Obama: U.S. needs to lead clean-energy race
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--President Barack Obama on Friday called on the U.S. Congress to pass energy-and-climate legislation, a move he said would stimulate technology innovation and improve the economic competitiveness of the United States.
Obama delivered a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology here after touring student laboratories and before attending a fund-raiser for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
President Obama speaking on clean energy at MIT on Friday.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)A "comprehensive" energy-and-climate bill will address both environmental and economic problems, Obama said. Countries around the world recognize that energy supplies are limited while demand is rising. That situation is giving rise to a "peaceful competition" among countries to develop clean-energy technologies that "will propel the 21st century."
"There are going to be all sorts of debate both in (the) laboratory and on Capital Hill, but there is no question that we have to do these things," he said. "The nation that wins that competition will be the nation to lead the global economy. I'm convinced of that, and I want America to be that nation."
Obama urged Congress to pass an energy-and-climate bill the Senate is now considering, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. He specifically praised the bill co-sponsor Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who was present at the talk, and Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham. The senators co-wrote an editorial in the New York Times earlier this month outlining the main components of a desired bill, which was seen as a key step toward passage.
The House bill, which narrowly passed in May, includes a national mandate for utilities to use renewable energy and a cap-and-trade system in which large polluters can buy and sell permits for carbon dioxide emissions.
The president did not weigh into the details of the existing bills, but he did outline the contours of an energy policy that reduces the country's reliance on fossil fuels while making better use of natural resources.
The ingredients of energy policy should include clean use of coal, oil, and natural gas; "safe nuclear power;" sustainably grown biofuels; and energy from wind, solar, and wave power, Obama said.
"It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and carefully as possible, to ensure we are doing everything we can to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that," he said.
Obama said the Pentagon and energy security hawks are stepping up efforts to reduce oil imports while businesses and environmentalists are working together. Young people, too, view energy-and-climate as the challenge of their generation, he added.
"We are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks (who) would pretend this is not an issue--they are being marginalized," Obama said.
He said key pieces of the Senate bill have been approved in various committees but he warned that opposition to passing an energy-and-climate bill will increase as passage gets closer.
There were about 700 people at the MIT talk, including a number of local green-technology entrepreneurs, investors, and students at the university, which has become a hotbed for energy science and technology research.
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. 
And the race is on to improve solar panel technology. Using nanotechnology, we could have within 4-5 years solar panels with the same efficiency as today's models but at less than a quarter of the current cost; that would make it very viable to put up solar panels in every new housing development.
This "energy" (war)-(don't know much about the)-climate debate...) is Vietnam - "2"; and, the results this time around will be quite different.
Oh, wait, that's Obama's line. ;-)
Nothing against alternative energy here, but there's a darn good reason a lot of the currently-touted ideas have been tried for decades and haven't panned out: they're not feasible! If you want to cry about investment drying up, think about the rational reason behind it: the investors saw no future in it.
Cgates13 below has it right on the money.
I'm not anti-green, I am anti-stupid-government-intervention-in-the-economy.
If alternative energy sources were economically viable, don't you think we would be using them already?
Sure, put government money into viable research on alternative energy sources, but what Obama is doing is going to wreck an already staggering economy, and that is STUPID. Can hardly wait until 2010 :-)
As as for "stupid-government-intervention-in-the-economy", man I can't believe you have that opinion but still can actually use a computer. Look where your wonderful non-stupid-government-intervention-in-the-economy got us. The entire mess the world economy is in right now is because there were not enough government regulations in place to prevent the greedy ubar extremist capitalists from trying to steal and thief every cent from the economy and put it in their own pockets.
The proof is that, in Canada our economy is doing way better than the average western country because we had more regulations to reign in our banking industry. Just letting greedy rich corporations and individuals have their own way will lead to what we are experiencing now, and it will lead there every time.
Lets put money into real research to step up conservation while working to find good alternatives - and making sure those jobs stay at home.
Alas, until we reform our income tax laws to _encourage_ personal savings and capital investment staying in the USA, those jobs aren't staying at home. :-(
Wind power is unreliable, destroys massive amounts of land area and is expensive. Solar is a nice supplemental source, but likewise effectively destroys massive land area (and don't give me that desert nonsense - I happen to like deserts).
The basis of industrial society is the use of lots of energy to transform things into much more useful things - but without lots of energy this is impossible. Until politicians have the political will to comprehensively adopt a serious nuclear strategy, you will be stuck two three options:
1) An eroding and costlier lifestyle in the face of countries without our sensibilities;
2) The status quo (which still isn't that attractive).
The experience in Europe has given the lie to the economic utility of the traditional (and massively destructive in terms of land area corrupted) "green" technologies, and until these are effectively relegated to second tier status until they are economically viable, we'll continue to fall further behind.
I'm amazed that people can see this serious issue and not understand the obvious solution.
There is nothing clean about nuclear.
These "renewable energy" goals are ways to get press time. The very best they can shoot for is 10-20% in renewalbes by 2020. So what about the remaining 80%, where is that going to come from? This is exactly why nuclear power has to be part of the equation. It's the only non CO2 emitter for the remaining 80%. Gosh forbid that Obama should think about something other than the titillating solar/wind sources.
@pentest - modern breeder nuclear plants produce little to no waste during their lifetimes. At the end (40+ years) waste is left over, but it has half-lives of a century or so. Plus in 40 years today's waste will almost certainly be re-processable. These modern nuclear plants are everywhere except the US which is stuck with 70's nuclear power technology thanks to loud-mouthed nincompoops.
In tropical areas, solar is the way to go - forget destroying massive land areas though, install them on the roofs of the mega-malls and homes. That reduces wiring maintenance costs since it would be directly used by the consumer (an batteries would be used to store power for the nighttime)
Coastal areas can use tidal power, if not wind power (people on Nantucket have shot down the idea of a windmill farm recently)
Other areas, like Hawaii and Wyoming (around Yellowstone) can easily use geothermal power.
And then there are the nuke plants. Part of the problem is the 'waste' from the leftover fuel rods, but face it - it's a modern technology harnessed to 18th century steam power. If they can create a solar cell that can absorb radiation from the distant sun (which is nuclear too) why can't they devise something to collect the low-level radiation and turn it into power for use?
Or hasn't anyone thought of that?
To live in Georgia as a greenie wana be, is a pain.
There are only a few places to put windmills with any success and the Serra Club and NIMBYs are fighting the installation of turbines tooth and nail. Of course I don't blaim them, the power provided would not even be a drop in the bucket for one community, not to mention the State.
Solar Power? Let me look out the window, overcast, Just like any other day of the year. As to roof top arrays on business and homes roof tops, which I support. Its only a cost prohibitive supplement at best., you still going to need still need power generation for else where to meet all the needs. Sterling Engines in the Desert, in mass is what we really need. :-)
Nuclear Power? Georgia is working on two new reactors, but that's only to deal with growth, and not replacing the coal fire plants. It practically took an act of God to get approval of those two reactors. I could just see the reaction for more. I would much rather have a reactor or two in my back yard vs. the nasty coal plant I'm downwind from. A coal plant I don't even get power from. My line is attached to a so called clean burning Natural Gas plant.
What planet do you reich wingers come from?
This is exactly the type of "leadership" that brought nothing more than bragging points and no development in the underlying technology. Just another program for the government to fund.
Who controls the "oxygen supply routes" on the dark side of the moon when all the trees (that takes care of the carbon dioxide emissions) on Planet Earth are destroyed!!!
And, your "vote" might just not count the next time around.
First, the 'clean tech' like wind and solar are being led by countries like Spain and Germany.
Nuclear? Forget about it. Sure the first controlled fission reactor was done here in the US and we made the first bomb. However currently France has more nuke plants in operation and if the US were to build a new nuke plant in over 30 years, we'll have to contract French companies to help with its construction.
As to nuclear power's issues with getting the fuel out of the earth, the poster seems to forget that the US did most of that mining during the cold war and the fuel was being enriched for atomic weapons. Nuclear energy is still one of the cleanest energies out there.
There's geothermal but even there, some European countries have a lead on the US. Why? Because since the 70's, they've had to pay more for energy and cut their reliance on fossil fuels. Now we have to play catch up.
The truth is that we can use more geothermal in several areas and nuclear power almost anywhere. We could use plutonium as a fuel and recycle it more efficiently, however, you have to consider the potential for terrorist threats on the fuel supply and each reactor. So if you use a less efficient uranium, you have more waste.
Now if you could create a Stirling ?sp? engine using a ferrous liquid that was nontoxic, you'd have a good start on a solution.
I don't know why it it that so many people are down on solar power when it works so well. There was a comment above about being cloudy outside. So what? Solar panels still provide some power even when it isn't sunny. Did you not know that?
And the comment about solar not being economical for another 5 years is equally wrong. The new CIGS type panels are being produced for about $1/watt, which puts them on an equal footing with fossil fueled power - without all those charming emissions we all love so much.
Why don't all you nay sayers give the only real power option of the future a chance. What are your great, great, great grandchildren going to use when you have wasted all the oil to make your electricity and run your 300 horsepower cars? Either there will be none left, or the price will be so high that only Presidents and bank robbers will be able to afford it.
Like it or not, we all need to take a pro-active role in how our power is made and where it comes from. We do still have options, but to continually bash solar and wind power is foolish and short sighted. By the way, Sharp just announced a panel with a 35.8% efficiency rating. Not bad for such a benign power source. I wonder what the efficiency rating of coal really is, given all the expenses which are buried for accounting purposes.
I'm sure you all get the point, just try to keep an open mind when championing your new nuclear reactor or coal or natural gas fired power plant.
P.S. I have been living on solar power since 1997. Do I care when the grid goes down? Not likely, it just gives me a darker night sky to observe the stars and galaxies by.
- by FreeCleanSolar October 31, 2009 10:02 AM PDT
- The fact is that installing solar panels at your home or business can cut your electric bill to $0 today and save thousands. For example, if you spend $200 per month for electricity, then you will spend $81,979 over 25 years, including a low annual price inflation rate of 2.5%. No matter how you calculate it, you will save money with a $5,000 to $25,000 solar panel system. Forget confusing cost per kilo-watt (kW) comparisons. Remember, you can pay the utility for 25 years, with annual price increases, or you can pay a lot less with solar power.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(28 Comments)To do something about this today, visit <a href="http://FreeCleanSolar.com"> FreeCleanSolar.com </a> to search a nationwide network of 500 local solar panel installers representing most every solar panel brand including Sunpower, Kyocera, Sharp and Sunwize. You can also find information about state solar rebates, federal tax credits, solar financing and leasing, system costs and the benefits of going solar. The bottom line is that solar can save money and has never been more affordable than it is today.