Obama's Forceful Call to Arms: Defining the Nation's Energy Future

In an extraordinary press conference yesterday introducing his energy/environmental team President-elect Barack Obama put forward his energy program. In doing so he conveyed a sense that finally our government-to-be was about to lead us out of our long and hapless wanderings in the desert of fossil fuel enslavement. That here was a vision, a conviction, and the will to topple once and for all our shameful and destructive dependence on oil, to end once and for all our dependence on fossil fuels, period, whether priced high or low. To quote the President-elect "It will be a priority of my presidency."

The language, the presentation was exactly what was needed, what many in this nation were waiting for these last eight years, and beyond. It was a call to arms from the bully pulpit which was used brilliantly vesting the declamation with a shared sense of mission under a leadership that was determined, forthright and totally engaged in this issue.

Words that previously risked becoming vacuous shibboleths such as "new energy frontier", "environmental quality", "transforming our economy", "ending our dependence on hostile regimes", "...in the face of opposition from special interests", "challenge of climate change", "new energy economy", "based on renewable resources", "turning to wind, solar, and agriculture", "there is not a contradiction between economic growth and sound environmental practices", all took on an entirely new and ringing dimension,

"This will be our mission", "this will be our guiding purpose" "this time must be different", "we cannot fail". On this issue with its existential dimension for the future of the nation and the planet, perhaps, just perhaps we have found our modern slimmed down version of Winston Churchill. We wish him well. We pray for his success.

Comments

[JEP57]

I would like nothing better than to install photovoltaic panels, a windmill, and utilize other renewables at my house, along with seeing municipalities utilizing alternative energy sources to break away from our dependence on fossil fuels. But until there is a breakthrough in technologies to bring the price down on these alternatives, homeowners and cities and towns can't afford the high cost of implementing them on a mass basis. Hopefully Obama calls for a Manhattan style project for scientists and engineers to look for breakthroughs in solar and battery physics, etc.

[SolarPowerGuy]

I don't know where you live. But here in California, you can install a photovoltaic system that will zero the electric bill of a typical suburban home for about $20,000 (after the state rebate). I know, I did it 3 1/2 years ago. Batteries are a red herring. You should purchase a grid-tied system with a two-way electric meter. When you aren't using your power, you sell it to the grid. When you need power, you buy it from the grid. No batteries are required.

Don't have $20K? Go ask the bank for a home improvement loan. When solar was first introduced, it was this exotic hobby item that no one recognized as an improvement. Not any more. A solar power system adds significant resale value to your home.

Several new California subdivisions are being built with solar power already installed. You buy the solar system with the house.

When you consider the frivolous ways that many Americans waste $20K, I really don't see how solar power is financially out of reach. I don't see why great technological strides need to be made. Do it now.

[JEP57]

What would the cost be for a PV system to power the average midsized factory with all their 3 phase machinery and huge amperage load? I would imagine it would be out of reach for the owners and boards to purchase and implement. Until there are breakthroughs in bringing the cost of panels down to say 50 cents a watt or less, most people aren't willing to spend that kind of money on something that will take a couple of decades to break even. I'm in Massachusetts and we don't get a lot of cloudless days. And what about the large percentage of apartment dwellers. They would have to rely on their local power company switching over to solar, something unaffordable at this time.

[sheila]

let's hope that this new administration can buck the ENORMOUS power that Big Energy wields in this country, and actually STABILIZE AND DEMOCRATIZE OUR GRID by insisting that point of use solutions be the first priority. stringent green building codes, efficiency measures, smart grids, energy storage solutions and point of use generation should be the number one priority of an Obama administration.

feed in tariffs, wildly successful in 40 nations (including Albania) are still ignored in favor of failed RPS policies, which are garbage. you've got to understand we are at a crossroads here, not just in switching fuels, but in the philosophy of our nation. Big Energy, Big Developers, Big Insurers, Big Bankers - they cannot run our country, our planet and our lives into the ground any longer. we need REAL energy independence - from them!

please contact your legislators and demand that they work harder on rewarding individuals and businesses who do the right thing by producing more clean power than they consume, without killing off millions of acres of our fragile ecosystems with Big Wind, Big Solar and other Big Energy monopolies. point of use solutions result in less consumption (same comfort), more and better local jobs (PV installers paid $25/hour plus benefits), no eminent domain, improved property values, lower bills and ENGAGEMENT by the community in our energy future.

[DuganS1]

Any increase in govt spending/investment in the energy or alternative energy space will be more than off-set by the big drop in private investment in that space. From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/business/16oil.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1229519746-NdE5YbC8HVf21ByAveuK5Q

"From the plains of North Dakota to the deep waters of Brazil, dozens of major oil and gas projects have been suspended or canceled in recent weeks as companies scramble to adjust to the collapse in energy markets. The list of projects delayed is growing by the week. Wells are being shut down across the US; new refineries have been postponed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and India; and ambitious plans for drilling off the coast of Africa are being reconsidered.

Investment in alternative energy sources like biofuels that had flourished in recent years could dry up if prices stay low for the next few years. Banks have become reluctant lenders, especially to renewable energy projects that may prove unprofitable in an era of low oil and gas prices.

The list goes on: South Africa"s national oil company, PetroSA, on Thursday dropped plans to build a plant that would have converted coal to liquid fuel. The British-Russian giant TNK-BP slashed its capital expenditure budget for next year by $1 billion, for a 25 percent reduction from this year."

[Overtone]

David Appell, writing in the Guardian (UK) about the failure of the recent Poznan Conference in Poland, ended his article:

"There are simply no reasonable alternatives. Wind power is too scant. Nuclear power is too controversial. Solar power is stuck in a dream world. It gets a little better every year, but it will never be good enough. Nuclear fusion is hopeless, perpetually 25 years in the future.

Not one of us " you, me, Obama or the greenest activist anywhere in the world " is willing to live without the comforts fossil fuels provide us " heat, light, instant hot food, convenient transportation, modern agriculture and airplane travel.

There are too many factors pointing strongly in the wrong direction: the demonstrated refusal of western countries to sacrifice in the face of the climate problem they created; the insistence of developing countries that they be able to live at least as well as the US and Europe and their unwillingness to cut back greenhouse gas emissions as long as first world countries " who largely created this mess " refuse to do so. The lack of any reasonable alternatives, and our lack of interest in developing them, further hinders the ability to find a solution."

Reasonable, cost-effective, alternatives reflect poorly supported new science. And each revolutionary technology disturbs well established dogma and powerful vested interests. Fortunately, it seems that just might be about to change! However, concerned individuals need not await government action.

[kiwijohn]

This calls for humble morning meditation:

Like stray dogs wandering in a desert of fossil fuel enslavement
They bark out words that will become vacuous catchwords
As they sniff out new energy frontiers.
This time will not be different unless they change.

Leader"s call for transformation faces opposition from special interests
Blind to our dependence on hostile regimes and seeing phantom
contradictions between economic growth and
sound environmental practice.

A new energy economy based on renewable resource - wind hydro solar -
Environmental quality, now lashed by ill winds of climate change,
Will be our guiding purpose and our mission
But not accomplished, unless we change.

[agnesmarsala]

I worry about the lack of coverage on the reports alleging that government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties engaged in illicit sex with employees of energy companies they were dealing with, and received numerous gifts from them. Are these contracts going to be honored in the new administration?

[123andy]

"Barack Obama put forward his energy program. In doing so he conveyed a sense that finally our government-to-be was about to lead us out of our long and hapless wanderings in the desert of fossil fuel enslavement. That here was a vision, a conviction, and the will to topple once and for all our shameful and destructive dependence on oil, to end once and for all our dependence on fossil fuels, period, whether priced high or low. To quote the President-elect "It will be a priority of my presidency."

Good start will be for all you believers to stop using fossil fuels...to generate electricity, to heat your homes and businesses, to drive anywhere, and of course to stop flying around in airplanes until we have an alternative. If all the believers did that now we would see if there is any real climate response over the next ten years to thirty years to reduced CO2 emission. The data will tell. Even if you let all of the others who don't believe continue to use fossil fuels. Not doing this is a failure of imagination.

It would be really useful if we could really start talking about the state of science on climate change and alternate energy. I fully support energy efficiency moves.

[davidly]

I wish him well. Lest we forget what he hath said: It is up to us. Part of the problem has been the part in your post about what "many in this nation were waiting for these last eight years..." No matter what policies the next president puts in place - or tries to - it is up to the consumer to dictate the new transportation paradigm. That shouldn't have taken this long and shouldn't have to wait until next year.

[canuckmoose]

Mr. Learsy,
Thank you for this.
Now, we can all contribute to the New [Green] Jerusalem;
simply be driving the speed limit. Easy!

[KillTheMessenger]

The difference between doom and gloom in the US with regards to energy is simply called "gas tax" and one can only doubt that even an Obama will be able to ramp it up to the levels necessary to make this country energy independent. People who have chosen short term gains in return for long term losses can not be helped.

[FearlessFreep]

What are leaders for, if not to advance policies that encounter resistance? Just to advance the policies nobody resists? (Paging Bill Clinton.)

[SolarPowerGuy]

Obama has already signaled that he has withdrawn his support for a petroleum tax.

He supported one, when it could be called a "windfall profits tax." Now that oil prices have collapsed, "windfall" profits have disappeared. What a great way to hamstring yourself with rhetoric!

People need to understand that oil industry PROFITS aren't the problem. Oil industry EXTERNALITIES are. Externalities are the "hidden costs" of oil that the oil companies don't pay -- thus we do NOT pay those costs at the pump.

Only part of the cost of maintaining our roads is covered by gas taxes. We pay for pollution-related illness, when we buy health insurance. We will pay for flood damage when global sea levels rise -- and for hurricane damage, droughts, etc. as weather patterns change. There is a cost associated with the existence of a petroleum oligopoly, which can restrict supply to raise prices -- and at other times, flood the market to kill petroleum's competitors. Finally, we pay a pretty penny for a petroleum supply volatility insurance plan. It's called the United States Defense Department.

I propose a flat tax of $10 per barrel for openers. Prices at the pump would rise about twenty percent. We know we can handle that. If the Petroleum Mafia jacks up the price again (and they will), the tax would be lost in the noise.

[mountainweb]

"just perhaps we have found our modern slimmed down version of Winston Churchill", Really, Time to stop burdening obama with the role of "messiah", he who will save the world. While we have to hope that he will continue the pressure to move to renewable resources, etc. promoting him as a messiah can only set him up for failure.

[johnie2xs]

Watch how many anchors the Repuglicans on this effort.

[johnie2xs]

(correction)..........."throw" on this effort. Sorry!