Obama should aim higher on renewable energy

One of my biggest frustrations with Democratic leaders is their refusal to embrace the energy policy Al Gore outlined this summer, which could "end our reliance on carbon-based fuels" in the next decade.

Barack Obama has offered an energy policy that's a big improvement on what George Bush has done. Unfortunately, Obama still supports more investment in so-called "clean coal" and has not ruled out expanding nuclear power.

On the plus side, Obama also calls for generating 10 percent of our country's electricity from renewable sources by 2012--which sounds great until you learn that the U.S. has already surpassed that goal.

Look at what happened in the past year, even as the Bush administration did little to promote wind and solar energy:

According to the latest "Monthly Electricity Review" issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (October 3, 2008), net U.S. generation of electricity from renewable energy sources surged by 32 percent in June 2008 compared to June 2007.

Renewable energy (biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) totaled 41,160,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) in June 2008 up from 31,242,000 MWh in June 2007. Renewables accounted for 11.0 percent of net U.S. electricity generation in June 2008 compared to 8.6 percent in June 2007. Compared to June 2007, wind power grew by 81.6 percent in June 2008 while solar and conventional hydropower experienced increases of 42.6 percent and 34.7 percent respectively. Geothermal energy also enjoyed a slight increase (0.8percent) while biomass (wood + waste) remained relatively unchanged.

Years ago, some people thought it was a pipe dream to ask Congress to require that 10 percent of U.S. electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2010. Yet even in the absence of a mandate, we exceeded that number two years ahead of schedule.

Just think of what could be done if we had a president and Congress committed to expanding wind and solar power in this country. Assuming Obama wins the election, we need to press him to raise the bar on renewable energy. If Obama suggests that the best we can do is 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025, we will fail to capitalize on the opportunity to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

(Note: A commenter at another blog suggested that Obama may not be counting hydroelectric power as one of the renewable sources from which we should get 10 percent of electricity by 2012. If that is so, then we would need to approximately triple electricity generated by wind and solar in order to meet Obama's goal in four years. Even that goal doesn't seem ambitious enough to me, however.)

Perhaps more important, Obama and other Democratic leaders should stop lending credibility to the idea that we need either more "clean coal" or more nuclear power. We can meet our baseload needs without them. Every new coal-fired plant is a 50-year investment in the wrong direction, and every new nuclear reactor creates more waste we don't know what to do with.

The false choice between coal and nuclear power understates the potential to reduce our electricity consumption through conservation and efficiency measures.

It also affects decision-making at the state level. In April, the two Democrats on the Iowa Utilities Board (including key early Obama supporter John Norris) cast the deciding votes in favor of an application to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown. They rejected testimony from James Hansen and others regarding the adverse health and environmental impacts of coal emissions, as well as the utility's ability to do much more to promote energy efficiency.

Speaking to the Des Moines Register, they explained that they voted to approve the coal plant because they don't believe we can meet demand for electricity without new coal or nuclear power, and no one is seeking to build more nuclear reactors in Iowa.

Even with strong presidential leadership, we'll have plenty of trouble getting Congress and the states to adopt good energy policies next year.

Obama should set higher goals for generating electricity from clean renewable sources and make that (along with efficiency measures) his top energy priorities.



Display:


Re: Obama should aim higher on renewable energy (none / 0)

The nuclear waste disposal problem has been solved, at the 'know what to do' level, for a long time.  There is a thorough review in Reviews of Modern Physics several decades ago.

Being willing to take the needed steps is a separate question.


by phillies on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:11:36 AM EST

Drop me a link? (none / 0)

I've heard the standard "launch it toward the sun" approach, and it isn't bad.


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

unless a booster rocket fails (none / 0)

and a container of waste explodes while still in earth's atmosphere.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it would just burn up, probably (none / 0)

but even if not, we do get exposed to radiation every day. there are safeguards we can take, and a limited amount of radiation is helpful in the long run (leads to more genetic changes)


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:04:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Drop me a link? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, that's a terrible idea. If your launch vehicle fails you spread the hypertoxic debris all over the place. To beat that you can put it in a superduper leakproof container in the rocket -- but if you had a superduper leakproof container in the first place, you wouldn't need the rocket.

That said, there's a very simple solution to the problem: reprocessing spent fuel rods. Reprocessing separates the spent fuel into a variety of components. Most if not all of the truly dangerous stuff is suitable for reuse in fuel rods. If you reprocess to eliminate waste, you render 99.9% of the material less radioactive than the original uranium in 40 years; you also extend the usable life of the original fuel considerably. The remaining fuel is of an extremely small volume, and the half-lives are in the very short-term range (remember you're re-fissioning all of the long-halflife material).

France, the UK, Japan, Russia, and India all reprocess spent fuel rods. While there are concerns (security, transportation, etc), none of them are more significant (and in fact they're all less significant) than the problems with waste disposal.

I'm very much pro-wind, pro-solar, etc. However, there are issues with those technologies as well; for instance, the manufacturing of solar panels is a very dirty process full of toxic materials. Nuclear done right would be a valuable component in the fight against carbon emissions. The system we have now is nuclear done wrong, from plant design to waste management.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:10:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Navy was working on a Nuclear Fusion (none / 0)

Reactor (and your points on reuse are well taken. why destroy when you can recycle).

Got the blueprints, now all we gotta do is build the sucker! (twenty times the cost of design, natch)


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Drop me a link? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, it's more along the lines of "keep burning the stuff until it is so "hot" (WAY radioactive), that it is only dangerous for 100 years. Mix the stuff into glass, bake it into bricks, and bury it. For added bonus, build a small thermal turbine on top, and use the heat from the radioactive decay to generate more power.

I've talked to physicists that would be willing to store the waste from a proper breeder reactor in their basements - very little waste is generated, and we know how to deal with it.

Nuclear power is extremely cheap and clean in the right regulatory environment. We are doing ourselves a disservice if we count it out, just because some people are afraid of it.


Yes. We. Did.
by pneuma on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, I oppose ethanol subsidies (2.00 / 1)

I am talking about clean, renewable sources of energy.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:34:20 AM EST

Re: Obama should aim higher (none / 0)

I contend that the ability for Obama to aim higher is dependent on the Senate races. He has chosen the 'safer' political route, this is his practice and pattern.  

If we can achieve the 60 seat margin in the Senate, then I think that Obama will take that as a signal to become more aggressive on renewables, as he can muster the necessary votes to beat filibuster, he will subsequently drift closer to Gore's Plan.  

It is the 'safer' political route, as is his practice and pattern.


by NvDem on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST

dude you make me laugh! (none / 0)

he is a natural compromiser... when he was in the meeting on McCain's plan for the economy, the only thing he did was ask Paulson, "Could this plan ever work?" -- to which Paulson buried his head in his hands and said, "Absolutely not."


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:23:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama should aim higher on renewable energy (none / 0)

Nuclear energy shills would crack me up if they were not so oblivious to the dangers of what they propose.  There is no safe way to extract, process, use, or store nuclear fuel.  None, zip, zero.  


by markt on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST

Re: Obama should aim higher on renewable energy (none / 0)

What are they missing? A power source that has absolutely no potential downside capable of replacing fossil fuel use? What is it?

60 Minutes aired a broadcast about Nuclear development in France that seems to say, that it is, can be, an alterntive that has enormous potential to be a "safe" alternative for producing electricity:

"When much of the world spurned nuclear power, 30 years ago, the French, being French, decided to go their own way and embrace it. Paris, the "City of Light," is lit by nuclear energy, which powers just about everything else in France: its homes, its factories, even its high speed railroads.

Nearly 80 percent of the country's electricity comes from 58 nuclear power plants, crammed into a country the size of Texas. Pierre Gadonniex, the head "Electricite de France," the country's national utility says it all began with a French obsession for energy independence."  

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/0 6/60minutes/main2655782.shtml


Pottery
by Pottery on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM EST

Re: Obama should aim higher on renewable energy (none / 0)

The best and most prolific source of biofuels is hemp. Hopefully, hemp will become a viable source of fuels, foods, fibers, medicines and recreation that can create millions of new jobs and keep work here in America.


by Hempy on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:11:57 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.