iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Alternative Energy Funding Still Wins Majority Support Of Americans

Solar Panels

First Posted: 11/11/11 02:11 PM ET Updated: 11/11/11 02:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- A majority of the public still supports government funding for alternative energy research, although the degree of enthusiasm has decreased substantially since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new study conducted by the Pew Research Center.

The Pew report comes as congressional Republicans investigate solar company Solyndra, which received a multimillion-dollar loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, declared bankruptcy and became a focal point for the ire of those who oppose government subsidies for new forms of energy.

According to the report, 82 percent of Americans favored government funding for alternative energy in 2006, while only 14 percent opposed it. Five years later, the balance has shifted to 68 percent favor and 26 percent oppose.

The shift can be entirely attributed to a decline in support from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. In 2006, 83 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners favored alternative energy funding. In 2011, that number is down 30 points to 53 percent, albeit still a majority.

Conversely, support from Democrats and and Democratic leaners has slightly increased from 81 to 83 percent.

The Pew results also demonstrate the widening partisan divide on what the role of government should be. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners said that government investment in new energy is necessary, while 59 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners said that businesses will develop technology without government investment.

But overall, a majority (52 percent) see government investment as necessary in developing new energy technology.

Additionally, public support for more federal funding of alternative energy (68 percent) is higher than support for drilling for oil and gas in U.S. waters (58 percent). The majority support for both options, however, suggests a willingness among Americans to pursue multiple solutions to the nation's energy problems rather than seek the one magic bullet.

Yet here as well, the Pew numbers reveal a partisan divide as 77 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners favor drilling in U.S. waters versus only 46 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

Increased use of nuclear power, which currently provides around 20 percent of the nation's energy, was opposed by 53 percent of Americans, despite the Obama administration's ongoing support of the nuclear industry.

Subsidies for ethanol production was the sole energy policy in the survey that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans did not favor, with only 45 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of Republicans supporting the subsidies.

The Pew survey suggests there are few easy political solutions for America's energy problems. However, politicians should note the ongoing and relatively high level of bipartisan support for funding of alternative energy.

The Pew report is based on telephone interviews conducted from Nov. 3 to 6, including 601 respondents via a landline telephone and 404 on a cellphone.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- A majority of the public still supports government funding for alternative energy research, although the degree of enthusiasm has decreased substantially since President Barack Obama too...
WASHINGTON -- A majority of the public still supports government funding for alternative energy research, although the degree of enthusiasm has decreased substantially since President Barack Obama too...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 135
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
06:44 AM on 11/18/2011
There is an alternative, you may have heard of dilythium crystal also known as thorium salts, like Kirk says, thorium could provide plenty of power for the human race to live long and prosper, forever...­. http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:03 PM on 11/26/2011
Howe many nuke world disasters does it take to break you of you nuke addiction?

Nukes cots more than rooftop solar. over 15 cents per KWH and going up.

Nukes get 500M$ per reactor per year in subsidizes.

We can't afford nukes.
04:03 PM on 11/16/2011
Regardless of where the funding comes from, cost-effective and safe mass energy storage is the key to enabling renewable energy in America. If anyone can show me a better solution that the vanadium flow battery technologies now available I'd like to hear from you.

CNBC: Little-known metal could emerge as game-changer for battery technology http://soc.li/yREGJYj
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:07 AM on 11/16/2011
Does anyone ever check the facts? Nuclear power does not supply 20% of our power and has not for many years. In 2010 renewable energy combined systems passed nuclear power output at 12%. Notice this report referenced from NYT was written March15, before the full tragedy of Fukushima could be realized. The vested interests rushed to claim the nuclear disaster over before it even began, with a media blackout to follow.  Renewable Energy Production Rises in the US

EIA Report: Renewables Surpass Nuclear Output | Renewable Energy News Article

Revealed: British government's plan to play down Fukushima | Environment | The Guardian

Nuclear Plants and Disasters: NRC Inspection Results - ProPublica
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:47 AM on 11/16/2011
It may be true that the raw numbers between renewables and nuclear are accurately stated, but what is not reported is that the contribution from solar is a minuscule 0.026 of those 2.245 Quadrillion BTUs - just over 1% of total renewable energy production. Put another way, nuclear contributed 81 times as much energy in the first quarter as did solar.
From the same EIA source we see that nuclear provided 20.5% of all electricity generated in the US in March of this year, compared to just 5.2% from the combination of solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and "miscellaneous" sources. In raw numbers, solar (both PV and thermal) produced 110,000 MWhs compared to 65,662,000 MWhs for nuclear. Which means that nuclear's contribution to electricity generation in the US in March was 596 times that of solar.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:10 AM on 11/17/2011
So solar power is just now being utilized. So what, one could alsoSo what, one could also say in 1940
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:22 AM on 11/17/2011
Faulty program disrupted the reply-- the point is that nuclear is being replaced with far better choices, showing that renewable energy, even in the early years of utilization can and will replace nuclear power. Solar is relatively new to be utilized, so it is not yet the predominant power source. One could also say that in 1940 nuclear power provided nothing . Ancient history discussion, or talking about the way things used to be is of interest only to historians. Renewable energy of all kinds is the future, not destructive nuclear energy that continues to threaten the very existence of mankind.  As usual nuclear power supporters must rely on lies and distortions in order to convince others to continue their insanity. By the way have you dealt with nuclear waste yet? No? no clue, just pile it up everywhere and leave it to plague humanity forever?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:58 AM on 11/16/2011
Yes, some of us check the facts, yours seem to be lacking, here are the actual numbers from the EIA, not a editorial write up from a biased third party.
Year-to-date, coal-fired plants contributed 43.3 percent of the power generated in the United States. Natural gas-fired plants contributed 23.4 percent, and nuclear plants contributed 18.8 percent. Of the 0.7 percent contributed by petroleum-fired plants, petroleum liquids accounted for 0.4 percent and petroleum coke accounted for 0.3 percent. Conventional hydroelectric sources provided 8.7 percent of the total, while other renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining 5.1 percent of electric power. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:46 AM on 11/17/2011
Misleading again. The subject is electricity production, not general energy production. Here is the report from 7-5-2011. No editorializing is required- .  EIA Report: Renewables Surpass Nuclear Output | Renewable Energy News Article
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
01:25 PM on 11/17/2011
Your link is misleading; http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/07/eia-report-renewables-surpass-nuclear-output
Note that the URL is NOT EIA.gov
Look at the pie chart figure 2 at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm for the current, correct, official electricity production numbers. No spin, just data.
07:44 PM on 11/14/2011
If we do start to move over to a greener economy, we have to plan better than this.

What makes or breaks this is implementation and planning. We can't have one or two states in the country providing alternatives to the half of America. We need to keep it close and localized, that would create many jobs, enough to make up for firings in oil, gas, and coal.
07:36 PM on 11/14/2011
Solar PV in all of its forms is the way to go (residential, commercial & utility scale) - Over the past 2 years panel prices from fallen 40%. We have already reached grid parity in the SW US and Southern CA. With the year on year efficiency gains as well as the cost reductions, a larger swath of the US will start to benefit from solar PV systems. Additionally, the wind resource in the Midwest is huge and turbines now are even bigger (1MW+ for each turbine). If the Federal govt through $100B/year towards renewables our energy needs would be dealt with as well as stimulated the domestic economy.

Imagine if we did not waste all of that money in Iraq and spent it on renewables - Elections have consequences (i.e. Presidential 2000 election - Thank you Ralph Nader, Thank you SCOTUS, Thank you corrupt officials in Florida)
10:13 AM on 11/15/2011
Imagine if the money wasted on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, aid to our enemies (Pakistan to start), bailing out the banksters, AIG, etc had not been borrowed.

Imagine if we eliminated all energy subsidies.

Imagine if renewables had to succeed or fail in the marketplace on their own merits.
(I have no problem with some well targeted Research and Development funding though.)

FWIW, the 2000 Presidential winner was selected by the Electoral College, not by the popular vote so you can't credibly blame Nader, SCOTUS, or alledgedly corrupt Florida officials.
01:05 PM on 11/15/2011
Imagine we did not invest all of the money in cell phones, the federal highway system, the TVA, the BPA and the internet. In other words, there is a point to targeted govt investment to improve the economy over the long-term. Those types of investments may come from the private sector over time, but we don't have a century to solve our energy needs issue.

If life was left up to Libertarians like yourself, none of the above improvements would have been realized. Providing investment tax credits and accelerated depreciation benefits to the renewable industry is not a huge spend at all - considering those tax credits are matched by 70% of privately sponsored funds.

Regarding the 2000 Presidential election, (Yes everyone who has gone through high school should know that the electoral college selects the president).
1. If Nader did not run, Gore would have won Florida and the election
2. If the SCOTUS allowed a statewide recount, Gore would have won Florida and the election.
3. If the corrupt GOP election officials (Cathleen Harris / Jeb Bush), allowed the recount and did not block it every chance they got, Gore would have won Florida.

If Gore would have won, all of the bad policies of the Bush administration would not have come to pass (i.e. the Iraq war, tax cuts for the wealthy). Elections have consequences.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:51 AM on 11/17/2011
Placing all your hope on the President is nonsense. Congress writes the law, and Congress must approve anything the President desires, or as you can see lately, the initiatives go nowhere.  Placing independent candidates in Congress, state and local offices is the way to break the hold of the in name only two party system. Actually it is more like one party--the corporate party. I will no longer waste my vote on those who refuse to represent me.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:55 AM on 11/17/2011
Blame the Supreme Court for ignoring the Constitution and ruling that votes will not be counted. Blame the Democrats for not standing up for the rule of law. Blame the Democrats for allowing lies to go unchallenged, for allowing crooked Republicans to set the issues. Blame Congress for not investigating and prosecuting election tampering.
04:12 PM on 11/17/2011
Well I do blame the SCOTUS and the GOP, but shouldn't I also blame the Nader for letting the GOP to win. He knew what he was doing.

I agree the Dems are not perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement, but they are better than the alternative. I also agree the US needs a 3rd party, but they need to start winning on the local and state level first to build up the political apparatus necessary to launch a national campaign. Probably now is the time for it.
03:52 PM on 11/14/2011
it would be nice if for once the difference between research and "funding" for alternatives were called out.

Subsidies and loan programs are funding or support. We spend tens of billions on this and it produces no new technology. All it does is put capital equipment in the ground (at rates that will not solve anything) that will have to be replaced in 25 years.

Research is not even funded to the tune of a billion. Research solves problems, creates long term jobs, and sometimes new industries and its value grows over time rather than being depreciated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gebby
artist gebhardtart advocate for a better world
01:39 PM on 11/14/2011
A new problem is the press is making the energy issue a debate about our energy needs. The debate is around Global warming. Fossil fuels need to be fazed out completely. Nuclear is too risky..costly. Remember Fukushima is still melting down.. like into the ground. Solar , Clean energy is the solution but it means no more oil dominance which may mean the oil companies would prefer a world war in order to remain incharge of the energy landscape. France has the lowest FIT yet the large french oil company took over controlling interest of Sunpower. Dont be surprised if Sunpower goes bankrupt. Oil wants to bury solar. Just watch the oil company commercials on TV.
01:03 AM on 11/15/2011
Fukushima is not still melting down. Several months ago the temperature of the water returning back from cooling the core was below 100 degrees celsius. Even counting Fukushima, the number of accidents per reactor year of operation are going down. This is because of increased experience operating the plants and an extensive system of sharing lessons learned between plant operators. It's true that the cost of constructing nuclear plants are high, but their marginal cost of producing electricity is very low, with the greatest portion of the operating cost being good salaries paid to plant personnel.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
01:20 AM on 11/15/2011
It's time to put aside the old and (re)develop the new... LFTR ! (because it would be sooooooooo much more efficient and does not need "engineered safety")...
01:29 PM on 11/14/2011
Fed. Treasury Grant 1603 must be extended; solar/wind/geothermal the entire US and world supply chain will be negatively impacted at a time we need it most.
Please sign - http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-extend-federal-solar-incentives-past-2011
10:17 AM on 11/15/2011
You are definitely on to something with Geothermal.
This is energy source is available 24 X 7 X 365, unlike wind or solar.
And the "waste" heat can be used for district heating and/or greenhouse heat.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
09:20 AM on 11/16/2011
Thanks for the link. Owning your own solar power gives one the ability to pay off systems then get freedom from utility bills for decades. Fuel dependent systems cannot accomplish that. Home solar removes the need for new transmission lines and central power plants. Solar power is completely clean, safe and emission free.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:23 PM on 11/14/2011
There was a recent (post Fukushima) poll of people living within 10 miles of nuclear power plants (with no household member working for the plant) the results were in favor of nuclear power. The 900 people around the plant where I work were 96% in favor of nuclear power. LFTR technology is the future of safe, clean energy.
http://thoriumremix.com/2011/
07:49 PM on 11/14/2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

Its not that safe.
Its cleaner than oil, gas, and coal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
10:28 PM on 11/14/2011
The LFTR is extremely safe, it operates at atmospheric pressure and has a very negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, making it extremely stable (the hotter it gets the more it wants to turn itself off) and is walk away safe... if the plant loses power for any reason the core leaks out into a holding tank and solidifies (becomes a rock)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fireofenergy
Promote freedom AND science
01:29 AM on 11/15/2011
Thanks! I'm also (trying) to learn more about it. I still promote it because I know "it does not want to melt down" like LWR's do. In fact, I used to be an "all solar man", you know, that it could be done if made in robotic factories (and without profiteering), but now realize that LFTR (and possibly, the IFR ?) could power the world orders of magnitude easier.
Isn't it even load leveling, that is if no one used power, then the salts get hotter (because it would not be cooled by convection to generator) but as it gets hotter, it expands thus causing a cooling... and so on?
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
02:05 AM on 11/15/2011
Yes, LFTR is load following. It can make large changes in power output in as little as 60 seconds. This is unique to LFTR.
brw1970
Repeal the 16th Amendment!
12:12 PM on 11/14/2011
President Carter mentioned the US needed a energy policy back in the 70's. Since that time we have no policy yet. Politicians from both sides need to get over their differences and work together so we (USA) can be energy independent. Oil, Coal, Wind, Solar, Biofuel, natural gas, nuclear, hydro should all be used and slowly lean off of the fossils and into just green.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:35 PM on 11/14/2011
that wont happen. our policy is run on bribes. the fossil fuel energy has way more bribe money than solar. even though solyndra is a nice step forward for crooks in the solar industry.
01:09 AM on 11/15/2011
We have had an extensive energy policy - OPERATIONs DESERT SHIELD, DESERT STORM, NORTHERN WATCH, DESERT FOX, ENDURING FREEDOM, IRAQI FREEDOM, UNIFIED PROTECTOR...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SLS11
Its all there, if we just open our eyes...
01:31 AM on 11/15/2011
Yikes!! Those are wars, not energy policies!! Or am I getting things confused?
09:34 PM on 11/13/2011
To get to our goal of a zero carbon future we 100% of US energy needs must be met by electricity.

In that scenario rooftop PV can provide only 3% of US energy needs at a cost so enormous that the economy would be bankrupted.

Google "nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44073.pdf"

Report states "..The total annual resource is about 400 terawatt hours (TWh) for commercial and 419 TWh for residential buildings. "

US total electricity production 4000 terawatt hours in 2010 so 20% of US electricity can be provided by solar at max

But US total Energy use is 26000 Twh with only 15% provided by low carbon sources (nuclear, hydro, firewood/ethanol). By coincidence electricity is 15% of the US energy supply.

So 20% of 15% makes rooftop PV max 3% of US energy

Solar costs close to $2 a kwh when backed up by green storage. Nuclear on the other hand is 3 cents a kwh.

Solar is impossible fiscally, nuclear easy peasey.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:38 PM on 11/14/2011
what are those 3% numbers based on? solar is hyper competitive - fast moving target. and where are zero energy homes in the equation? given how inefficient most technology is these days - perhaps thats where most effort should be spend.

but if you insist upon deadly energy tech with crazy externalities - nukes are a nice 20th century alternative to coal and other 19th century techs.
07:54 PM on 11/14/2011
You on relying on a nation who constantly thinks BIG BIG BIG, to work in an efficient way? Solar panels are better not powering a grid, but onto of houses and businesses themselves, same with wind.

Nuclear may be cleaner than coal, gas, and oil. However if it has an accident its much much worse. Accidents do and will happen, usually small yes, but there needs to be an update in research of safe nuclear energy.

The real problem is that this nation wants alternatives to be the same way as oil. One or two states can provide oil and gas for half the nation. Alternatives can never do this, its in-efficient. Smaller is better, local is better. It can be done, we just need better implementation and planning, something that hasn't really happened yet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nirek
Proud progressive Vietnam vet. against WAR
06:38 PM on 11/13/2011
I heard an expert on solar power say that in one hour of sunlight there is enough solar electricity to power all of America for more than a day. All we need to do is put a panel on every telephone pole and all school and municipal roof. Along with mine and others we could cut the need for fossil fuels by a huge amount and save the earth for future generations.
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
04:43 PM on 11/15/2011
These kinds of statements miss the point completely. Of course, enough sunlight illuminates the earth's surface in one hour to power the country for a day. So what? The very expensive problem is collecting it and converting it.

There is enough heat in the earth's interior to power the world for thousands of years. That heat is available 24/7, not just during daylight hours. However, the very expensive problem is collecting it and converting it.

Energy solutions don't grow on trees. They are difficult and expensive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
04:37 PM on 11/13/2011
Decentralized solar is the way to go. Everyone offsets their utility bills and the excess is then sent to the grid to be distributed amongst the other consumers.

Solar has no moving parts, the module prices are coming down and it works for 20+ years.

What more do you want?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nirek
Proud progressive Vietnam vet. against WAR
06:32 PM on 11/13/2011
Yup, my solar array makes 120% of my power and the 20% goes into the grid. Three and a half years and going strong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickish Knave
Both sides suck, but neither will admit it.
09:34 PM on 11/13/2011
Nice! I hope you are compensated for that extra energy exported to the grid :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moose Luck 99
GEOENGINEERINGWATCH DOT ORG
04:10 PM on 11/14/2011
Hi Nirek,
HYDROXY GAS can be made with excess electricity from wind and hydro and pumped into a propane tank and burned in your gas grill or propane furnace.
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
04:41 AM on 11/13/2011
Repubs are against alternative energy because it would create jobs under Obama.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:18 PM on 11/12/2011
Is it true you can't install a solar system on your roof that generates more electricity than your past usage shows, in California? If so that is just stupid and shows how much lobbying influence the power companies have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
07:26 PM on 11/14/2011
Hmm. I would agree with opposing an absolute limit - but I would also argue that the power payment rate should be much lower for "net generation" houses. The subsidy for generating your own power shouldn't apply once you effectively become a commercial generator.