State Of The Union 2011: Obama Calls For Clean Energy But Includes Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is setting a new goal for America's energy future, saying 80 percent of electricity should come from clean energy sources by 2035.

But his definition of clean energy is friendlier to industry than some environmentalists might like: He includes nuclear, natural gas and clean coal in the mix, along with wind and solar.

The president is also renewing his call to boost the number of hybrid and battery-operated cars on U.S. highways, and calls for ending some $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to oil and gas companies. Obama's sought to end oil and gas subsidies in the past but Congress hasn't gone along with it.

Obama laid out the goal in his State of the Union address, which was released in advance Tuesday.

Comments

[Genders]

07:56 PM on 03/26/2011

Please, you are surprised?????? Rahm and Axelrod lobbied for the nuclear power industry! Chu's official DEO energy report used 4 year old solar, wind and waste bio char, compared to 2016 future fantasy nukes and "clean" fossils.

Obama charmed us. Obama lied to us. Vote for the Kucinich, Dean, Grayson Progressive Caucus folks in the primaries. Vote for the Ike conservative republicans if you c an find one.

[rodjard]

12:37 AM on 03/19/2011

This is an incredulous cave in to the greed
of specian interest. Not one damned penny
or any waste of time to anything but clean
renewable safe technology. GET REAL!!

[Genders]

07:56 PM on 03/26/2011

yup. ff.

[rpr]

01:29 PM on 03/08/2011

There is no such thing as clean coal.
Here's why: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CLIMATE-SPECTATOR-Coal-cash-coming-pd20101118-BAR7X?OpenDocument

[SangZe]

07:55 AM on 02/02/2011

Coal is never clean. Any fool who believes it is is . . . well, a fool. Nucleaar power is viable so long as measures are taken to eliminate the waste - as can and has been done elsewhere.

[Cory111]

02:46 PM on 01/28/2011

All this talk about what Obama should and or should not do. Yet not one person talking about what they are doing personally to help resolve this problem, what a joke.
We are the problem, NOT OBAMA.

[Genders]

07:57 PM on 03/26/2011

Wrong! these are national and global issues, you recycling your trash won't solve them .

[tooncesrocks]

06:36 AM on 01/28/2011

Clean coal... there is nothing... absolutely nothing clean about coal. Nothing you do to or with it can make it clean. The whole mythology being peddled by the coal industry is based on CCS (i.e. sequestration... i.e. pumping all exhaust into holes in the ground)...

this tech. DOES NOT EXIST anywhere on Earth in a usable form. Norway has been trying to retrofit a plant for years... they now estimate the cost will be over $1 billion USD... and the costs are still climbing... and it still doesn't work.

There are over 600 coal plants in the US.
New plants cost about $780 million to build... with sequestration... your looking at about 2 bill. each. Think the clean part of the coal revolution is gonna happen? yeah right.

[Overtone]

01:55 AM on 01/28/2011

Cheap renewable energy is en-route. It will undercut the price of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

See Green Light at www.aesopinstitute.org to see how and why that is likely to happen more rapidly than might be readily believed.

[JShep]

04:35 PM on 01/27/2011

Before we spend $billions on wind and solar, there should be a comprehensive national scientific study to determine the details for integrating a large system of wind and solar power generation into the national grid. Denmark has annual wind generation equal to 20% of their demand, but, due to logistic problems, they are only able to use 7-9%. And their electricity costs are double the EU average and close to 4X the US. Solar is more predictable and peak solar output usually occurs during peak demand, so it is move viable. However, there must be a comprehensive plan on how to integrate it into the power grid. Such a plan would indicate where to locate wind and solar generation farms/plants and how much nuclear or NG backup and/or base load is required. Without a national plan, we will never be able to move forward effectively.

[esquilax]

02:55 AM on 01/28/2011

Not sure where you're getting the 7-9% figure for Denmark. What is your source for that? With better forecasting, better interconnects and more rapid adjustment of French/German/Swedish hydro they are dumping next-to-nothing of their wind fluctuations. They have fast acting NG combined cycle plant as well to help out.

There is significant work being done on such plans. Check out Zero Carbon Australia. The existing plan is by no means perfect and further work is required.

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

[Richard2]

10:43 AM on 01/27/2011

No mention of "man-made global warming" in the President's speech. Instead, clean energy. President Obama prefers "warm coal" to a cold wind. He is a realist on energy issues, not a CAGW supporter.

The government should close or rename all departments with climate or climate change in their titles.

[Publicola]

02:16 PM on 01/27/2011

R2: "Obama... is a realist on energy issues"

Which is why he has repeatedly stated that AGW is a serious threat.

R2: "not a CAGW supporter."

You're confused again, R2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of:

1: Will you finally admit that the globe has in fact statistica­­­­lly-sig­n­i­f­ican­tl­y warmed over recent decades?

2: Will you also finally stop denying the patently obvious fact that there is substantia­­­­l science denier opposition to evolution theory?

Science denial - it's not a river in Egypt.

[Richard2]

04:18 PM on 01/27/2011

Obama supports ethanol production, coal production, expanded natural gas production, and oil production. He is not willing to shut down all the old coal plants, and replace them with only wind farms and solar. His position is more realistic than that of the State of California, for example, which has committed to a high level of expensive, alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar.

[Publicola]

05:11 PM on 01/27/2011

Nice evasion of the fact that your claim that Obama is not an AGW supporter is false, Rcihard2.

[additional disinformation from R2 snipped]

Who pays you to continually disinform about climate science here on HuffPo, R2?

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------

Speaking of:

1: Will you finally admit that the globe has in fact statistica­­­­­lly-si­g­n­i­f­ic­an­tl­y warmed over recent decades?

2: Will you also finally stop denying the patently obvious fact that there is substantia­­­­­l science denier opposition to evolution theory?

Science denial - it's not a river in Egypt.

[woodheat]

06:06 PM on 01/26/2011

Obama is some strange environmentalist. He didn't mention global warming, cap and trade, or peak oil (even Bush warned about our "addiction" to oil). There's nothing clean about "clean coal", nuclear is obviously problematic, natural gas extraction is polluting ground water. He also likes ethanol, which is a joke as it uses more energy to produce than it produces.

What about upgrading the nation's electrical grid? It would save us money in the long run. We need more renewables like wind and solar and tougher building efficiency standards.

What's next for Obama, drilling in ANWAR?

[dezakin]

08:08 PM on 01/26/2011

Larger HVDC interties? That's a good idea for reliability, sure. It's not cheap, but its probably still a good idea.

But before you dump on nuclear (go ahead and dump on everything else, because there's good reason to) consider France is the only country that managed to replace its coal power production and now has some of the lowest per capita CO2 emissions in Europe while having some of the lowest electricity rates and still managing to be a power exporter.

[Doug Watt]

09:04 PM on 01/26/2011

You realize that the nuclear waste that is "stored safely" will remain deadly for thousands of years, that there is no safe way to store the deadly waste on a planet with moving tectonic plates, so after we're all dead, thousands of years from now, whatever may be living here will die from the exposed radiation. How is that "Green"?

[MORE COW BELL]

12:31 AM on 01/28/2011

Please don't use the word NUCLEAR....on the Huff Post the great leader is watching you...

[Monk Monkey]

05:17 PM on 03/24/2011

Your "name" is awesome BTW....

[joefargo]

05:34 PM on 01/26/2011

Of course the President knows that coal is not clean. He is merely sporting the verbal label, phrase, as a demonstration to the coal industry that he too is perfectly willing to engage in political deception for political gain. It is an intellectually dishonest phrase but well in keeping with the accepted political character of the day. To some of us deception remains a fault. To others, it is a reasonable route to desired ends. Quite frankly, I find it despicable in a president.

[Cory111]

02:40 PM on 01/28/2011

What are you doing as an individual to resolve this matter? It’s easy to push this onto others, we must remember, we are the ones using ‘The Problem.”

[GetAbike]

03:12 PM on 01/26/2011

It is like so totally awesome that we can plan our future to produce only GREEN CO2 !!

[altohone]

03:11 PM on 01/26/2011

The biggest lies in his speech.
Obama the Republican antienvironmentalist.

[Cory111]

02:41 PM on 01/28/2011

Well relax he will have six more years to try and please you...

[Jarret Adams]

02:42 PM on 01/26/2011

This is an very positive proposal and one that even has some chance of suceeding. Hopefully, it is one that the wide variety of interests can rally around and support. Moving our nation's electricity generation to clean sources such as renewables and nuclear can reduce emissions, improve our energy security, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and create jobs. I wish the President much success in getting Congress on board and making this vision a reality.

[esquilax]

06:29 AM on 01/27/2011

Paid to post (look at the comment history). Can you please declare your PR or associated astro-turf group? Are there other aliases you might tell us about?

[esquilax]

06:31 AM on 01/27/2011

Employee of AREVA.

http://www.areva.com/EN/news-8050/press-contacts-of-the-leader-in-nuclear-energy-and-renewable-energies.html

[Jarret Adams]

01:20 PM on 01/27/2011

Yes, I am an AREVA employees and its no secret. I use my name, because I have nothing to hide. And I work for a company involved in nuclear energy and renewables, because I believe strongly in this technology. As I said, greater reliance on nuclear energy and renewables will reduce our emissions, improve our energy security and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels -- I believe that.

[Steve Rockett]

01:59 PM on 01/26/2011

I would rather he switched suddenly to non fossil fuel alternatives, but we have seen to brick wall when that happens. I guess his plan to gradually transition to better alternatives will have to do. I give the man credit. He is the first to make this an issue and provide direction. Let's hope it is not too late to save our species.

[MORE COW BELL]

12:33 AM on 01/28/2011

Go NUKE!! Hey france relies on most of their energy on NUKE...

[tj101]

12:51 AM on 01/28/2011

Well regulated nuclear energy. Well regulated, you forgot that part.

I wonder why?

[tj101]

12:52 AM on 01/28/2011

Sorry, i had no idea you were a CrazyPerson.