that you don't want to invest in wind power where the wind resource levels are lower, or solar for the same reason. The best place to put solar is in the soutwest primarilly, wind works best around the coasts and where mountains turn into plains. spending money on efficiency efforts in areas where natural resource levels are low could be a better use of the funds. Basically, use the money smartly...was my point.