The core of my plan would be to jumpstart the market for renewable energy technologies by requiring the federal government to generate all the power it uses through renewable technologies within the next five years.
With over 400,000 buildings and over 630,000 vehicles, the federal government is a major user of energy in our country. If we can free this part of our economy from foreign oil, then the entire nation will have a model to follow.
Proven technologies already exist to free the nation from dependence on foreign oil, but the key challenge is creating enough economies of scale to make renewable energy competitive with fossil fuels. The federal investment in freeing us from dependence on foreign oil would drive down the price of existing technologies like hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power to the point that the other sectors of the economy would follow.
We can’t tell private business they should invest in renewable energy without doing so ourselves. Let’s harness the power of government investment to make renewables the least expensive alternative.
The initial federal investment of $100 billion would ultimately pay for itself through cost savings on federal energy expenditures, but the economic, environmental and security benefits would be exponentially greater.
Global warming is real – and we need to start investing a relatively small amount now to avoid a catastrophic loss to our economy and our environment in the future.
The time frame of five years is completely realistic given the current technology and dual threats of global warming and American dependence on foreign oil. What we call the Greatest Generation went from Pearl Harbor to victory in World War II in less than four years. A united nation can meet the threats facing our generation within a similar time frame.
American government investment in technology has been the launching pad for many green technologies, including photovoltaic cells that were developed in their current form by the US space program.
By providing a boost to American-made renewable energy technologies, we would help create tens of thousands of jobs in the emerging “green technology” sector and make sure America becomes a global leader in this growing market.
The most important immediate benefit of this program would be to make our country more secure. Our oil purchases support states like Iran, who wish us harm. This makes no sense – and it must end.
I have been a strong advocate for alternative energy, particularly the hydrogen fuel cell industry that is centered in Massachusetts for many years now.
Hydrogen fuel cells are a clean, renewable and proven technology. They are already in use throughout the world – saving energy and protecting our environment. We need to use this locally-generated technology to help free ourselves from dependency on foreign oil.
Hydrogen fuel cells are already widely installed in some countries. For example, In Japan homeowners and commercial property owners using Hydrogen Fuel cells have dramatically reduced their utility bills.
Fuel cells have a distinct advantage over alternative fuels such as solar and wind power in that their ability to produce energy does not depend on constantly shifting environmental factors – as long as the cells are supplied with hydrogen, they will produce a continuous stream of energy. This high reliability renders fuel cells well suited for supporting critical loads or emergency applications. In addition to their high reliability, fuel cells are practically silent, can be installed in rural locations that would under other circumstances have no power or have to be connected to the grid at taxpayer expense, and emit only water into the atmosphere. They also have fewer moving parts than other energy producing systems, leading to a decreased risk of mechanical breakdown and loss of power.
On Beacon Hill, I worked to introduce the “Massachusetts Renewable Energy Road Map,” a package of policy ideas designed to invigorate our economy and protect the environment with research-and-development grants and tax incentives for Massachusetts companies developing fuel-cell technology. The legislation also creates a $1,500 state tax credit for consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles.
In Congress, the Finegold Federal Energy Independence Act will be the first of many pieces of bold legislation that I will introduce to wake up Washington to new ways of addressing the pressing problems facing America and the world. “We can’t shape a better future relying on the timid politics of the past. It is time for bold thinking and big solutions. And I will bring both to Washington.”
Rep Finegold, I’m glad you’re interested in oil alternatives. However, it seems premature to me to commit public money to putting H fuel cells everywhere without addressing a very pressing issue: how are we going to create the H fuel to fill them? Please be specific and comprehensive in your answer. Unless it is clear that hydrogen fuel can be made cleanly, renewably and in sufficient volume, the plan is not much more at this point than a subsidy to the local H cell producers.
You’ve asked my question for me. That was my first response. Hydrogen is currently made in one of two ways, as through steam refining of natural gas which realease CO2 or through the electrolosys of water which is very energy intensive.
<
p>
Unless Mr. Eldridge is calling for more nuclear power to electrolize water this is not a sustainable project.
Laurel,
<
p>
Massachusetts thrives on the fact that it is an innovation economy. There was a point and time when much of our widely used technologies seemed impossible, but we pushed and made them work in our labs, factories, and mills.
<
p>
Part of this inititiative is realizing that we must do the research in order to find “clean” hydrogen production methods. Our biggest problem would be in not trying a new direction, and I firmly believe that Hydrogen is the fuel of the future.
<
p>
Finally, I noticed on Left In Lowell someone mentioned the research going on in our own backyard at U-Mass Lowell. The breakthroughs occurring in regards to nano technology’s could be the key.
<
p>
With gas prices quickly rising yet again, and a war being fought thousands of miles away, we must think outside of the box to end our dependence on oil, and I believe this is our best option.
What percentage of the funding in your initiative will be dedicated to the problems associated with fuel generation?
Mr. Finegold, what role does nano-tech play in hydrogen production? I’m not sure I follow your logic tree.
<
p>
Are you for nuclear power to create stored energy in the form of hydrogen?
http://auto.howstuff…
<
p>
The above URL explains the economies of hydrogen fuel. All very nicely. Ah, leave it to a politician to see one monetary sink hole and want to replicate it. How about 100 Billion dollars for common sense training for our political “leaders”.
I think your response is uncool. I took High School science and know about laws of science and physics. Sure, if you go by what those laws say, this is all garbage. But, you overlook an important fact. When you deal with congressmen, senators, presidents; these people can write their own laws. Suppose they want to pass a law that repeals the laws of gravity for you. You would go off floating into space. That’s the kind of power these dudes have. Phew!
<
p>
I saw something like this the last Twilight Zone Marathon on cable. A creepy little boy had this small community serving him and he could do anything he wanted to the villagers. Most of the villagers were smart enough to agree with the little boy on everything. Otherwise they were tortured and sent to a pumpkin patch. The little boy was above the laws of science and man. (I think this little boy grew up to be a president.)
<
p>
So this isn’t a 100 billion dollar boondoggle. Let’s up the ante to 100 trillion!
<
p>
In this time of losing our rights as citizens, I want to be the first inmate sent to a government “rehab facility” in a hydrogen powered paddy wagon. I’m so glad another politician has his priorities straight.
I loved that Twilight Zone episode. That kid was so creepy!
Description Here
And Cloris Leachman was the mother.
<
p>
Who would have thought that we’d be living as the villagers.
<
p>
“Real good, Things are just real good. I like the way the government sends jobs overseas. And isn’t it great we don’t have to worry about any Bill of Rights? And property rights! Sure was confusing.”
<
p>
“People used to say, ‘It’s a free country’, that was a stupid saying.”
<
p>
“It’s real good the politicians are in bed with each other. Making big bucks on the war. Now we can have eight years of the Clintons again before we go back to the Bush family. Real issues of political thinking just muddle my brain.”
<
p>
“Yes, real good.”
Even if a bill like this were watered down, it would save the atmosphere a lot of pollution and help curb Global Warming.
<
p>
Hydrogen Fuel definately seems like the way to go. Creating the hydrogen isn’t easy and would require a lot of energy in and of itself, but I think that would be offset IF we invest heavily in renewable energy. I’d even contemplate nuclear energy in certain parts of this country where the populations aren’t large (in case of a disaster).
<
p>
One of the things I’ve never gotten is why don’t we have solar panels on the tops of every school in America? At the very least – and I think I’m being conservative here – they could power each and every school in America, hopefully with energy left over for other town buildings. Furthermore, they’re not expensive and panels typically come with 20 year warrantees. They can heat water and do all sorts of things for not that much money.
… I consider myself a pretty strong solar proponent.
<
p>
But I’ll answer your question: “why don’t we have solar panels on the tops of every school in America?” by pointing out that your statement that PV panels are not expensive is just not accurate. Without subsidies, tax breaks, etc., electricity produced by PV systems is simply not very cheap relative to what you can buy off the wires of the local utility. It should be noted that that is not true everywhere- in Hawaii, for example, PV has reached grid parity (electricity prices are high there).
<
p>
That said, costs are coming down, and there’s so much VC money going into solar technologies now that I hope against hope that the cost per watt continues to decrease rapidly.
<
p>
I’m pretty involved with sustainable energy issues on a town level. At present, I’m much more interested in energy conservation and efficiency than in things like PV, as energy efficiency generally costs somewhere in the range of 3-6 cents/kWh saved, while solar is somewhere around 20+ cents/kWh, fully loaded.
<
p>
Meanwhile, entities like CA, NJ, and Wal-Mart (!) are forging ahead with PV, which will benefit us all as they move us down the experience curve (which results in lower costs). I wouldn’t mind MA stepping up a bit more than what MRET (http://www.mtpc.org/…) does now, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on solar just yet. Or hydrogen, for that matter.
<
p>
Rep. Finegold, I do appreciate your leadership on this issue.
I thought that Ryan was talking about solar water heaters. It is my understanding that this is not all that expensive to set up, and works well even in cloudy northeastern spots like MA. Am I on track with that notion?
From “they could power each and every school in America, hopefully with energy left over for other town buildings” I assumed PV.
<
p>
That said, solar hot-water is definitely the ugly cousin of solar energy. It’s generally cheaper in terms of cost per energy utilized, but doesn’t get much attention.
<
p>
I can’t say why that is. There could be good reasons why it largely gets ignored, or it could be market failure.
<
p>
My town is going to install a PV and/or solar hot water system on a residential site this year, so maybe we’ll learn something. With luck, it’ll be my house (the town will split the cost 50/50; they’re picking a name out of a hat).
*It’s ugly – hot water panels are thicker than PV and require pipes. If you are in a warm climate it makes sense to put the water tank on the roof, which is even uglier.
*It’s heavy – although most roofs can handle the weight with no problems
*It’s low-tech. Pipes in a box? Boring.
*Like any plumbing, it might leak if installed badly. Leaks in your attic suck
<
p>
Random stat: about 95% of solar water heaters installed today are cheap plastic panels used to heat swimming pools. It’s the cheapest way to heat a pool.
Both seem like good ideas to me.
Is high, but that wasn’t my point. Installation of solar power really isn’t that expensive. Furthermore, it’s more of an up front cost. After making the initial investment, it will certainly save some money. Will it pay for itself down the road? I don’t know. If you just consider the real cost of buying electricity through conventional means against the costs of installing the solar technology, maintaining it, repairing it and perhaps buying electicity when solar isn’t producing enough… maybe not. However, every school is responsible for a lot of energy use – which is contributing to the environmental disaster our world is currently facing. If you couple that fact into your comparison, then maybe suddenly the initial investment of solar power seems like a great idea.
<
p>
We all have to do our part. I think it’s going to take a New Deal-esque effort by the Government of this country to create wind, solar and other renewable projects to help save this country… just like FDR did with basic infrastructural projects to help get people jobs and survive the depression. However, unlike the depression, we’re facing what could be the end of humanity as we know it… so fuck the added costs. We can afford to do it if we tough it out for a few years – and it would make a real impact in the fight against Global Warming. Heck, think of the PR and trend setting it would do?
On the one hand, as of today, solar is more expensive, in terms of total life-cycle costs (ignoring external costs). If external costs of fossil fuels are internalized somehow (think RGGI for now), the gap closes, but solar is still expensive.
<
p>
I view this from the basis of working with my town (which has a municipal utility) to reduce fossil energy reliance (for the usual reasons- greenhouse, energy security, air quality, etc.)- when I get into the dollars and cents, which comes from the property taxes that my neighbors and I pay, putting big money into solar just doesn’t make sense to me. It makes more sense to me to start with the ‘easy’ conservation and efficiency projects, which have a positive ROI independent of external costs, and then focus on renewable energy once the conservation and efficiency efforts go as far as they can (and the cost per unit energy saved approaches renewable sources).
<
p>
That said, I am actively looking at PV for my house, but have to weigh the costs against, for starters, my kids’ college funds. I agree that the costs are PV are small relative to, say, the cost of a house in the Boston area!
<
p>
I personally don’t buy into the “end of humanity as we know it” mindset. A lot depends on climate sensitivity, and the confidence interval for sensitivity in the lastest IPCC work is still pretty large. The trick is agreeing upon what level of action is appropriate given the uncertainty- seems like we’d want to plan assuming a bad-but-not-worst case, to avoid overshooting in case the sensitivity isn’t too bad.
<
p>
I’d love to see action at the federal level. Though I am becoming a bit of a fiscal hawk, there are certainly worse things to spend money on, as the current Administration has demonstrated. That said, I’m not interested in waiting around, or emitting CO2 to go attend some global warming rally; I prefer to get something done at a local level. The sensible place to start is energy conservation; I’m glad to see Deval push this at a State level.
It’s not as if a wait and see approach is exactly a bright idea. Maybe things won’t be so dire. Maybe they will be. Do you really want to wait and see to find out?
<
p>
I’m not saying every Tom, Dick and Harry should have to break the bank to install PVs on their house. However, our government should make efforts to get them up on large buildings with plenty of sun, that also require a lot of energy, like public schools.
I’m not advocating a wait and see approach. Where did I say that?
<
p>
I’m advocating efficient allocation of resources in the face of uncertainty.
<
p>
At present, one can get more CO2 reductions/$ via energy efficiency & wind than via solar, by a healthy margin. If our objective is to maximize CO2 reductions (or, more accurately, minimize growth in CO2 emissions), don’t you want the most bang for the buck?
<
p>
I’m not advocating that governments not invest in solar. They will and must be a key player in keeping PV demand high enough to stimulate enough activity to move us down the experience curve to the point where PV is one day at grid-parity. Maybe requiring PV on schools is a good way to do that- it would be a big, but not huge, investment. But it’s dumb to put PV on schools if you don’t also make schools as energy efficient as possible.
<
p>
Frankly, probably the most cost-effective way to minimize carbon emissions via renewable energy is by building wind projects in India and China. The latter is installing coal plants at an insane rate; any wind capacity installed now would directly offset fossil capacity in the near future. Of course, wind makes sense in the US too.
And I’m right with you there, but I don’t think we can stop at double-plated windows, thank you very much.
<
p>
Building wind projects in India and China sounds like a great idea, but not building them here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY.
… about not wanting to build wind capacity here?
<
p>
Bring it on.
<
p>
As for the prospects for efficiency, please consider that we run about 2x energy use per capita compared to Germany, France, Japan, Switzerland, UK, etc. Note this is energy use, not CO2 emissions, so you can’t explain away France, etc. with nukes. Sure, transport is a big part of it, but there are huge gaps with respect to space heating and electrical use.
<
p>
Having spent some time living in Germany and France, it’s quite evident to me that many of their practices are applicable to the US- we just have to learn how to get out of the habit of wantonly wasting energy.
….i think of this guy
<
p>
“One-hundred billion.” Wow, used to be a time when that was serious money. Now it just roles off the tougue. Now any politician can drop the phrase with more lilt than “Nomar Garciaparra”. Progress.
<
p>
With all the violations of human rights – including slave labor on our soil, political corruption, economic disasters, I find it refreshing that a politico can solve complex issues by throwing “One-hundred billion” at a problem.
<
p>
Maybe this fellow just has a very dry sense of humor.
<
p>
“Be thankful we don’t get all the government we pay for.” -Will Rogers
I applaud the ambition of your proposal. But I want to better understand how you think it affects world politics. You said:
<
p>
<
p>
As you know, we import zero oil from Iran directly.
<
p>
Let’s say we cut American oil consumption from 25% of the world’s consumption down to 15%, which would be a stunning decline.
<
p>
That would lower total world consumption by 10% (at most; it would also lower prices, which would push world consumption back up a bit), which would affect Mexico, Norway, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc equally (since they sell to the market).
<
p>
Do you think a 10% cut in world consumption would make a big difference in Iran’s political behavior (like sponsoring terrorists)?
…and at a far lesser market cost for extraction than the hydrogen project.
Finegold (who I like, not just because of the Au in his name) connected energy policy to foreign policy.
<
p>
That argument comes up frequently — “we need to consume less oil so less $ goes to bad nations.”
<
p>
I’m trying to understand what folks think exactly will happen to nations like Iran if they sell less oil because of lower worldwide demand. How will Iran change? Will they have less money to fund Hamas, is that the idea? Or will they destabilize and tilt more towards mullah-rule?
at a meta scale is by the adoption of Nuclear Power as a majority of our electricity production, and the production of syngas from coal. Other emerging technologies would play a part, but a small part at this time.
<
p>
Why not throw a 100 bbn towards building Nuke plants if you have to spend a 100 bbn.
i would have thought that you would be a bit down on the welfare state. that is what nuclear power is. it is enormously expensive, and highly subsidized by the government. putting this huge chunk of money into developing renewable energy strategies would at least give us a chance of developing methods that don’t require perpetual welfare by the new industry. nuclear = perpetual welfare.
<
p>
also, to answer a point up above by Ryan. you would put the new plants were people aren’t? where do you propose that is? we’re at 300 million people now. there are no places where people aren’t, and more importantly, there is the tiny problem of safely storing a new mountain of radioactive waste safely that a mushrooming of nuke plants would require. Are you willing to store a rod in your basement? For how many millennia?
For all but the first 80 years of the next three millenia.
<
p>
Seriously, though, I was under the impression that the “mountain” of nuclear waste (i) isn’t really a mountain, because the waste, while very toxic, is low in volume; and (ii) could be eliminated entirely — read that again, entirely– by the use of breeder reactors, which are currently banned because they can be used in certain circumstances to produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium.
<
p>
If CO2 is really as much of a global threat to continued human existence, this 100% carbon free energy seems like something to be embraced, not shunned.
<
p>
That it isn’t, even by the scientific community I am told has reached a consensus on global warming, suggests that a lot of the gloom and doom on climate change is politicking, just like all of the Greatest Threat Evers that has produced environmental gloom and doomery.
ok, i’m going to do a no-no. that is, i raised a question, but can’t stick around to properly tend the ensuing debate. my apologies! but i will leave this parting shot: there is the world of perfect physics, and there is the real world. check out articles all over the ‘net about the hanford nuclear reservation in washington state. the radioactive material is in the dirt and ground water and will shortly enter the great columbia river. the on-site vitrification plant that was to encase all this tons of radioactive dirt is a broken-down wreck before it is even functional. granted, this site was created by warhead production, not civilian electricity generation. but it is a classic example of how we as a country can create really, really scary messes and then just walk away from them. in the real world, rats tear through the garbage bag that in the clean, planed world had been hermetically sealed in the gleaming ash can. this country is not responsible enough to use nuclear. i’m glad others are, as you say, but we have proven ourselves to not be.
I am, unfortunately, well aware of the perpetual disaster at Hanford. Butb I also realize that the facility there was built with very primitive technology, and with the explicit goal of desparately producing as many weapons as possible in order to deter the Soviet threat.
<
p>
I don’t see why this is the necessary end of all American reactors, as opposed to the example of all of the European reactors. It just happens that the American reactors are quite a bit older thwn Europe’s.
<
p>
I continue to maintain that your position is tacit acknowledgment that the environmental threat of nuclear waste is greater than that of CO2 induced climate change.
<
p>
They are both threats, in different ways. You make this out to be a false dichotomy of fossil fuels vs. nuclear, and neatly step over the other side of the spectrum called renewable energy. a wise renewable approach IMO would include major elements of conservation and population control.
Since the release of Al’s movie, I have been reading that there is scientific consnensus– deviation from which reveals one as a kook or paid-for hack– that CO2 emissions are causing climate change, the result of which will be apocalyptic for people resident on this earth, to the extent of threatening the extinction of our species.
<
p>
The upshot of all of this is that CO2 emissions must be curtailed or eliminated in the immediatel future, and, by the way, if we don’t act RIGHT NOW we are doomed. Doomed!
<
p>
The proposed solution to this? Energy conservation, which under the best case scenario, might reduce the rate at which energy consumption increases. Renewable energy, which is untested at scale, and for some applications, requires a few more decades of development. Well, if the inconvenient truth is true, these don’t do it.
<
p>
And over here we have a mature technology that, once constructed, can produce zero or extremely low carbon energy. While the technology has risks, the risks are (relative to the supposed risk of global warming) small in scope and area and threaten (relative to the entire population of the earth that is supposedly threatened by global warming) a small number of people. Yet this technology remains anathema.
<
p>
This suggests strongly that much of the noise about global warming is hot air, much like my kids who scream that their leg is mangled beyond use, but not so much that don’t want to stay outside to play. In other words the real risk posed by global warming is likely in the range of that posed by a nuclear power plant: small.
<
p>
The implication of this is that gradualist approach to the problem largely employed now (depsite official resisitance from Washington), toward the adoption of effecient energy consumption like CFLs and the testing of energy production by wind, etc. is exactly right.
all of our environmental disasters are not things of the past. to infer that is deliberate rosy glasses thinking (do those metaphors mix?). do you think bush has dismantled the EPA just for kicks?
Nuclear energy can be relatively cheap, certainly cheaper than Hydrogen and it’s ZERO Carbon footprint. And you can build them now. Jimmy Carter’s greatest mistake was shackling the nuclear industry in this country. Which is odd because he is a trained nuclear engineer.
Well, it’s not zero carbon, owing to the uranium processing, etc. There are those who argue that life-cycle emissions for nuclear are comparable to fossil fuels, but I think they’ve been fairly well debunked. So can we agree on low-carbon?
<
p>
Let’s make a deal- let’s streamline regulations, and remove all government liability for nuclear plants, and let the market sort out nuclear. Let’s see if that liability policy pencils out.
<
p>
I am not knee-jerk opposed to nuclear. But here’s what I don’t like about it:
<
p>
The probability of a bad nuclear accident is very very low. However, the impacts of a bad nuclear accident are very very high. Thus, it’s exceedingly difficult to assign an expected value to nuclear safety. It’s wicked safe for years until suddenly… it’s not. It’s a black swan (Google for taleb black swan).
<
p>
Yes, I know Chernobyl couldn’t happen in the US, and there are all these great pebble bed reactor designs that are fool-proof, and so forth. But I think pro-nuke people write off the fears of people like myself as irrational, while I think they are perfectly rational.
<
p>
There’s also the political matter of waste disposal. Sure, it’d be nice if Nevada would play along. They aren’t. Solutions? Proliferation-proof breeders? What’s the timeline on those?
<
p>
Again, I’m not anti-nuclear power, per se. But I haven’t seen the current pro-nuke crowd float realistic solutions to the issues that have plagued nukes for the past thirty years (and it’s not just over-regulation).
The full cost of nuclear power is lower than the full cost of most other forms of power. The only reason that the market cost of coal, oil, gas, and other forms of power generation is so low is that they get to dump pollution into the environment. If you apply the same regulations to coal plants as you do to nuclear plants (you have to store all your waste products), coal power would be too expensive for anyone to even think about using it.
<
p>
Nuclear power is very high on the list of most environmentally friendly power (after wind and possibly hydroelectric/geothermal where they are available). Unlike solar cells, it doesn’t take a huge amount of energy to build the power plant and you don’t have to use large amounts of highly toxic chemicals to build the power plant. Unlike coal, oil, and gas, you have zero emissions. The local environmental impact is similar to hydroelectric and geothermal (a fairly large building sitting in what would otherwise be a good place for wildlife).
<
p>
Coal plants produce more nuclear waste than nuclear power plants (for the same total energy production), and they dump a lot of it into the air we breathe. Why are you willing to let people build coal plants near where people live if you object to building nuclear plants near where people live? If you really think radioactive waste is a problem, you should be trying to ban coal plants.
<
p>
Most opposition to nuclear power comes from people that don’t know what they are talking about. If you actually bother to learn the facts, you will find that nuclear power is cleaner and safer than almost any other form of electricity generation.
<
p>
I’m going to go with a no on that one — and I’m not entirely anti-nuclear power by any stretch.
<
p>
It’s true that coal/oil/nat’l gas releases more GHGs. However, there are a number of nuclear-related costs including the Fed’l Gov’t’s subsidies of the insurance rates and the foreign policy ramifications w.r.t. nuclear power are tremendous.
<
p>
For the record, nuclear plants don’t store all of their waste products. They store al of their nuclear waste — but they don’t capture their emissions related to the excavation and transport of nuclear raw materials.
<
p>
Solar cells repay their energy cost pretty dang quickly, so that “pooh pooh” on solar is silly. As for nasty materials required for manufacture, it’s true that per kW solar requires more.
<
p>
<
p>
This alone doesn’t justify building the dang things though. You’re ignoring all sorts of factors, including but not limited to
1. The gov’t subsidy on nuclear power insurance, which brings their market rates higher than other power generation right now.
2. You ignore that the acquisition and refinement of nuclear raw materials releases GHGs and other nasties.
3. You ignore that we have no freaking idea what to do with the waste.
4. You ignore the very real (small, but incredible in magnitude) costs of a major accident.
5. You ignore that we don’t have scalable energy storage, and that nuclear power can’t change it’s energy output quickly, safely, or efficiently. So, while nuclear might be a great solution for baseload (the minimum power demand in the region), it’s terrible for handling peaking or even regular daytime loads.
So, let’s do nuke. But, first let’s roll out efficiency installations — insulation, windows, improved temperature controls, etc.
Then, let’s install the renewable power generation — wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal, and passive solar (solar hot water heaters, etc).
Then, if we still haven’t taken care of business, let’s see what we can do about nuclear. But, let’s not roll out nuclear until we’ve exhausted other options which are safer for us and for the environment.
I have for a long time thought that nuclear does have to be part of the solution (especially in the short term), and was glad to see John Kerry and Newt Gingrich agree on that during their recent debate. But the barrier to that, as Ed Markey pointed when I saw him speak later that week, is that unlike France and Japan which have been able to achieve a high level of nuclear power generation, in the United States with a have a primarily market-based economy: in a quasi-socialist system the government can just build nuclear plants and take all responsibility for the disposle and the potential risks of disaster. In our economy, private investors pay for power plants, and a combination of the public distrust of nuclear power (due to very real events, Chernobol and Three Mile Island) and the fact that the private compnay ultimately is responsible in this system if things go wrong, there is no appetite for new privately owned nuclear plants. Nuclear works well as in important part in theory, but in the realities of a living in a primarily capitalist economy is that it’s not a realisticly reliable pathway.
in everything but politician’s comments it seems.
<
p>
<
p>
Here’s some data for you. As of 2004, Japan had 1,200,000 KWe solar installed. They’ve been working at it for many many years, installing more and more every year.
<
p>
Given that a 20 kW system is about what you can fit on a municipal building roof, you’re talking about 800,000 KWe installed in the United States in the next five years. It’s not physically possible. There isn’t enough manufacturing capacity to come anywhere near that kind of demand surge, and given that solar cell manufacturing cites take months to years to set up — and they rely on a supply chain that also takes time to set up — there’s no possible way to get that many solar cells within five years even at double their current price.
I’m not arguing that installing more solar cells on government buildings shouldn’t be a goal — indeed it should. But, if you really want to reduce greenhouse gasses and fuel consumption from the bad guys, start by replacing all single pane windows in government buildings, installing solar hot water heaters on their roofs, adjusting their mechanical systems and thermostats to better regulate heating and cooling, and the dozen or so other methods to reduce the energy bill in the first place. Implement a policy to make all new government buildings LEED certified — and that could very well include solar cells on the roof.
<
p>
Solar cells on 400,000 government roofs? Sounds great — but it just can’t be done within five years, so why not work on all these other methods to reduce consumption in a systematic, controlled, cost efficient manner — while also altering public policy to encourage more renewable generation (RPS, net metering, etc) and less consumption (Energy Star requirements in public and private, more mass transit funding and options, increased CAFE standards and penalties, etc).
I would expect that a government program to install solar cells on their buildings on some scale would stimulate manufacturing, construction of manufacturing facilities, etc. So on what scale COULD something be done over the next five years?
<
p>
And if they can add some research money to the purchase and installation budget, that kicks things into yet another higher gear, no? The end goal being to increase manufacturing and make it all more affordable, since it is so desirable.
<
p>
Can a reasonable program be proposed along with the conservation?
An additional 800,000 KWe isn’t reasonable within a five year span.
<
p>
I’d love to see tUS start buying up more solar cells. More precisely, I think the first significant step is to require that all new government buildings at all levels be LEED certified. Heck, require that they’re LEED certified and have a significant source of electricity from renewable resources.
<
p>
That’s a time scale on the order of 1/10th of the one Rep Finegold proposes — much slower, but also physically possible, and at market rates for solar cells.
<
p>
Want to go further? Fine. In addition, start rolling out solar cells on the largest government buildings which just so happen to also have new roofs, and in regional grids where peak demand is really straining peak supply. Go for 1,00 – 10,000 additional KWe per year even.
To propose legislation spending money in a way that is either physically impossible or economically irresponsible due to market impact is simply not helpful.
<
p>
There’s no silver bullet — it will take hundreds of thousands of purchasing decisions over the next ten years on all scales of budget and regional authority. Let’s crank it out a little at a time, over and over and over again. Swinging for the fences on every at bat is not the way to consistently score runs efficiently.
population is usually an unpopular/overlooked aspect of the energy use debate, but i feel it must be mentioned to have a rounded debate. one of the most popular and most doable approaches to reducing our energy consumption is conservation. however, we seem to keep offsetting (or surpassing, i’ll wager) our conservation efforts by increasing the total population. we seriously need to rethink our current rate of reproduction. i hope that a portion of your mountain of money, Rep Finegold, will go towards examining decreased reproduction rates as a form of conservation.
Steps to energy independence and making the world a nice place:
<
p>
First thing we oughta do, is invade our biggest exporter to the US of oil: Canada. Take their oil, and while we’re at it their cheap pharmacuticals. Win. Win. We make Canada our 51st state and that eliminates them as a “foreign” oil provider. There, nearly energy independent.
<
p>
In reaction, Iran, fearful about the US invasion of Canada, will act nice, kinda like they did when we invaded Iraq, only they’ll act nicer, because, well, they will. They just will. Or alternatively, they might just keep doing what they’re doing.
<
p>
Next, we’ll invest a bazillion dollars in technologies that the private sector can’t quite figure out how to make economically.
<
p>
Reason? If it may work, it will work. The government can do a better job of predicting the next great technology, like it did in the 1970s with the various Carter programs.
<
p>
Ok, so none of those Carter programs worked. At least the Government tried, which is what it’s all about when you’re spending other people’s money. Anyway, it’s not a bazillion, that’d be silly. It’s only $100 billion.
<
p>
Next, a solar panel for every home! Screw the gallium arsenide disposal or the basic fact that the thing doesn’t work so well in the shade. We’ll figure it out, cause we’re the government! Look at the great job we did with the nuclear waste that’s under Yucca Mt. Ok, ok…it’ll be there someday. Or somewhere safe. Trust us.
<
p>
Energy independence is probably the dumbest slogan that comes out of politician’s mouths. It implies you’d pay anything to avoid dependence on a foreign provider.
<
p>
Seriously, you want independence from foreign oil? Here’s how: Tax the weasel piss out of it. Add $100, $200, whatever per barrel to every barrel imported. Presto. Independent.
<
p>
Ever hear a politician suggest that idea? No, because it really would result in independence from foreign oil, it’s lousy policy and every voter knows it.
<
p>
Foreigners got oil, we want it, and independence for the sake of independence seems meaningless. i.e. once we’re independent, then what?
<
p>
So tell me, if you reject my “tax the weasel piss outta oil to get independence” plan why then would you choose to assess from taxpayers, $100 billion–$300 from every person in the US–to take the wild ass, long shot bet on hydrogen cell in hopes of acheiving–with very real chance of failure–the very same end?
1) i think we’ve pretty much already invaded canada.
<
p>
2) sure we have gov’t research failure in a number of areas. like carter’s.
<
p>
but also a number of successes, no?
Being the son of a Canadian immigrant, who foolishly didn’t apply for his dual citizenship in time, I long for the day of a Canadian-American union. But alas, I don’t think a majority of my grandmother’s fellow countrymen and women would agree.
<
p>
And I’d also like to see some sort of stronger confederation of the “Anglophere” in general but that won’t be happening either.
I sure there’ve been government successes in predicting the ‘next big thing’, and there’ve been failures, my hyperbole notwithstanding. Photovoltaic cells for example as the Representative states, invented in the space program have succeeded. Except they were invented in the space program. They were patented and marketed by Hoffman Electronics in the 1950s.
<
p>
My point is that the Representative wants to take a punt with $100 billion on hydrogen cells so the Government can solve the problem of “independence on foreign oil”.
<
p>
If that really is the problem, what’s wrong with the obvious solution: tax foreign oil to the point that other alternatives are comparatively economic, and let the marketplace sort out the various alternatives—the solar, wind, coal, hydrogens, hamsters on treadmills,….
<
p>
But no. Instead of undertaking the obvious solution to the big problem, lets throw a grip of cash at fuel cells. $300 for every person in the US says it’ll work.
<
p>
“Independence on foreign oil” isn’t such a big problem, but it makes a big sound bite and a catchy stump slogan.
nt
Well Rep. Finegold has certainly stimulated a lot of conversation about prospective energy savings. I salute the intent, but as so many of the above comments point out, how well thought out is the strategy?
I wonder:
<
p>
-Where did the $100 billion figure come from?
<
p>
-Will some agency of the federal government be in charge?
<
p>
-Will this be the big dig of energy conservation?
<
p>
-Shouldn’t this be a more comprehensive strategy including conservation?
<
p>
-Who at the Post Office’s will be responsible for making sure the doors aren’t left open during the winter?
<
p>
Finally, I understand this is your first priority. Me, I want to see the war ended first. I want to save the earth too, but that may take the next 20, 30 or 50 years. Every day longer we’re in Iraq is too long. As John Kerry once said…
<
p>
“…how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?” I ask the same question about Iraq.
<
p>
Jamie’s into health care, Barry’s into energy, Niki and Eileen to their credit are talking about both ending the war and taking care of veterans. I like them but I’m supporting Niki because when it comes to taking on Mr. Ogonowski and a lot of Republican money, last thing I want is to have Marty’s replacement be a friend of George W. or take away from our long awaited Democratic majority.
<
p>
Will
To those who seem to get hung up on the number ($100 billion) in Barry Finegold’s proposal to invest in alternative energy, I think they are missing the point: which is that “we” have a country to do something major — before it’s too late — about our dependance on oil; the fact that we’re a small percentage of the world;s population, consuming a disproportionately high percentage of the world’s oil; that we’re a small percentage of the world’s population contributing a disproportionately high percentage of the world’s harmful emissions; and that we’re abusing our power and position as an innovating and resourceful country by not leading the way to develop responsible energy alternatives.
<
p>
Whether it’s $100 billion of $10 billion or $500 billion, I don’t think any of us have the ability to intelligently debate the matter in a responsible way — but the concept of investing a significant amount of money in alternative energy (which amount constitutes a fraction of what we’ve spent on the war in Iraq, which is mostly motivated by our need for oil) — is what this issue is about.