Our Path to a Clean Energy Future

In this State of the Union address, much of the President's attention was rightly focused on economic growth. It's imperative that we continue adopting policies to revive our economy and create new jobs. That's why the President was correct to call specifically for investment in clean energy -- including the clean energy industries that are vital to our future. As the President said, this will "strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people."

Those who see a conflict between clean energy and economic growth have been wrong before, and they are wrong today. It is well documented that investments in clean, renewable energy can create millions of American jobs -- three times as many jobs as equivalent investments in fossil fuels. And improved energy efficiency means serious cost savings for both homes and businesses.

Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the President did not directly address the climate crisis -- the defining challenge of our time. This is particularly urgent after we learned that 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record. The President should work with Congress on bipartisan policies to invest in clean energy and fight climate change. We still need bold legislation that will reduce global warming pollution and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. And the President must vigorously defend the clean air laws that have reduced air pollution for the past 40 years.

When we look outside of Washington, we can see America already making a transition to a clean energy future. More than half the states now have renewable energy standards, which will spur business investment and job growth nationwide. Texas now obtains nearly 8% of its electricity from wind. Several new large solar plants could soon quadruple the amount of solar power in the United States.

At Repower America, we recently asked our members to share clean energy success stories from their own communities. We have received a flood of inspiring stories, including one from Jeff Ehlers, President of Renewegy LLC in Wisconsin, who wrote: "My partners and I started a wind turbine manufacturing company in Oshkosh, Wisconsin in 2008 ... We are growing and creating jobs right here in America. Our turbine is built here in Oshkosh using American made parts. We have installed 25 turbines to date within the USA at schools, businesses, and farms... We are proud of our efforts and are excited about doing our part to help the United States kick its habit of burning carbon. It won't be easy to give it up and it will take decades; however, we are doing what we can up here in Oshkosh."

Another clean energy success story comes from Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director of Solar San Antonio: "Three years ago, CPS Energy, the municipally-owned utility in San Antonio, set a goal of building one megawatt of solar because solar was 'experimental.' Three years later, the solar picture in San Antonio is transformed... San Antonio now leads Texas cities in total installed renewables, including solar and wind."

Success stories like these are happening all across the country. And that's why the President and Congress must renew their commitment to clean energy in America. It's not just our economy and our leadership in the world that's at stake -- it's the future of our planet.

This entry was cross-posted on the Repower blog.

 

Follow Maggie Fox on Twitter: www.twitter.com/repoweramerica

Comments

[Pete Afrasiabi]

03:46 PM on 02/15/2011

***The parallels of computer technology with current solar electric technology***

Remember when the IBM PC came out and revolutionized the industry. Even though it was less efficient than a mainframe computer, it distributed the computing power amongst millions effectively increasing overall productivity while invigorating the economy.

Solar energy is at the same stage at this point. With solar panel efficiency ratings approaching the mid 20 percent, we can generate electricity almost at the same rate of what the utility companies charge us (still not quite there) for mostly coal generated power. If we decentralize the power distribution to each individual home with heavy federal, state and local rebates (paid for with savings in NOT upgrading the electrical grid in a centralized environment), we not only save on having to upgrade the aging power grid, each family of 4-5 with an average home of 2000 square feet can save upwards of $150 in savings every month in electricity usage.
Set aside the push it will provide to the economy, even if 50 percent of homes are south facing (towards the sun), this initiative alone can provide an enormous push to weaning us off carbon based electricity production and utilizes the remaining renewable energy sources to fill the gap.

Two Cal-tech researchers have recently come up with a way to increase efficiency of solar cells up to %40, while only using 10 percent of the silicon material.

I vote for decentralized power versus one that is centralized. Thoughts??

[Michael Mann]

11:28 AM on 02/09/2011

Nuclear power is just as clean as solar or wind and has greater reliability. The safety and economics of nuclear power plants have been demonstrated for 40 years. Nuclear power should be the backbone of any clean energy standard.

[fireofenergy]

04:59 PM on 01/30/2011

Someone pointed out that we need "studies". No! we already know where and when the wind and the sun shines. So why waste money on more useless studies! If we really want to overcome oil decline, we must "study" on HOW to make solar cheaper. Wind turbines, I would think, are going to be hard to mass produce in a robotic factory. Solar, I believe, would be a lot easier. ONLY the robotic factories owned by the same people who own the mine all the way to hiring the installers could EVER make solar cheap enough to provide baseload... But it is possible and would solve ALL the problems. Just this one solution can support over 20 billion people!
It is laughable when people have the audacity to say "wind and solar will never work" whilst still living in an age of fossil fueled depletion...

[JCampbell]

09:41 PM on 01/27/2011

The problem with wind energy is that its old ( over 200 years.. ), well archaic for that matter. Its not its fault, its just a matter of physics and the wrong century. There are newer and more efficient and cost effective methods to generate clean electric power but are not being considered. I think what hurts us the most as a society is the sales pitch for clean energy that's no more than a deception to pad the bank accounts of special interest.

[Genders]

08:17 PM on 01/27/2011

Rooftop solar, Offshore wind and waste bio char can indeed supply all the worlds energy needs cheaper, safer, cleaner and forever. But Obama include "clean" coal and nuclear power. Nuclear power suffers from 4 critical unsolved problems: proliferation, terrorism, accidents and waste. Clean fossils is an expensive joke.

[JShep]

05:28 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.

[Genders]

08:19 PM on 01/27/2011

Nonsense. Denmark has saved money with their wind power. "Wind power provided 18.9% of electricity production and 24.1% of generation capacity in Denmark in 2008,[1]" wiki.

[James Kinser]

10:58 AM on 01/27/2011

She's right. We can create green jobs by the millions, if we want to further injure our economy by spending huge amounts of money, we don't have, to create incredibly expensive energy, hurting the poor and at the expense of 2.5 jobs for every green job, that would otherwise be created in the economy. And all this for no net affect on the climate. I think it is a wonderful idea. While we are at it, let's create a million jobs where people dig holes all day and then the next day fill them in.

[Janeen Russell]

12:48 AM on 01/27/2011

"It is well documented that investments in clean, renewable energy can create millions of American jobs -- three times as many jobs as equivalent investments in fossil fuels."

Could you provide a link or some hard data to back up this statement?

This is not even remotely true.,

[Genders]

08:20 PM on 01/27/2011

Yes it is.

[JCampbell]

09:59 PM on 01/27/2011

I think he meant Chinese jobs.

[Greg Barton]

08:42 PM on 01/26/2011

Our clean energy future includes nuclear. Would you accept a success story about nuclear energy?

[Genders]

08:20 PM on 01/27/2011

Nukes are not clean.

[Genders]

05:13 PM on 01/26/2011

Chu loves nuclear power. He hates solar and wind, his first official report does not even break solar and wind out of the "Hydro" category, and he used old costs for solar and wind, but new speculative costs for nuclear and "clean" fossils.