She loves me, she loves me not: America still fickle on renewable energy
Although more than one of President Bush’s State of the Union addresses has involved energy independence and shifting towards renewable power, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, CO has seen its funding cut to less than it was seven years ago when Bush took office. They don’t even have a cafeteria.
For decades, presidents have talked about “energy independence” but with little movement in that direction. Renewable energy powers about 6 percent of America’s electricity now, and most of that comes from obsolete hydropower dams.
In this, the 110th Congress, money for renewable energy is going to compete with government tax policies that allow for companies to deduct purchases of SUVs and tax breaks for second homes. Fuel efficiency standards haven’t moved in decades, and there are no federal building codes to encourage commonsense efficiency.
Why are we so slow to move towards a clean energy economy? Why is Denmark getting 22 percent of its electricity from wind power and we are getting less than 1 percent? Benjamin Kroposki, a scientist with NREL, explained that the fast and “cheap” energy that fossil fuels provide are the easiest to turn to, and we have a lot of them. He told the New York Times, "You have fossil fuels competing with renewable fuels. Renewables lose every time."
Amy Jaffe, an energy expert with the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, agreed:
"We are going dirtier. If you need to come up with a fuel source other than drilling for oil under the ground in the Middle East, what is the most obvious thing with today's economy, today's infrastructure and today's technology? Oil shale, liquefied coal and tar sands. It's all dirty, but it's fast."
It’s time to hold a commitment ceremony with renewable energy, America! No more of this two-timing with Mr. clean-cut, reliable and dependable Renewable Energy and Mr. dirty, fast-and-easy Fossil Fuels. You know which one is healthier for you, will be there through thick and thin, and which one will never leave you.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I think green is at a serious capital disadvantage to oil and coal due to capital infrastructure costs to overcome. Oil and coal processing and distribution has been refined and paid for over the last 150 years in this country and alternatives are in their relative infancy.
That's not to say that green doesn't have other advantages to help overcome these disadvantages.
For example: to compare Ethanol on par with Gasoline you have to consider more than just the raw dollar costs. Gasoline has a hidden geopolitical cost in that buying gasoline funds regimes hostile to American interests. Also 40% of our trade deficit is represented by importing energy. What's the cost of sending those dollars overseas rather than spending them with local farmers who we are already paying NOT to grow various crops via farm subsidies?
You've also got ecological issues to consider. A gasoline spill is a tremendous environmental risk but an ethanol spill… it simply evaporates.
Leveling the playing field with taxes that index the costs of fossil fuels to some of their real but indirect costs on society could be a good way to help encourage greener alternatives.
It's all about incentives… and if the real costs of fossil fuels are buried up in the total budget numbers rather than seen at the pump then it will be tough for alternatives to compete.