What Obama presidency means for clean tech
Energy and environmental policy is poised for dramatic change under an Obama administration even with a slumping economy.
With the incoming administration and Congress, renewable energy advocates and environmentalists said they anticipate a comprehensive national energy plan focused on fostering clean-energy technologies.
"The election is over. Now the hard work begins," wrote Dan Farber, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and a member of the lobbying group Cleantech & Green Business for Obama. "Change is on the way."
Obama's energy plan, detailed fully earlier this year, is ambitious. It calls for a $150 billion investment in clean technologies over 10 years, aggressive targets for greenhouse emission reductions, and programs to promote energy efficiency, low-carbon biofuels, and renewable energies.
But a troubled economy--among other barriers--means that bold, new energy legislation, notably caps on greenhouse gas emissions, is unlikely to pass in the first years of an Obama administration, according to experts.
Instead, the Obama presidency is expected to first push for smaller yet significant measures, such as efficiency and renewable energy mandates, and then lay the groundwork for far-reaching climate initiatives, they said.
"One of the biggest setbacks is trying to find the money to pay for all of this. This isn't free," said David Kurzman, managing director of Kurzman CleanTech Research. "Reality will set in and trying to find money...is really going to temper the possibilities over the next 12 months."
Winners and losers
Clean-tech company executives note that during the campaign, Obama articulated his belief that environmental protection and economic development can be closely related. During Obama's acceptance speech Tuesday night, his reference to "new energy to harness and new jobs to be created" could be read in two ways--a call for political involvement or for alternative-energy sources.
In an interview with Time magazine late last month, he said, "From a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy."
Clean-tech professionals expect that energy and the environment, which were hot-button issues during the campaign, to continue to command the attention of politicians and the electorate. And the combination of a Democratic-controlled Congress and Obama administration means that government stimulus spending targeted at the energy business is a strong possibility.
"There's a growing sense that investing in infrastructure, even if it means more deficit spending, is a good thing because it will help economic growth in the short and long term," said Ethan Zindler of research firm New Energy Finance. "And green energy has come to be regarded as a 21st-century infrastructure play."
|
Clean tech under Obama President-elect Barack Obama has advocated investing in clean energy to create "green jobs." Here are some possible policy changes. |
| An investment in upgrading the power grid which would make it easier to use solar and wind. |
| A national renewable portfolio standard that mandates utilities get 10 percent of electricity from solar, wind, or geothermal by 2012. |
| Continued support for biofuels and introduction of low-carbon fuel standard. |
| Increased vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and tax rebates for plug-in hybrids. |
| Incentives for smart grid products like advanced meters. |
| A carbon cap-and-trade regime meant to make low-carbon technologies more price competitive. |
| Research on so-called clean coal technologies to store carbon dioxide emissions underground. |
| Source: CNET reporting, BarackObama.com |
Some technologies stand to benefit more than others if Obama's administration is successful in implementing its proposals.
Renewable energies. Obama has called for a national renewable portfolio standard to mandate that utilities get 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources--wind, solar, and geothermal--by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. "That's the backbone the country needs to invest in," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industry Association.
Although more than half the states already have renewable portfolio standards, many southern states have balked at national standards because they say they do not have sufficient renewable energy resources.
In this case, having an activist federal government, as Obama's proposals suggest, may meet resistance from the states because electric utilities are regulated by a mix state and federal agencies. "It's not just a question of money. It's also a question of governance and public policy," said Jim Owen, a representative for the Edison Electrical Institute.
In the recently passed financial bailout package, solar energy received an eight-year extension of federal tax credits, while wind received only a one-year extension. The election increases the chances that wind energy will be extended further.
Efficiency and smart grid technology. Obama's plan calls for a power grid modernization program and stricter building efficiency codes in federal buildings. That means efficiency products such as demand response, advanced metering, and sensors to monitor usage should further benefit from government incentives, said Kurzman.
A federal initiative to establish interconnection standards and bulk up interstate transmission lines would make power generation of all kinds more efficient and allow utilities to use more renewable sources. "A 50-state role to transmission just doesn't get the job done. You need a federal planning and facilitation," said Rob Church, vice president of research and industry analysis at the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).
Biofuels. Hailing from the corn-producing state of Illinois, Obama is expected to continue supporting ethanol. However, Brooke Coleman, executive director of the New Fuels Alliance, noted that Obama appears to understand that the biofuels industry needs to transition to nonfood feedstocks, such as wood chips or algae, in order to be sustainable.
Coleman said that strong federal policies are required for biofuels to crack into the fossil fuel industry.
"There is not a free market in the fuel sector. There's no real competition in the wholesale supply chain--it's completely owned by oil," Coleman said. "You have to be pretty heavy-handed to fundamentally correct this market."
Auto. Obama has called for increasing fuel efficiency, tax credits for plug-in hybrid cars, and loan guarantees so that automakers can "retool."
But struggling auto makers--said to be running dangerously low on cash--will need government aid in the coming months to prevent larger harm to the economy, argued David Cole, the chairman for the Center for Automotive Research. For that reason, he expects government leaders of all kinds to be supportive.
"Politically, the issue here is pretty stark and cost of keeping the auto industry in game is whole lot less than of a major failure," Cole said.
Fossil fuels and nuclear. During the campaign, Obama said he would allow increased domestic oil and gas drilling as well as investments in so-called clean coal technology where carbon emissions are stored underground. Companies that have coal gasification technologies stand to benefit because they are cleaner source of electricity, said Kurzman.
In the campaign, Obama voiced caution on storing nuclear waste. But during the second presidential debate, Obama said he backs nuclear power "as one component of our overall energy mix."
Skip Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said Tuesday he expects the new Congress and administration to continue its support of nuclear because it addresses energy and climate change.
Counting carbon
Longer term, the broadest policy change on energy and environment will be climate-change regulations. Obama has called for an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 through a federal cap-and-trade system. Pollution rights would be auctioned, at least partially, which would create a fund for clean technology programs.
Large polluters, like chemical companies and utilities that rely heavily on coal, are the ones that will be most affected. But given that there is stronger political will to tackle energy security than climate change, policies to promote domestic energy production and efficiency are likely to take precedence over cap and trade, said New Energy Finance's Zindler.
Still, the new administration can accomplish a great deal on renewable energy without having to pass multibillion-dollar legislation, said Scott Sklar, a renewable energy lobbyist and president of the Stella Group. Using only the federal government's purchasing power to integrate green building technologies and addressing grid interconnection issues, for example, can be done without passing laws.
"Existing programs can be tweaked to accommodate the new vision," Sklar said. "Depending on how you structure things, you could have a quick and profound impact on new technologies."
New Fuel Alliance's Coleman said that the biggest danger to the Obama administration and new Congress is not "overplaying their hand" and pushing more extreme environmental policies.
"I firmly believe that the linchpin to this entire game is allowing agriculture to play a role in diversifying our energy, whether it be wind, solar, using rural areas for geothermal or wind corridors," he said. "More extreme positions like trying to end coal result in failure and missed opportunities."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
In the real world it's just not cost effective
2) Nuclear power can be relatively waste-free. France powers 80% of its country on nuclear, yet that nation's total waste output literally fits (and sits) in a building's basement somewhere in downtown Paris. The trick is to use cleaner (and hotter) breeder reactors, and not the ancient light-water reaction process.
3) IMHO, we're going to need a blend of technologies --including geothermal-- to get enough juice for today and beyond.
Big, fat disclosure - I work in Solar. That said, my employer's products, while 2x industry efficiency and climbing, don't work so well at night. The folks who work in Wind power have similar problems when the weather changes. The nuclear folks still have a LOT of refinement needed in their processes (forgive the pun). The geothermal folks have to find a way to make maximum use of the few areas where their tech can work in the US. It's the same across the board, and I daresay that it'll take all of us (and a few that are still mostly theoretical) to get the job done.
/P
there are many companys , installers , and investors for this tech .
As for high grade ie steam turbins , like most technology America is eating dust this is no exception . Unlike some other posters I have a good idea what I am talking about , To answer your question its not sexy in other words people dont know what it is and it doesnt get votes .
to add on the cost competive nature when you factor long term 30 years out its not even close
also high grade geothermal energy is available over the intire planet ( every inch ) just a different depths but god willing we will have allot of oil riggers with time to kill soon
My point is, neither Obama nor McCain mentioned Geothermal much (if at all) in their energy plans, and yet if you Google "Geothermal energy", there is LOTS of "real world" activity going on. It just seems a bit odd that they would exclude something that could have even more potential than most if not all of the other forms of "green" energy.
If you go to Google News and search for "Geothermal energy", you will see all the activity going on in Geothermal NOW. Here is a summary from one of the articles:
"Utilities across the country are investing in geothermal energy. Geothermal offers 50,000 times more energy contained in the first six miles of the earth's crust than all the world's oil and gas. Last year, $3 billion was invested globally, up 183% from 2006. Dozens of projects are under way in Nevada, and the Bureau of Land Management has plans to open millions of acres of federal land for new geothermal development in the western U.S."
So you may not think it is viable, but the utility companies seem to think it is.
My point all along has been that, with all these activities going on around the world in Geothermal, why was it seldom, if ever, mentioned by Obama or McCain?
"these reservoirs can be tricky to pinpoint. They're also expensive to reach. A geothermal well can cost $5 million or more. The result: The U.S. currently derives less than 0.5% of its electricity from geothermal."
I think that answers your original question: candidates aren't bothering with geothermal since it provides about half of one percent of the electrical demand. I think methane conversion from landfills could amount to this as well.
What's notable in that article is that while the title claims that utilities are supporting this technology, there's no mention of an actual utility company investing in this stuff, it's only prospectors. You can't gauge interest based on where money goes since what's 10mil to Google or Warren Buffett...it's like saying that I'm excited about bread since $10 worth of groceries includes a loaf!
It isn't a problem for a democrat though. They'll tell you the free market doesn't always work. It isn't always best for the people. It needs regulation. There isn't any hypocrisy there. Not the republicans though. Oh know. Just let the free market take care of it. No regulation needed. We've got the invisible hand of the free market right? That's one of their values right? However, all markets go up and down. All markets have boom and busts. When the bust comes does Mccain the republican have the balls to stick to his values? Does he have the integrity to back the free market even in bad times too?
Nope. When the stuff hits the fan the republicans do a total flip flop and decide socialism really is the answer after all! They didn't have the courage to stick to their guns and let the economy completely friggin crash like the free market wanted. Well, since socialism is the answer we may as well let an actual socialist run it right? They'd probably be much better at it after all. Now, when the republicans decide they actually want to be different from the democrats and stick to their guns maybe we'll vote for them again. However, if all they're going to do is follow the democrats lead right into socialism then what do we need them for? Might as well just keep the dems right?
What exactly is it that a rep does that's so different than a dem? My point wasn't that they really believe that stuff. My point was is they talk a big game and then when they actually have to solve a problem they either a. Fail at it or B. Do what the democrats would have done anyway. So, that's probably exactly why they got voted out.
However, don't come telling me how great captalism is or the free market or even socalism is. We know it doesn't work. Only a well regulated mix has gotten us anywhere.
i.e. ..... a new tax on corporations that will be passed on to the consumer.
Hybrid incentives? Nice, but how effective, really? Consider that the average vehicle burns a tank of gas every week or two; simple math says the exhaust equivalent to roughly double the weight of that vehicle is burned up and in the air we breathe (ok, some of that spent fuel is converted to heat and some to mechanical energy to push the car down the road, but still a ton of it is now in the "fuel" for our lungs!). Fully electric vehicles rely on batteries, a power converter, and a motor; much more reliable than the multitude of subsystems in today's combustion based vehicles. If it takes a "send-a-man-to-the-moon-and-return-him-safely" type challenge to light the fire on this effort, go for it. But we can't honestly pride ourselves on being a technical super power if we can't even muster up the savy to achieve such a relatively simple goal. And yes, the grid will do just fine powering all those vehicles; remember now we are producing a lot of that power at home.
For our health, the world's heath, for our safety, and for a lot of good reasons, the administration's mission mantra must emphatically be Go Green, so much so that the world can follow our lead and make a real difference. Create a Sustainable Office for Green Renewable Electrical Energy Nationwide (SO-GREEN), paint the white-house green, task a bunch of eco-smart people to transcend current possibilities to our future expectations in short order, etc., but just set the stage and start the play already!
If a bunch of simple farmers from Samso island could do it by themselves in under a decade, what realities should our high-tech, resource-rich nation achieve with full direction and coordination from the top?
<p>That would mean that the US would have to spend 4.51676187 × 10^12 dollars or 4,500,000,000,000 to achieve the same. Do you think Obama has $4.5 TRILLION somewhere? Maybe he can get a loan from the cash advance store? Oh by the way, the US isn't a tiny island off of Denmark with pretty much perfect conditions for wind power, too! So really the cost could be double that, or more. When was the last time ANY government executed a 9 TRILLION dollar plan successfully. That's right, never. So when you factor things like waste and the problems caused by scaling a project, the cost of your little endeavor could very well be 18 TRILLION. In other words...it might as well cost...INFINITY.
<p>That's what's wrong with the "greens" like you sir- no sense! It's a shame but Obama may be on this bandwagon: cars are evil, coal is evil, nuclear is evil, we need turbines and panels. I sincerely hope you don't vote in whatever country you live in.
You can't build a utility without government help, and when you look into it, neither did the Danes.
We know that NanoSolar has brought down the cost of production to sub $1/watt, which is a lot lower than the some of the state and local rebates which can go for $1.85 to $4.00/watt. The Federal rebate has no more limit, and they give tax credit of 30%. Now you can't get rebates more than the cost of the panels, but there is a clever legal way around it and the solar industry can fleece out the government.
What is needed is a broker company conniving with the installers, but are actually composed of the same persons. The broker company will just price the solar PV for the installers to make it legit when it comes to pricing to get around the rebate limits. While the broker company "negotiate" with the manufacturers, they set the price of the panels for the installers.
In cases of solar leasing for example, the installers in cahoots with the brokers, they can get full rebates that are profitable for both parties. And there's more, the leasing company will get pensions forever from the solar electricity that is leased to the consumer when the panels have been installed at a profit.
I live in Chicago. In order to power the city with solar, you would cover about 75% of the rest of the state of Illinois in panels. The alternative is five coal plants that already power the city. I hope you can see how much sense solar makes. Wind is closer, you would only need to cover like 50% of the state in wind farms, and at least some of the land could still be productive. Still it's also quite impossible.
The president have very little power to make any campaign promise come true. It's just smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter who won- all that was said was only said to get votes. Now that is done so... yeah, no need to do anything more. We won't hear anything more until 2011 or so.
If the government were to trash the US dollar and make up a ficticious currency, the Cap and Trade carbon credit would be an easy way to do it. That's the reason I'm against Cap and Trade, because it has the possibility to be abused.
With wind and solar, there are lots of people who complain that they don't want it in their backyard - just like they said with nuclear. Except I can see why they don't want nuclear nearby. But people complain about a wind turbine ruining their view. Or that it will kill birds. How many birds are going to die from carbon in the air opposed to running into a wind turbine? Hopefully the opposition to wind turbines (can you believe it exists?) will go away soon. If I were a rancher, I'd have tons of turbines because the cattle sure isn't going to care. But there's a reason why not every rancher has turbines already.
Joe Real points out the recent advances in solar tech that bring it close to the point of being competitive with conventional coal and natural gas in many regions of the country. Take note of the recent innovation allowing for a 50% increase in efficiency for PV systems, which according to the experts, could be commercialized within 3 years. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124165132.htm
If they are close to being competitive now, these advances will make the tech available for anyone that wants it. The next step is to produce viable PV products that can be integrated seamlessly into building products such as roofing tiles. http://www.solarcentury.com/
Nuclear reactors are infamous for budget overruns. Most overrun their budgets from 300% to 500% or more. Duke energy for example estimated the doubling of the cost from $6B to $12B in just two years. If the nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build, the total cost would be north of $50B when completed.
Unlike solar technology such as that of Stirling Energy system. As each module comes online, it immediately delivers power. And they are built module by module at a cost of $0.31/watt capacity. There are many types of solar technology and their levelized costs are fast approaching those of coal powered plants.
One thing nice about solar is that their peak production often overlaps with peak consumption. A nuclear power plant is more complex to operate to adjust for fluctuating power demands, it is always operated on designated capacity, whether you are going to use the power or not. It takes weeks or months to adjust capacity.
Excerpt from Liveris's Detroit Economic Club keynote address:
'What I don?t understand is why our political leaders don?t see that.
Maybe it?s because they hear TV commentators say the price of oil has ?dropped? to $100 a barrel! Or that gas has ?dropped? below $4 a gallon! This type of irresponsible reporting is creating a false sense of security.
It does, however, confirm what James Schlesinger, the first Secretary of Energy in the U.S., first noticed decades ago: When it comes to energy policy, he said, America has only two modes: panic and complacency.
Frankly, this country needs a little panic because the truth hasn?t sunk in yet. We have entered a new era in energy ? one driven by a new global fact of life: less supply and more and more demand.
Even with greater conservation, energy consumption is soaring. It?s forecast to rise 53 percent between now and 2030. Earlier this year the International Monetary Fund put out a report projecting the number of automobiles by themselves increasing 2.3 billion by 2050.
And despite the exponential increases in the amount of wind, solar and renewable energy coming on line, the fact is that these sources won?t be able to keep up with overall demand.
So the energy of tomorrow ? like today ? will depend predominantly on fossil fuels: oil, natural gas and coal.
Everyone in Washington knows this. So where?s the policy to deal with this new reality? This country doesn?t have one.
I say ?this country? has no strategy. But what I really mean is that Washington has no coherent strategy. Americans everywhere else already know the solutions.
Ninety-two percent of Americans believe that developing alternative energy sources is a step in the right direction. 88 percent want cars that are more fuel efficient. 67 percent believe we need more oil refineries and 73 percent believe off-shore drilling is a good idea. And, I?m heartened to say, 82 percent believe that conservation is important to our overall energy policy.
When it comes to energy, there?s no ideology among the American consumer. Almost everyone wants more conservation, alternative energy, greater fuel efficiency, and environmentally responsible offshore drilling to help us right now.
And, yet, here we are ? constrained by the old politics, separated by silos of thinking and ill-served by politicians intent on fighting the last war instead of the one in front of us.
And what is most worrisome to me ? what is most vexing ? is that Washington doesn?t understand that the energy crisis isn?t just about energy. The energy crisis is also about jobs ? about manufacturing competitiveness. And at its base, the energy crisis is an industrial crisis that is threatening America?s strength and standing in the world.
Four years ago we at Dow proposed a way out of this. We proposed an Energy Plan with three key components. "
I could copy and paste the entire speech or parts of it - To realize how indepth his recommendations are you need to read through the entire plan for yourself - I think you will agree his approach makes a lot of sense ... Go online and search "Liveris Detroit Economic Club"
-
by K A Cheah
December 15, 2008 11:27 PM PST
- In Order to Mitigate Global Warming, the World Governments are Pursuing & Using the "Wrong Technologies":
-
Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)GLOBAL WARMING HAS CRITICALLY AFFECTED THE SURVIVAL OF MANKIND THEREFORE ALL AND SUNDRY MUST TAKE SERIOUS ACTIONS TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS SOME REAL SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS INSTEAD.
NUCLEAR POWER MAY NOT BE THE MOST CONDUCIVE TO SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUES BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE PRONE TO DISASTERS OWING TO UNFORESEEN ERRORS WHICH MIGHT REPEAT THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT, THE HARMFUL FALLOUT CONTAMINATION FROM WHICH MAY LAST MORE THAN A FEW CENTURIES.
In order to save our World called the Planet Earth from further Global Warming and resultant adverse climatic changes causing all the unprecedented incremental Natural Disasters globally, we must go after the Best Technologies already available long ago despite the suppression of which by selfish vested interests of Fossil Oils' Companies.
Nikola Tesla the Greatest Inventor of the last century had invented the Technologies to run cars & power stations without fuel one Century ago and these technologies might still be classified top secret, immediately after his death. It is time to resurrect Nikola Tesla's life-works to produce electrical power without fuel and sharing them as it was intended by the Greatest Inventor himself.
Stanley Meyer had invented the Technology to turn Water into unlimited amount of fuel for making Unlimited Power Supply and to run cars and all internal combustion engines with HHO "on demand basis only" and so no storage of the HHO gases is required as it is safer & cheaper to store water instead, but unfortunately he was murdered. He had about more than 40 patents in this Technology. No one Car/Technology Company has pursued this technology further by buying up his technology and put them to good use to save our this planet Earth from Global Warming causing adverse climatic changes and disasters and hardship owing to unlimited and unrestrained use of Fossil Oils and Fuels, thus releasing & emitting enormous quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere. I think some company like Google should buy this Patented Technologies from Stanley Meyer's family and make this open source technology for the world to improve on and make good use of this Technology to save our world call Planet Earth.
On a two prongs approach, also those Zero Fuel Technologies invented by Nikola Tesla should be declassified and resurrected by the next President of USA to run cars and power-stations to save our Planet Earth from destruction and doom owing to unlimited and unrestrained use of Fossil Oils and Fuels for the whole of last Century. Our World the planet earth must be saved from the exploits of greed of the vested self interests of the fossil oil & fuels producers that pumped the unlimited amount of Greenhouse gases into our common atmosphere for the last century.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm
http://keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
History had proven that owing to selfish gains and big business interests and the many Government interventions the "Free Energy Inventions & Innovations" for the good of mankind were suppressed by vested interests such as the life works of Nikola Tesla and the strategic others were even kept classified by the US Government after his death until the present day. 100 years has been lost and that now our planet earth is placed under the stress of Global Warming owing to the unlimited use of Fossil Oils and Fossil Fuels which in the first place was not needed if the Inventions of the Greatest Inventor, Nikola Tesla were not suppressed 100 years ago. If the Governments of the Nations of World are not going to make and initiate the required changes to stop the continuing use of fossil oils and fuels with alternative fuel someone without vested interests in the Fossil Fuel Industries has got to take the great Initiative to bring out the best technology to save our planet from impending doom.
The best inventions of the Greatest Inventor like Nikola Tesla were suppressed 100 years ago, but under present day scenarios, the works of Great Inventors like Stan Meyers were suppressed as he had been murdered and many others like him were also murdered. Instead of getting support in the scientific community he was ostracized and so as others like him.
The next President of USA must come forward to lead in creating the best alternative energy sources for the good of mankind to follow the footsteps of Nikola Tesla to share his inventions for the good of all mankind. Be it free energy by Coils tapping free energy from the Magnetics Poles of the Earth, Cold Fusion or Magnetic Engines or splitting of Water through electrolysis process on demand basis to produce Brown Gas or HHO to run the present day Vehicles' Internal Combustion Engines without modifications then why not to cut the pollutions from the use of fossil oils and fuels.
K A Cheah
Independent Observer