Pres. Obama: 80% green energy by 2035, End subsidies to Oil Industry

[txlibdem]

Wants to end the subsidies to oil industry and use those funds instead to build the green energy economy with a goal of producing 80% of our energy by zero-carbon sources by the year 2035.

Here is a link to the video of the State of the Union Address -around the 17 minute mark-:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Lawmakers-React-to-State-of-the-Union-Address/10737419146-2/

That goal is not without its naysayers, however:

So let’s look at the clean power goal first. Well, according to projections by the U.S. Energy Information Association, in 2035 coal will still make up 44 percent of electricity generation in the U.S. As John Hofmeister, the former President of Shell Oil, noted at a conference last week, the U.S. consumes 1,200 train car loads of coal every hour, which is one train car load of coal every three seconds, currently producing 49 percent of our electrons every day. And that’s not going away anytime soon without more specific aggressive legislation.

Without the specifics, Obama’s 80 percent clean power goal is rather like those put forth by some pundits and other politicians. Al Gore famously called for 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years (this was in 2008). And Google CEO Eric Schmidt announced in late 2008, a proposal for almost all of U.S. electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and almost all of new car sales by 2030 to be plug-ins. No one really thinks these goals will be met, but the idea is to set some sort of aggressive goal to stimulate industry.

Obama’s goal was slightly different from others in that he named natural gas and clean coal as options to meet that goal. Obama said:

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

Now, for the end to oil subsidy goal. That one’s more doable, and more action oriented. Though, eliminating oil subsidies entirely will still be incredibly difficult in the 2011 political climate, so don’t expect this one to happen anytime soon, either.

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/obama-state-of-union-80-clean-power-by-2035-end-to-oil-subsidies/

Attainable? Likely in this political climate?

This should be an interesting year in EE, folks!

[liberal N proud]

1. I am sure that did not sit well with many in Congress

[txlibdem]

4. Watch Boehner's face when he says that

I'm not sure but it kinda looks like he was caught off guard for a second, then back to blank stare.

[Kennah]

16. His drink was empty, and he was trying to get his server's attention

[Atman]

2. Attainable? By 2035? seriously?

Twenty five years? Ooooooh, Bold initiative.

:eyes:

[txlibdem]

8. I'm just glad that we *finally* have an energy plan

It's been since Pres. Carter that we haven't had any coherent energy plan so I'm positively thrilled to have a plan again. I remember when Reagan dismantled Carter's energy independence plans, removed the solar panels off the white house, and went under the desk for big oil execs to give them everything they asked for on the hope that they would then make us energy independent (hint: they didn't). Ronald Reagan became a spooge bucket for big oil and got not a single thing from it. I'll bet he felt like a dirtied and discarded kleenex, as well he should have.

[joshcryer]

13. Tying it to job creation is also good.

[joshcryer]

12. Heh, it'd cost 20 trillion dollars if you use Jacobson's scenario.

It's attainable technically, but politically, I'd be shocked.

[kristopher]

17. Then...

The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?
Mark Cooper

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors. The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial “nuclear renaissance” projections. The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[joshcryer]

18. Are they considering Gen IV reactors?

I think fucking not. And I don't support it.

[GliderGuider]

20. The problem is that the capital cost of wind when normalized for capacity factor

is virtually identical to nuclear - around $7-8 per watt. Supporters of wind tend to omit the normalization when discussing this cost comparison.

[FBaggins]

3. If you include gas and coal as "green" - it becomes an easy goal.

But also one that is next to worthless.

"Don't deal with the problem... Change you definitions. Problem solved"

[txlibdem]

5. To be fair he did say "clean coal"

I guess the President hasn't gotten the message that clean coal is an oxymoron. We can wish it to be true all we want but the coal industry has closed down its test plant that was supposed to perfect carbon capture and sequestration. I'll leave it up to my fellow DUers to interpret what that means.

[Nihil]

19. And we can interpret that in one of two ways:

> I guess the President hasn't gotten the message that clean coal is an oxymoron.

This means EITHER

The President of the United States has been kept ignorant of the truth of
the "clean coal" scam (e.g., has not been told that the only test plant that
the coal industry produced has closed down due to failure and that there are
no plans to improve the coal industry to deliver "clean coal" in existence)
and is naively parroting third-party industry propaganda.

OR

The President of the United States has been kept informed on this subject
(as with other policy areas) and has chosen to tell lies in order to keep
the majority of the public ignorant of the truth.

Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him.

[txlibdem]

21. Yup. This morning I saw the Time cover: Obama Loves Reagan

We are putting our green energy hopes in a man who should be vilified for being "Captain Trickle Down." Or is that "Captain Corporatista" ...

[grahamhgreen]

6. Nuclear waste last 30,000 years. It is not green, or unlimited. The uranium will run out

and well be right back where we started in 60 years

[txlibdem]

7. Then we switch to Thorium, we have 1000 years supply

And you can even extract Thorium from sea water.

If we're not colonizing space in 1000 years then we deserve to become extinct. Mining the asteroids and the Oort Cloud for more Thorium would enable us to power our civilization for another million years before we need to look to other solar systems for our natural resources.

A million years should be about enough time for them to perfect Nuclear Fusion. It's always "just another 50 years away" because we keep paying scientists to "study" nuclear fusion. We should pay them to commercialize it, not study it. Stop paying scientists until they produce. Give them food and water and a spartan apartment while they are working on it. Once they perfect nuclear fusion power and make it commercially viable then all the researchers get a mansion and a 150 foot yacht. I'll bet you'll see nuclear fusion becoming commercially viable mighty damn quick.

[grahamhgreen]

9. If we switch to wind, tidal, wave, solar and hydro, etc., it NEVER runs out!

[txlibdem]

10. No wind in space, very little on Mars

I agree that we need to build out all the renewable energy sources our list as much as humanly possible. European companies still have a plan to power Europe with solar power plants in the Sahara desert. In likewise fashion, the American southwest could power the entire nation.

My previous comment took a longer term view of what is needed. If we never colonize space then our existence is a waste of time, in my opinion. We'll eventually die out and nobody will ever know we existed. And nuclear power is absolutely necessary for space travel and space colonies.

Figure out how to make a ZPM and then I'll take nuclear off the table. Until then, nuclear power has to be a part of the solution.

[joshcryer]

11. Yes, but the material and land requirements for solar and wind is insurmountable.

Obama is calling for an Apollo Project.

I hope he gets it.

[NickB79]

15. "Give them food and water and a spartan apartment while they are working on it"

That's already how most researchers in any major scientific field exist. OK, maybe some have a house and a family in that house, but don't tell me you've bought into the GOP talking point about how research scientists are living large off of government grants?

[joshcryer]

14. Nuclear "waste" in Gen IV reactors, would be 400 years.

The effects of CO2 in the atmosphere lasts tens of thousands of years.

[PamW]

22. Actually....

Cheap uranium runs out in 60 years. However, if you are willing to double the price, then we have enough uranium for hundreds of years. Since the fuel cost is
only 1% of the cost of nuclear generated energy, doubling the price of the uranium results in a 1% increase in the total cost.

In addition to the higher priced uranium, one can run a nuclear fuel cycle on thorium, and as has been pointed out, that lasts for a thousand years.
By that time, we will probably have fusion energy. We are "knocking on the door" with fusion now. Then the hydrogen in water becomes our fuel stock.
There's enough nuclear energy in the hydrogen in the waters of the world's oceans to last us until the sun starts burning helium and scorches this
planet to a cinder. Hopefully, the human race will have found a new home by then, aided by nuclear powered spacecraft. That's something that wind and
solar will never get you; a way off a doomed planet.

Nuclear waste doesn't have to last for 30,000 years. If you reprocess / recycle, then the longest lived radioisotope in the waste will be the fission product
Cs-137 with a half-life of 30 years. That's what the French, British, Japanese... do, and they aren't looking for a mountain to store waste in for 30,000 years.

PamW