In a time of soaring gas prices and record-breaking temperatures, Americans are looking for energy solutions that save money, reduce dangerous pollution and strengthen our country.
Yet instead of offering targeted policies, many leaders are suggesting an "all of the above" approach to energy development. The idea is that we should throw everything we have at the problem and see what sticks. It's a misguided strategy that would do more harm than good.
When Republicans in Congress say "all of the above," they mean oil, gas and coal, while clean energy gets only an occasional mention. When President Obama uses the phrase, he emphasizes clean energy, but he also wants to expand oil and gas drilling. Both these formulations amount to a kitchen-sink method of producing energy.
It's the equivalent of walking into a restaurant and ordering everything on the menu. Most people don't do that in real life, because we know it costs too much and will make us sick. Instead, we select the best food for the best price.
We can do the same with energy. We can choose the best and bypass the rest.
The best energy solutions deliver multiple benefits at once. Sinking oil and gas wells in communities across the nation may produce more energy, but more energy isn't all America needs. We also need to create good-paying jobs that stay in the United States. We need to retain our technological advantage in the global energy market. We need to protect the health of our families, our air and our water.
Only one kind of solution can deliver all those benefits: clean energy. Wind power accounts for 35 percent of new power built in the United States, and it produces zero pollution. The solar industry employs more than 100,000 Americans, and its engineers are pioneering the next generation of clean technology.
Better performing cars are protecting Americans from gas price spikes and fighting climate change at the same time. President Obama recently raised fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Within 20 years, those standards will save drivers more than $80 billion a year at the pump and cut our oil use by more than we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010. Manufacturing cleaner cars is already employing more than 150,000 Americans right now.
Drilling for more oil and gas can't achieve these successes. It can't even lower the price we pay at the pump. The Associated Press did a statistic analysis of 36 years of gas prices and oil production and found there is no correlation between "how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump." Yet our dependence on dirty oil and gas has been proven to contribute to asthma, heart attacks, and cancer and to cause climate change.
Fossil fuels will continue to play a role in our society, but considering all the negative tradeoffs that come with them, lawmakers should call for more safeguards. If our leaders want to see more natural gas development, then they should support strong air pollution standards for gas production. If they want to continue to rely on coal-fired power, they should support the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new power plants that the Environmental Protection Agency will announce soon. Smart safeguards are the only way we can protect our families from the hazards of fossil fuels.
Not all energy options are created equal. That's why we must focus on the technologies that create the best outcomes for our communities.
People want a forward-looking energy policy. They want cars that go farther on a gallon of gas. They want their children to breathe cleaner air. They want utility bills that don't cause sticker shock. And they want America to lead the world in technological breakthroughs.
"All of the above" doesn't deliver those benefits. Doing the best and skipping the rest will.
This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.
John Sauven: Nuclear Energy - A Fading Dream
Jamie Henn: The Keystone XL Zombie Rises
Robert L. Borosage: Who Pays the Bill for Wall Street's Mess?
That's because you still need energy prices to go a lot higher to make alternatives viable.
Even David Crane of NRG - a HUGE conventional energy company - has clearly said, over and over, that America does NOT want more central station power and GHG-spewing transmission criss-crossing it. That we actually want LOCAL, clean, reliable power like rooftop solar, and that is where his company plans to put ALL its resources. They are nuke, coal and gas guys, and also are managing the Big Solar boondoggles killing our deserts and yet they reject ALL of those as the future and understand that local PV is the call.
Why can't you see that, too, and stop promoting dead ecosystems for Big Energy profits?
About costs
About clean energy
About what you can deliver
About the future problems you will create.
You need to get past your political-cultural-religious-"good guys vs bad guys"-"Big vs Small" way of thinking before you can expect to make a useful contribution to the discussion.
I never slam the grid, because I always support microgrids and customer-facing smart grids. I slam Big Transmission because it is vulnerable, expensive and destructive. Newsflash: the distribution grid and transmission are different. Maybe if you knew some basics you could elevate your conversation?
You are stuck in the early 20th Century. I am living in the 21st Century. You are IBM Mainframes and Ma Bell, I am the internet. Your side has a lot of power and money because of centuries of handouts, but my side will inevitably win. You can be part of the revolution or not, we could care less.
Rooftop solar pv, offshore wind, inefficiency and waste bio char bio fuels are all cheaper than nukes., soon to be cheaper than fossils and ready to replace fossils and nukes within 7 years at their current rates.
Without government intervention,
Call me
Rooftop solar is already cheaper than nukes.
Nukes get 500M$ per reactor per year in breaks.
Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
shows overlap in solar and nukes costs at around 13 cents.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunergy-offers-5-cent-solar-billing-2009-12
http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents per KWH after the first 20 years.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html 3 cents per KWH rooftop solar.
The best way for this country to maintain its technological lead in energy is to pursue the commercialization of advanced Gen IV nuclear power technology as quickly as possible. We could be exporting LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) and IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) reactor technology instead of importing fossil fuel technology.
When it comes to Gen IV nuclear power technologies, passive safety is an inherent part of the design and is guaranteed by the laws of physics. For example, a catastrophic failure of a LFTR reactor can not result in an atmospheric release of fallout as ocurred at Fukushima. The composition and physical/chemical properties of the molten fuel guarantee it. In other words, since the passive safety of LFTR is is inherent to the design it is not an expensive "add on". Money can't be saved by cutting corners because there is nothing to cut.
And rooftop solar is cheaper
Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/ Note the fossil and nuke numbers are totals, the solar wind and waste are PER YEAR!
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Comparative_electrical_generation_costs
shows overlap in solar and nukes costs at around 13 cents.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunergy-offers-5-cent-solar-billing-2009-12
http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents per KWH after the first 20 years.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/
http://nukepimp.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html 3 cents per KWH rooftop solar.
http://www.solarnovus.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3996:have-cost-estimates-for-solar-been-too-conservative&catid=52:applications-tech-research&Itemid=247 .
The vision of large wind generation will result in the elimination of coal, and nuclear leaving us dependent on a single fuel, natural gas. The inefficiencies of using natural gas to balance the ever variable wind energy will waste enough fuel to negate any CO2 reduction. Prices will skyrocket, while reliability suffers. In short it is a recipe for economic disaster.
We need to find a better way to use wind and solar. You highlight a real problem.
What is presented as clean energy may be better in some respects. The CO2 emissions are lower, and there are few particulates or soot.
But the cost per installed MW is higher, the cost per MWh is higher, and the availability is generally much lower and is not predictable enough for a modern economy.
We need hydrocarbons, and it is better for our economy to produce as much as we practically can at home.
I agree that the cost of clean energy per installed MW is much higher, however, the cost per MWh is far less than burning any fossil fuel! I have a home that uses grid tied photovoltiacs. The cost of installation slightly more than 5 years ago was equivalent to about 4 years worth of electric bills. Although, as the price of electricity increased and the price of cells decreased the payout time has now been decreased to about 3.5 years. Almost everything my PVs produced after that time is FREE so your claim of a higher cost of MWh is bogus!. Granted we can never be completely free of hydrocarbons but the advantages of decreasing our reliance and making use of alternatives is far better for this economy than the continued reliance and production of oil, gas and coal which has become our primary and often only source of energy.
As the world's demand for oil and gas continues to rise it's logical that reducing our own consumption not only frees us from what would otherwise be an economic disaster for this country but it also allows us a greater opportunity to profit from the sale of oil and gas to foreign countries as many oil refineries have begun doing.
I guess your numbers are wrong.
I would also add that it is grossly immoral to use up all the fossil fuels in the ground, and leave none for future generations who might face challenges that we can't foresee, and that would benefit by the temporary deployment of fossil fuels, there being no other alternative.
Unless of course the restaurant is a HomeTown Buffet or a Golden Corral. See energy will be like that some areas good for geothermal, some good for wind, some for solar.
As you said, "In a time of soaring gas prices and record-breaking temperatures, Americans are looking for energy solutions that save money, reduce dangerous pollution and strengthen our country."
I bought a used CNG Honda & Phil Station 2 1/2 years ago the whole package was less than $25,000.00. Did it to spite the likes of Hugo Chavez, Moammar Kadafi, & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It cost me about $0.92/gallon gasoline equivalent or $0.025/mile but the rates are set up so I save on natural gas in the winter time about $40.00 per month. I can drive 1600 miles a month on 40.00 so I guess in the winter months my fuel cost is free!
As President Obama say, "All the above" is working for me!
Replacing $300B/year in oil import is indeed going to require a "kitchen-sink" approach. No one solution can replace the BTUs coming out of that $300B/year. Plus, to try replacing those BTUs with one solution will create resource bottlenecks. Obama is correct. Diversity is the best outcome. We have diversity in our electricity generation ... the result is cheap electricity. While diversity for replacing oil is the best outcome, it is really the only practical solution. There are too many BTUs to replace. Let GM worry about electric cars. Let power plants and the gov't worry about the smart grid. Let oil companies worry about pipelines and oil. Let the natural gas and auto industry push for natural gas transportation.
The kitchen-sink approach brings in more cooks with more investment dollars from more industries. It is the practical way to tackle this problem.
Beinecke is casting the problem incorrectly. Things like oil, gas, and coal don't require government investment. It isn't a government distraction. Let oil, gas, and coal companies handle that with their own cash. As a counter example ... no one is asking Saudi Arabia to stop or even reduce oil production. That would be ludicrous. We can all see that oil is like cash to Saudi Arabia. It is like cash to us too. Let it flow. Another example is the Keystone pipeline. Canada is paying for it. Let them.
Government can help in other ways by focusing on energy security and roadblock removal. Since we import tons of oil, I suggest government put full attention into targeting oil imports. Obama proposed natural gas transportation with government helping with some infrastructure. Great example. Investment into oil import replacements will bring back a return year after year. I'm all for some gov't involvement if it targets energy security (i.e., oil imports).