August 12, 2007
|
|
August 12, 2007 |
Shortly after taking office in 2001, President George Bush made the passage of national energy legislation a centerpiece of his Administration. Although he continues to call for its approval, the measure, which envisions greater domestic development of fossil fuel resources and nuclear power as well as increased use of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies, has languished in Congress ever since.
"Neither candidate has outlined either a detailed vision or the specifics of an
energy program that would actually have a semblance of a chance to end energy
imports."
- Ken Bossong, RE Insider
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry likewise
raised energy policy as an important issue in his campaign and proposed a series
of measures to expand the use of renewable energy resources and to move the U.S.
closer to some form of energy "independence."
While moving in the right direction, the Kerry proposals were, for the most part,
rather tepid. Although they looked good when compared to the Bush proposals which,
in total, would largely continue U.S. reliance on traditional, polluting energy
sources.
Neither candidate outlined either a detailed vision or the specifics of an
energy program that would actually have a semblance of a chance to end energy
imports, sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions, greatly improve the energy
efficiency of the economy, or significantly expand the nation's use of renewable
energy resources.
Yet it is possible to achieve these goals.
By 2025, it is technically and economically feasible for the United States to
realize the following energy policy objectives if the political will existed to
implement the necessary supporting legislation and policy directives.
- Reduce energy intensity of the U.S. economy by at least 25% through energy
efficiency improvements in appliances, lighting, motors, building energy
management, transportation, and industrial processes
- Reduce overall annual energy use by at least 10 quads so that total U.S.
energy consumption is reduced from roughly 100 quads (quadrillion BTUs) in 2004
to 90 quads or less in 2025
- Double automotive fuel efficiency, including SUVs, to 50 mpg or better while
holding total vehicle miles traveled at current levels
- Eliminate both oil and natural gas imports
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels at least 10 percent below 1990
levels
- Phase out the nation's nuclear power plants
- Meet at least 25 percent of electricity demand with renewable energy resources
(biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind)
- Meet at least 10 percent of liquid fuel demand with biofuels (ethanol,
biodiesel)
- Meet at least 10 percent of space heating needs with renewable energy
resources (biomass, solar, geothermal)
To achieve these objectives, the following initiatives should be acted upon:
1.) A federal RPS should be implemented mandating that an increasing share of
electricity come from renewable energy sources with a goal of no less than 25
percent by 2025.
2.) A federal RFS should be implemented mandating that an increasing share of
liquid fuels come from biofuel sources with a goal of no less than 10 percent by
2025.
3.) Car manufacturers should be mandated to achieve overall fleet (including
SUVs and light trucks) fuel efficiency averages of no less than 55 mpg by 2025;
manufacturers can use a mix of strategies for achieving this target including
expanded use of hybrid and electric vehicles, fuel cells, advanced engine and
vehicle designs, etc.
4.) No new nuclear power plant licenses should be approved and existing
safety regulations vigorously enforced with an eye towards early closure of
particularly dangerous reactors. No new plants should be licensed and federal
nuclear R&D funds should be focused on improved decommissioning and waste
storage and disposal technologies.
5.) Current federal and state funding levels for renewable energy and energy
efficiency research and implementation programs should be increased by at least
20 percent per year between now and 2025 with funds coming from a mix of sources
including a phase-in carbon tax and increased royalties from federal oil and
natural gas leases. Funds would be earmarked for the cross-section of building,
transportation, electricity, lighting, appliance, and industrial technologies
(including co-generation, district energy, and fuel cells) as well as the
cross-section of renewable energy technologies including biomass/biofuels,
geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind as well as renewably-produced
hydrogen, wave and other water-powered technologies.
6.) A cap-and-trade system for reducing CO2 emissions should be mandated with a
goal of reducing total CO2 emissions to levels at least 10 percent below 1990
levels by 2025.
7.) A cap on oil imports at current levels should be imposed in 2005 and
thereafter lowered annually to achieve a goal of 0 percent by 2025.
8.) A program of federal grants should be available to states and municipalities
that agree to design and implement (with mandates) programs to either reduce
energy use by specified levels or to meet increased renewable energy targets.
Emphasis might be given to programs that focus
on those energy uses typically within the purview of local and state governments
such as building codes, procurement policies, land use planning and facility
siting, and transportation including mass transit and bikeways. Partial funding
for such a program could come from savings realized through implementation of
more aggressive energy efficiency measures in federal facilities.
9.) A uniform system of national interconnection and net metering standards
should be mandated to facilitate grid-connection for renewable sources of
electricity production.
10.) Substantially tighter efficiency standards should be enacted for the
cross-section of lighting technologies, appliances, industrial motors, and
transmission systems with a goal of increasing overall efficiency by 20 percent
or more over the next 20 years.
11.) A detailed national renewable resources survey should be conducted to
assess the most economically recoverable wind, geothermal, solar, biomass, and
hydropower resources; this should be accompanied by reform of the regulatory
and/or legislative framework to enable tapping these resources in an
environmentally sound manner.
12.) An extensive system of investment and production tax incentives for to
encourage investments by businesses and individuals in renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies should be implemented (including a broadly-based,
long-term Production Tax Credit and tradable tax credits for municipal
utilities) with costs off-set by carbon and pollution taxes.
It seems improbable that either President Bush or Senator Kerry are presently
prepared to embrace any energy strategy that resembles that outlined above
although some third-party presidential candidates as well as congressional,
state, and local candidates may be willing to express support.
On the other hand, it is worth recalling the proverb that all truth passes
through three phases: first, it is ridiculed; second it is strongly resisted;
and third, it is finally accepted as being obvious.
As the pressures of energy imports, climate change, and related environmental
and economic problems mount, much of what is outlined above is likely to
eventually gain acceptance. The only question for the current, as well as
future, contenders for the White House is whether they are prepared to exercise
the leadership to act now or to wait until they have no choice.
About the author...
Ken Bossong is the coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) - a
coalition of nearly 100 national and state business, environmental, and energy
policy organizations founded in 1992. The views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessary reflect the views of the SEC or
its member groups.
-- Stan Hartstein
The higher the price of oil is - the greater the effort to find alternatives and efficient use of energy. There should be a tax on imported oil that will maintain a higher cost of the oil. In the past, when oil prices collapsed, all projects to conserve energy and develop alternatives were either curtailed or discontinued.
-- a European
With the Chinese and Indians forecasted to start using 800 million cars by 2025, the US better be ready to apply above stated proposals. At $100 billion a year in Iraq to keep the oil pipe open, and a further $300billion a year in defense spending to protect the sea lanes for oil&gas imports, the price tag for a fossil fuel/nuke economy is slowly getting too steep to bear. Imagine what the result would be if the $100 billion going to Iraq would be invested in wind energy alone, knowing that 1 megawatt of installed capacity giving 0.3MWh in electricity, do costs around $1 million today in capex to get it. In 10 years of such investments in wind energy alone, the US would be totally electricity independent from any outside energy supplier.
-- gwayne@powerlight.com
GW, did you read the last para of the piece? Ken Bossong is the coordinator of the Sustainable Energy Coalition (SEC) - a coalition of nearly 100 national and state business, environmental, and energy policy organizations founded in 1992. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessary reflect the views of the SEC or its member groups. I think one area to watch in all of this is the thin-film PVs. If the cost per Watt does drop to or below the $1.00 mark things will change radically. Not only will solar's position in the energy market improve but it may be possible to bring competitive hydrogen through electrolysis (and eventually photo-electrolysis) along with it.
-- Leigh Halan
This is a good start. I would like to see these points distilled to an energy policy that could be adopted. I believe that the US has led every important revolution (industrial, space and technology) and I firmly believe that the US has one more revolution in it--the energy revolution. However, we do not have the scientists coming out of our universities to support a long-term research effort from our laboratories. This nation must support the education of a new generation of scientists and engineers, just as it did in the 60's when JFK fostered the space generation. The US can lead the world in finding new, clean energy sources--but we must invest in the people who can carry that out--our youth.
-- Gerry Keller
The notes form our European colleague pretty much hit the "nail on the head". As world economies grow and develop (China and India) but many other countries also, the competition for Petroleum Resources will become intense. This competition will affect Politics as well as Economics and could lead to significant world tension. The Petroleum based industries are all reasonable mature and efficient. The alternatives suggest by Ken Bossong set a reasonable direction that will require many problems to be solved. The process can provide domestic jobs both in development as well as equipment and infrastructure. Diverting the funds that currently go to the Middle East for this activity makes great sense. As a side effect it will only make the environment cleaner and ultimately provide affordable technology to less developed, energy poor countries. An exciting new challenge to put in front of Americans to challenge their best qualities!
-- Philo Collins philosofr@yahoo.com
Ken Bossong lays out the necessary framework for discussion to make America and the world more safe, secure, independent and clean. Biblical Lessons of Noah, Joseph, Moses, Jesus for Today: Oil Taxes Will "Prime the Pump" for Renewable Energy By Phil Collins, philosofr@yahoo.com 202-257-5727 ENERGY4PEACE4HUMANITY4EVER As oil prices generally rise, ebbing and flowing upward, an increasing number of voices are calling for higher oil and gas prices. I believe increased taxes follows Biblical lessons. Preparing for the future by gradually taxing the populace has a Biblical foundation. Consider Noah and his family taxing their own labor to build the Ark, preparing in sunny weather in advance of the Flood. Joseph interpreted God's meaning of the Pharaoh's dream for seven good years followed by seven bad years - then planned to tax grain output to store up for the future. The plan worked well. Even, Joseph’s father, Jacob, and his brothers, who had sold Joseph into slavery, had to come to Egypt for food during the famine. Note that the Hebrews were themselves enslaved in Egypt because of their failure to prepare in good times for the famine. We must heed these lessons to avoid our own destruction or enslavement by our own appetites for oil and gas. We need to tax oil and gas, non-renewable fuels-chemicals, now to "prime the pump" for renewable energy and chemicals. We also need to provide for mandatory interconnection to the electrical power grid based on nationwide standards, so that renewable energy producers can contribute to our distributed, hence secure, power future. Germany has mandatory connection the electrical power grid – and has seen renewable energy, particularly wind increase dramatically. Moses, with the fleeing Hebrews in the desert, accepted manna from heaven. The manna we receive from heaven -- solar photons of electricity and heat, which also produce wind and rain and growing plants should be used as fuel every day, not wasted by us. Consider Jesus' parable of the talents -- the good servant multiplied the talent ten times, while the poor servant buried his talent in the ground. We are poorer servants of God’s non-renewable oil, gas, coal, and uranium energy-chemical stocks. We don’t just leave non-renewable talents buried in the ground, we burn them to oblivion. At the end of the years the Lord comes back and finds – nothing - left from his gift of non-renewable talents to us. We should put Americans to work leading the world in developing and implements the renewable energy sources that can support thousands of years of relative world-wide peace and prosperity.
-- Hank Stone
Ken Blossong's energy direction makes perfect sense, but may not go far enough to inspire people. If we look at running out of oil, and global climate change, as a misfortune to be protected against, we ignore the other side of the coin: we are coming to an exciting time of new jobs in a energy revolution! We should plan not just to generate electricity through wind and solar, but liquid fuels to power transportation. (I favor sun and wind to electricity to hydrogen to methanol by reaction with stack gas.) Thinking small is the biggest problem. Why not 100 MPG ultra lightweight cars? We have to make an enormous change, or watch our society collapse. So let's see how good we can make things, and how fast. Hank Stone, hstone@rochester.rr.com
-- Robert T Baltes
Mr Bossong, your article was absolutely great until you came to the part that slammed both parties. You might understand that we are definitely setup in our USA with the electoral college (winner take all for each state) and there is no hope for any third party or splinter party candidate to make a sustainable political difference. If you want to bash both major parties and you still want to get your national energy bill put into law, you might read some of Arthor Schlesinger's books that show how to change the electoral college system. He has simplified the possibility. try, WAR AND THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (2004) or THE DISUNITING OF AMERICA (1991). Absent that effort to change the electoral college system, why don't you pick one of the parties that is most in alignment with your ideas? You might start with one that fosters renewable energy. Now, let's look at the content of Bush's national energy bill offering and what happened to it and why it failed. When the bill went to the Senate, it was obvious it was loaded with Oil & Gas, Coal, and Nuclear tributes. $21.84 Bil to Oil & Gas, $7.37Bil to nuclear, $7.95Bil to coal, $9.08Bil to Renewable Energy, and $24Bil for science & research. Some have noted that Pres Bush has 51 Texans on his staff that help write the policy. But, when it came to Sen. McCain R, AZ he pointed out the bill was the biggest budget buster in years. Others said it was full of pork-barrel projects and could severely harm the environment. It failed the next vote. Since the Oil & Gas is the big lion here and if you could get that shaved to a reasonable level and you could divert some of the Iragi war dollars down to a trickle, you have a chance of getting it thru this congress. Personally, I'd hope for the Democrats to win and take my chances with their domestic renewable policies. Incidentally, I was a republican for 42 years until this and other energy subjects caught my attention. At any rate you can count on me as President of the Distributed Energy Assoc of Arizona to support your Sustainable Energy Blueprint.
-- David Dennington
Until the Oil & Gas Industries and Auto Manufacturing get behind any kind of Renewable Energy policy and quit trying to make unimaginable profits from our current situation we are not going to see any kind of reduction in foreign oil imports or any kind of environmental clean up. Auto companies have for decades been buying up plans and shelving them that could be on our autos now that would give us mileage of 100+ miles per gallon of gas and reduce pollution. We need leaders in our government that will stand up for us and not " Big Business ". This is not to say that we don't need " Big Business ", we do, but the few should not dictate to the many or suppress ideas that can make this country a world leader in saving our planet and its resources. We have the talent and the resources to turn this world around from its course of self destruction and become a self sufficient, abundant supplier of all that we need, want and desire. This does not have to wait until sometime in the future. It can be done in a relatively short period of time if our elected leaders would have the guts to stand up and say " This is the way it is going to be." Instead they tell us what they think we want to hear, just to get elected, and then do what Big Business tells them to do. There are sites on the Internet that are trying to get out the facts about these inventions and others but until the main stream media starts putting out the word we will continue to get just what we have been getting all along, NOTHING. Here is a site that you can check out with links to other sites http://www.himacresearch.com/default.html
-- Ron Swenson, oilcrisis.com
In light of the recent flurry of policy proposals, this view is refreshing. Save American Freedom pushes clean coal and Winning the Oil Endgame plays to big business. Problem is, Bossong's targets are "realistic". To meet the oil shortfall, we in the renewables business will need to be far more aggressive in the next 20 years. Otherwise, drastic measures will be coordinated by Mother Nature. Aside to our European colleague: Visions of 100s of millions of cars in China and India are totally unrealistic unless they are solar powered.