Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy 32 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama announced one of his most important cabinet figures - energy secretary. Obama has been drawing a green picture for US citizens, and says he will use green energy revaluation to create at least 2.5M jobs. People around the country have been asking the same question: how does he do it? Well, by appointing Steven Chu, a renewable energy/environment pioneer and Nobel Prize winner.
"We can spark the dynamism of our economy through a long-term investment in renewable energy that will give life to new businesses and industries with good jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced," he said, adding, "We'll make public buildings more efficient, modernize our electricity grid, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while protecting and preserving our natural resources. We must also recognize that the solution to global climate change must be global."
It is clear now that the new administration will do the following three things right after January 20th:
- Install solar panels/vinyl on all government/military buildings. The companies who can provide products are Suntech Power (STP), Energy Conversion Devices (ENER), Sunpower (SPWRA), First Solar (FSLR), Evergreen Solar (ESLR), JA Solar (JASO), and Canadian Solar (CSIQ). Based on the U.S. Department of Energy is leading The Solar America Initiative (SAI). By 2015 SAI will provide 5-10 GW of new electric capacity from decentralized sources of clean power to the electric grid in the United States, SAI will also boost our economy by promoting a U.S. based solar industry. With new administration takes office in Jan., we will see this program kickoff quickly. Companies who have domestic production should benefit, including FSLR, STP SPWR, ENER.
- Modernize our electricity grid. Obama wants to run the country’s economy on renewable energies, such as solar and wind. The problem is that the existing power grid is too out of date to transport new energy across the nation. Steven Chu’s expertise is a great fit here. He has long been promoting new power grid to carry electricity from one part of the nation the other. Companies such as American Superconductor (AMSC) can provide next generation power grid system - a secure super grid technology. More details can be found on the company website.
- Promote wind energy. Wind energy has been proven cheaper than solar and has achieved grid parity to some extent. Many companies are developing wind turbines or parts for wind energy market, including Trinity (TRN), American Superconductor, and Vestas (VWDRY.PK).
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 32 comments:
"Companies who have domestic production should benefit, including FSLR, STP SPWR, ENER." - Factual error. STP does not have domestic US production (if that's what the vague phrase "domestic production" meant). They have a US sales office, and now a US based installation venture, but no production. They've talked about building a US factory, but haven't yet bc of the credit crisis.
"Wind energy has been proven cheaper than solar and has achieved grid parity to some extent." - This shows a lack of understanding of what "grid parity" means. In California, Hawaii, Italy, and other markets, the annualized cost (over 20-25 years) of installing solar on a large home and the cost of buying grid power at current rates is equivalent. Tiered rates and peak power make a big difference. In places like Alabama, where electricity retails for 7c/kwh, solar's a long way off.
So to compare wind and solar in terms of an abstract "grid parity" is really not meaningful.
On Dec 16 10:04 AM Fred Banks wrote:
> Looks to me as if this short 'article' was written by someone with
> plans to go long in wind energy. A piece of advice might be appropriate
> here, and I hope that it is widely circulated. The present emphasis
> on wind energy is crank, and the sooner it is abandoned the better
> it will be for the country. .
Mr. Schulle, please make sure you do your research before you list and thus support companies that do not manufacture in the USA. If you copy and paste the link below you'll see recent evidence and in fact Suntech's hope that they will gobble up a US company in order to manufacture in the USA.
There are however many companies that are not neccessarily public companies who are manufacturing here in the USA. Companies from Germany and Spain who are employing people right here in the USA and not in China. It is too important for the USA to focus on creating jobs here in the USA for such a miss on information to go without comment. Please correct your information.
www.pv-tech.org/chip_s.../
PS - we had windmill power before we had REA's (1930's), and even before we had electricity; we had electric vehicles in the 1910's; we used solar heating since the Garden of Eden; and we had many "modern" applications of solar photovoltaics and fuel cells in the 1960's.
Progress!
On Dec 16 08:52 AM gebby wrote:
> governments get what they want. obama is not beholden to any one
> group. his is a grassroots effort. a decentralized support network.
> he will be able to build the energy infrastucture he has envisioned
> . count on it and invest accordingly.
Where do you get your pearls of wisdom? Wind power is cheap, quick to build and green. What's wrong with that.
The dept of energy says we could have 20% wind power by 2030.
Solar could be a bigger percentage by then.
"I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
Thomas Edison, 1931
Now there's a wise man.
genea
The President can't dictate what companies benefit from an alternative energy revolution. What he can do is provide the right incentives so Americans can develop new companies and compete.
Lack of govt support for alternative energy has put us in a catch up mode vis a vis the rest of the world. We had 50% of the wind power market until Republicans pulled the govt funding in the 80s. It's no accident that the largest PV makers are all overseas.
What people don't understand is that it's the massive subsidies for oil, coal, gas and nuclear that make it so hard for alternatives to compete.
thmime
We can't drill our way to energy independence. Impossible! If we pumped every barrel of oil reserves off the California coast it would give us enough oil for 16 months at U.S. consumption rates.
What will give us energy independence is energy that needs no fuel ever. No fuel ever to mine, prospect for, refine, transport, store, burn, clean up the pollution from, or fight wars over.
The hidden costs of oil and gas and coal are in the hundreds of billions every year.
They cost plenty over and above the energy prices you pay. Solar and wind will be as cheap before long, even without considering those hidden costs of fossil fuels. At which point they will actually be far cheaper in the big picture.
Shotei
I believe you are wrong. Obama will make energy a priority because it will solve 4 issues at once, economy, energy, environment, and national security.
No more wars over oil.
Are you talking about the war that Bush and co planned before 911? The war that they lied about to fool us into supporting. The one where they cherry picked intelligence that supported their agenda? The war that has nearly bankrupted our country? The one where we invaded a sovereign country that hadn't attacked us? The one where we invaded the one and only Muslim country that didn't have Al Queda operating?
Oh, that war.
This won't be like the Bush administration that did everything in it's power to block environmental progress. We won't have science being censored and hushed up to fit an agenda. We won't have an administratioin that works hand in hand with big oil to confuse the public debate about climate change and energy solutions.
Read the books "The Heat is On"
and "Censoring Science" What they did is criminal. The Bush administration even asked a conservative think tank to sue the administration, in order to prevent scientific facts from being brought up in a senate debate, so they would appear to not have a hand in this particular instance of censoring science. A memo was discovered later that proved this.
1--there is no specific "Obama" plan for 2+ millions jobs[how, where, what, when, who, costs, skills sets, training, etc ec] which can be immediately let loose upon the nation. the plan must be created, sized, legislated,funded and allocated by washington. will it be part of the currently discussed stimulative plan? more TARP-like stuff[trial/error]?
2-- you present guesses on likely beneficiaries, since item 1 does not exist.
3--a technical beauracrat[Dr. Chu]will provide a short range solution for the "green" and "stimulus" rhetoric?
have you been watching WASH. D.C. in action or are you trapped somewhere with "ALICE" and her rabbit?
I hope your right about Obama, I'm neither Dem. or Rep.
I go with the one with the most ideas I agree with. I'd love to have a windmill in my back yard and solar panels on the roof, but, for the cost of one windmill I could pay my gas bill for the next 65 years. I didn't make that number up. And, yes I know your talking about wind farms that supply whole cities. I live in Indiana, not enough wind or sun to supply electricty for this area meaning my energy would have to come from out west and travel 1000 miles. The cost to boost the power to get to areas like mine would make it impossible. Maybe after the ozone is burnt off, solar power will be cost efficent.
If Obama does half of what he promised I'll jump on the band wagon with both feet. He would be the first president to accomplish it.
On Dec 16 01:52 PM frflyer wrote:
> Fred Banks
>
> Where do you get your pearls of wisdom? Wind power is cheap, quick
> to build and green. What's wrong with that.
>
> The dept of energy says we could have 20% wind power by 2030. <br/>Solar
> could be a bigger percentage by then.
>
> "I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy. What a source of
> power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before
> we tackle that."
> Thomas Edison, 1931
> Now there's a wise man.
>
> genea
>
> The President can't dictate what companies benefit from an alternative
> energy revolution. What he can do is provide the right incentives
> so Americans can develop new companies and compete.
> Lack of govt support for alternative energy has put us in a catch
> up mode vis a vis the rest of the world. We had 50% of the wind power
> market until Republicans pulled the govt funding in the 80s. It's
> no accident that the largest PV makers are all overseas.
> What people don't understand is that it's the massive subsidies for
> oil, coal, gas and nuclear that make it so hard for alternatives
> to compete.
>
> thmime
> We can't drill our way to energy independence. Impossible! If we
> pumped every barrel of oil reserves off the California coast it would
> give us enough oil for 16 months at U.S. consumption rates.
>
>
> What will give us energy independence is energy that needs no fuel
> ever. No fuel ever to mine, prospect for, refine, transport, store,
> burn, clean up the pollution from, or fight wars over.
> The hidden costs of oil and gas and coal are in the hundreds of billions
> every year.
> They cost plenty over and above the energy prices you pay. Solar
> and wind will be as cheap before long, even without considering those
> hidden costs of fossil fuels. At which point they will actually be
> far cheaper in the big picture.
>
> Shotei
> I believe you are wrong. Obama will make energy a priority because
> it will solve 4 issues at once, economy, energy, environment, and
> national security.
> No more wars over oil.
> Are you talking about the war that Bush and co planned before 911?
> The war that they lied about to fool us into supporting. The one
> where they cherry picked intelligence that supported their agenda?
> The war that has nearly bankrupted our country? The one where we
> invaded a sovereign country that hadn't attacked us? The one where
> we invaded the one and only Muslim country that didn't have Al Queda
> operating?
> Oh, that war.
>
> This won't be like the Bush administration that did everything in
> it's power to block environmental progress. We won't have science
> being censored and hushed up to fit an agenda. We won't have an administratioin
> that works hand in hand with big oil to confuse the public debate
> about climate change and energy solutions.
> Read the books "The Heat is On"
> and "Censoring Science" What they did is criminal. The Bush administration
> even asked a conservative think tank to sue the administration, in
> order to prevent scientific facts from being brought up in a senate
> debate, so they would appear to not have a hand in this particular
> instance of censoring science. A memo was discovered later that proved
> this.
On Dec 16 10:04 AM Fred Banks wrote:
> Looks to me as if this short 'article' was written by someone with
> plans to go long in wind energy. A piece of advice might be appropriate
> here, and I hope that it is widely circulated. The present emphasis
> on wind energy is crank, and the sooner it is abandoned the better
> it will be for the country. .
Second wind and solar energy were fine in the 1500s but are of no use now. Can we go to Mars with the wind? The total stupidity of the left never ceases to amaze me. Oil, coal and nuclear are the only energy sources that are meaningful.
The rest is ostrich talk.
Why should we convert our automotive fleet to electricity or plug-in hybrids? Why build mass transit or revitalize urban cores? Because with the way things are now, our friends in OPEC such as Iran, Venezuela, and Russia have the strategic power to schedule a recession/depression in our economy by slashing production. Oil dependency puts our entire economy and our inflation rate in the hands of hostile governments. This is not theoretical, it's happened three times already (early 70's, late 70's, 2006-2008) and most Americans are sick of it. Plus how many trillions of our taxpayer dollars have been spent trying to keep the middle east from exploding into war? How many thousands of lives are we willing to give?
Why capitalize on wind, solar, geothermal, etc? Because in the long run, it's cheaper. Sure, a coal or nat gas plant might be cheaper to initially build than a comparable amount of alternative infrastructure, but then you get to buy tons of fuel for $millions$ of dollars every single day, and your electricity prices are determined by unpredictable commodity prices. Meanwhile, wind, solar, and geothermal continue to produce energy for decades with no fuel costs. Nuclear is the most expensive electricity available when you consider that the government has to pay for waste disposal, terrorism protection, and the inevitable cleanups.
There are plenty of conservative reasons to support alternative energy. The national security and economic ramifications alone justify it. To make alt. energy happen, the whole political spectrum will have to support it, and people need to quit talking about it like it was some kind of vegan hippie "green" project. It's mostly about our economic future and security.
The degree to which Americans are misinformed and disinformed and uninformed about alternative energy and it's potential is staggering.
Just read the posts here. Most of the comments are by people who's information source is sound bites and simplistic claims that are simply not true.
Coal is killing our ocean, and killing 24,000 Americans every year, more than homicides and AIDS combined. The CO2 is acidifying the ocean which is destroying coral reefs and shellfish. We have lost 19% of coral reefs in 20 years, largely from this effect.
The mercury has made our fish stocks practically inedible.
Coal plants also spew out radionuclides, and heavy metals as well as NO2 and other toxins. It has destroyed 450 mountain tops just in one state. 100,000 miners have died in the last 100 years mining coal. The pollution causes all kinds of respiratory diseases and acid rain. And coal is the biggest manmade cause of global warming. Coal gets $3 billion a year in subsidies. Clean coal is a myth. Perfecting (CCS)carbon capture and sequestration will take 10-20 years, if it is even feasable. To do it on a global scale would entail pumping CO2 into the earth on a scale like we now pump oil out of the earth. If we do manage this, coal will be much more expensive than solar and wind. Some estimates are that it would add 16 cents to a kWh price. That would make it about the most expensive energy of all. And that only takes care of the CO2, not the other pollutants.
Over half of our coal plants were built before 1973. Older plants cannot be converted to CCS. Coal uses 24% of our rail freight cars and 44% of rail freight tonnage. Phasing out coal would free up freight capacity for other freight, which can be shipped long distance by rail much more fuel efficiently than by truck.
Using less land than now used for coal plants and coal mining, solar thermal plants with heat storage would power the entire U.S.
Read that again to make sure you get it.
Electric prices from solar thermal will be below 10cents/kWh within 5 years, maybe less. With increased economy of scale the price will drop to 5-8cents/kWh.
Compare that with prices from new nuclear plants which are projected to be 12-17cents/kWh with prices increasing as the low hanging fruit of rich uranium ore is depleted. We will have peak uranium about 10 years after peak oil.
Wind farms can be built for $1400/kWt
New nuclear plants will cost $5500 to $8000/kWt to build according to Florida Power and Light. That's why FPL is now in the solar thermal power plant business.
So much for "electricity too cheap to meter" as the nuclear industry promised decades ago.
Wind power is now about 4-5cents/kWh.
Wind and solar are both quicker to build than either coal or nuclear.
Solar thermal plants with heat storage are even better than coal for providing base load power. They rev up and peak in perfect sinc with the energy demand during the day. They then continue to put out steady non intermittent energy into the night. They can be designed to provide power all night. The cost of storing heat is about 1/20 or less of the cost of storing electricity.
They can be built in 2-3 years.
A report for the Western Governors Alliance said we could build 300 gigawatts of solar thermal near existing transmission lines.
Total coal generating capacity is 313 gWt.
Total U.S. generating capacity is 1,075 gWt
One report from NREL said we could build 660 gigawatts of wind power by 2030. The Google plan calls for building 380 gWt.
It calls for 250 gWt of solar including PV and CSP. this could be much higher. We could have that much CSP alone by then.
The reason the depression didn't end until WW2 is because of how deep it was, not because Roosevelt's programs didn't work.
These programs are the reason we even have a middle class.
Programs like the CCC and WPA gave people self respect and a sense of dignity; and fed, clothed and housed them. They also vastly improved our infrastructure.
"Second, wind and solar energy were fine in the 1500s but are of no use now"
How do you answer such an ignorant statement? Here's what use they are now. They will never ever need any fuel to mine, to transport, to refine, to prospect for, to burn, to clean up the pollution from, to fight wars over, to cause wild price fluctuations, for someone to control, to add to our trade imbalance.
"I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
Thomas Edison, 1931
Nuclear doesn't give us energy independence. We import 90% of our uranium and just signed a deal to import 20% of it from Russia.
Photovotaics will be at grid parity in most of the country in 5 years or so and in 10 years everywhere in the country. And grid parity doesn't take into account the massive hidden costs of fossil fuels., which are in the hundreds of billions every year.
The tax break package for renewable energy that passed with the bailout bill will provide $17 billiion/year.
That's for all the renewable combined, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, cogeneration, efficient cars, wave tide, etc.
By comparison, oil company's get at least $39 billion every year. One estimate for oil and gas is $84 billion a year.
Not one subsidy for oil since 1918 has ever been phased out.
According to a study- Koplow's 2007 report to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development:
"Estimating U.S. oil and gas subsidies is very challenging. Subsidies rarely involve cash payments. Instead scores of U.S. government agencies and departments create hundreds of programmes to support the U.S. energy sector. And there is no requirement for the federal government to keep track of all this."
"In a time of skyrocketing oil prices and profits, why did the George W. Bush administration in 2005 authorise an additional 32.9 billion dollars in new subsidies over a five-year period?"
(McCain wanted to give them another $4 billion)
"This massive government intervention distorts energy markets, making it very difficult for alternative energy sources to compete without similarly massive subsidies. "And it promotes America's addiction to oil," Larsen added."
www.heatisonline.org/c...
There is nothing whatsoever that is Pie in the Sky about any of this.
That is just tired old rhetoric that is not based in fact.
We don't have to invent new technology to make a major head start at building a clean grid and energy system. Current technology will take us through the next 20 years. New developments will be deployed when they are ready.
Solar and wind are ready now. There are many ways to balance out the intermittent nature of PV and wind. Yes, we need better energy storage to help with this, but we have a ways to go before we have enough wind and solar for that to be a problem.
There will be a net economic benefit from all this.
OK, One study projected a tiny net loss in GDP. The difference would be that the GDP would reach $23 trillion in April of some year in the 2020s, instead of in January of that year. Big deal.
The other benefits would far outweigh this. Energy independence, health, environment, etc.
A Dept of Energy study found that for less than 2 cents/day per household, we could have 300 gigawatts of wind power by 2030. That would be 20% of electric generating capacity in the U.S. The Google energy plan looks to have 380 gWt by 2030.
From the Google energy plan summary:
"An earlier study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory explored more rapid scale-ups of wind capacity, and found that up to about 600 GW by 2030 was feasible. Our target, 380 GW in 2030, is therefore not at all unrealistic."
Your first paragragh tells us all how stupid we are and then your rant begins, coal is killing 24000 americans a year more than homicides and AIDS combined. Since there are over 16000 homicides and over 15000 Aids related deaths per year that pretty much makes the rest of your speech, crap.
frflyer - I agree that all the "greenie/polllution stuff" preceding some more valid points which you do make - is a turnoff. It's not unlike reminding many that we don't have enough worker/payers of tax and into Soc.Sec. to support the retired, because we killed many of those folks annually for the past 35 years, didn't stop it and in fact legalized it - and, of course, I'm talking about aborting unborns in or near the womb.
You are right, my rant was out of line and a turn off. My apologies. My passion overpowers my good sense sometimes.
I get kind of worked up when I see people buying into anti environmental anti science propaganda campaign that has been so successful at confusing the American public.
It's intentional and calculated and unfortunately has been working.
The science of climate change gets stronger everyday and so does this massive propaganda campaign deliberately seeking to distort the truth and paint what amounts to practically the entire world scientific community as engaged in some dark conspiracy. The whole idea is absurd. With so much at stake, it seems criminal. It's akin to the debate about cigarette smoke a few decades ago. In fact the fossil fuel industry uses some of the same scientists, who testified for the tobacco industry back then, to further their agenda of deceit now.
If you are going to be a skeptic, be skeptical of the skeptics too.
Shotei
You may be right on those numbers, I admit I was repeating something I read, that may not be accurate. I don't believe it makes the rest of what I said crap though.
Nakedjaybird
There are several reasons why Soc. Security is a mess. One is that the funds have always been mixed with the general funds and weren't left to grow like they should have.
The govt kept dipping into the principal to pay for other programs.
Another issue is that people get social security who don't need it.
Sure they paid in, but it seems like it should be more like an insurance program, if you don't need it, don't take it.
"I agree that all the "greenie/pollluti... stuff" preceding "
If you are talking about my use of terms like "ignorance"
I have apologized. If you expect me to apologize for thinking green, that's another issue. The continued painting of environmentalism as somehow extreme doesn't hold water.
Man is endangering practically every ecosystem on earth, even without global warming. The earth simply cannot support us doing the same things we have been doing. We don't live in a bubble. We are an interdependent part of an interconnected web of life. We can't destroy that web of life and expect our species to survive.
As for extremism, look at this example:
If you have a group of environmentalists trying to save the 1% of old growth redwoods that are left on the one hand, and on the other hand you have a billionaire corporate raider like Hurwitz who took over Pacific Lumber in California, so he could get richer, and then proceeds to double the rate of logging of the old growth redwoods, to pay offf the junk bonds he used to buy up the lumber company, who is the extremist here?
How about the oceans? 75% of fish stocks are gone, 90% of many species. The coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate.
25% of all sea life depends on coral reefs.
There are vast dead zones from polution. There is a sea of plastic in the Pacific ocean the size of the lower 48 states, where near the surface, plastic outweighs zooplankton by 6-1. The tiny creatures at the bottom of the food chain are inadvertently injesting these tiny bits of plastic which poisons like DDT and PCBs stick to.
Excess CO2 is dissolving in the ocean and turning into carbonic acid, which is acidifying the ocean. Shellfish and coral can't form their exoskeletons in such acidic water. Fish are also sensitive to the ph levels in sea water. Ask anyone who has an aquarium how important ph is. Pacific coast silver and king salmon are almost extinct. In the case of salmon, habitat destruction in rivers and streams is as much if not more to blame as overfishing. And the fish are full of mercury to the point where it is dangerous to eat too much fish.
The story is similar no matter where you look.
Read about what's happening to the Boreal Forest of Canada, so we can have toilet paper, paper towels, catalogues, pampers etc. This forest is one of the biggest carbon sinks on earth. It's either home or breeding or feeding grounds to over half the bird species in North America. And it's watershed is important to much of North America. National Geographic had an issue devoted to this.
We could alleviate this by simply making paper from hemp which is much more sustainable than using wood.
Do you think it's extreme to be concerned about all this? What could possibly be more important?
Wizard
If the public was all on the same page in regard to climate change, we would have the political will to achieve these goals.
The nation pulled together for WW2, even sacrificing for the greater good. We transformed our entire manufacturing sector to wartime mode while simultaneously completing the Manhattan Project, and fought a major war, all in less than ten years. Try to do that now and you get accused of collectivism. Assuming the scientists are right, we face an even bigger challenge now.
By the way a new study estimates the price of new nuclear power at 22-30 cents/kWh - or threee times the national average.
Climate Progress has the story.