The House of Representatives passed the energy bill this week, which would require automakers to achieve a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020. The bill also included a renewable portfolio standard, which would require utilities to produce a mere 15% of electricity by renewable means, 4% of which could come from efficiency technologies. Another feature of the bill was a production tax credit for a number of renewable energy technologies, including wind and solar, biofuels and wave energy. There are other incentives for renewables, totaling $21 billion. These incentives would be paid for by repeal of subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel industries, including oil companies, which have been enjoying record profits in recent quarters (Exxon's annual profit for 2005 was $36 billion).
The vote in the House was 235-181 in favor of the bill, but it stalled in the Senate. The vote in the Senate was 53-42 in favor of the bill. However, the Senate vote fell short of the number of votes needed to override a promised veto by Bush. Senate republicans and Bush opposed the bill due to the repeal of subsidies and tax breaks for the fossil fuel industries, and due to the requirement that utilities obtain 15% electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020. True to form, Bush and the Senate republicans are protecting fossil fuels, particularly oil companies and maintaining an energy market that heavily favors fossils.
By comparison, China will spend $265 billion on renewable energy development by 2020.
For more information:
Energy Bill Update: House Passes Bill with Strong Support for Renewables
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50788
Energy Bill Update: A Washington Insider's View
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50772
China plans $265 billion renewables spending
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSPEK32556820070904?pageNumber=2&sp=true
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
Thanks for bringing more awareness Steve. More.
"China plans $265 billion renewables spending"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6769743.stm
"China is now building about two power stations every week,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0322/p01s04-wogi.html?page=2
Take China, which is widely blamed for the rapid rise in greenhouse-gas emissions. Indeed, China accounted for two-thirds of the more than 560 coal-fired power units built in 26 nations between 2002 and 2006. The Chinese plants boosted annual world CO2 emissions by 740 million tons (see chart). But in the next five years, China is slated \to slow its buildup by half, according to industry estimates, adding 333 million tons of new CO2 emissions every year. That's still the largest increase of any nation. But other nations appear intent on catching up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801051.html
Under plans already announced, China intends to spend $50 billion to build 32 nuclear plants by 2020. Some analysts say the country will build 300 more by the middle of the century. That's not much less than the generating power of all the nuclear plants in the world today.
China like most countries are building power generating plants to provide for their societies, but their focus is NOT on alternatives, their focus is on energy, period.
I'm also unsure what making utilities use 15% renewable resources means to the environment as a whole either. Cut and burn more trees, dam more rivers, big wind fans that kill migrating birds... or back to more nuke plants? What does it mean besides sounding good? An across the board law requiring all local power companies to do this might be a bad idea, while requiring those that do have others means without an impact to be made a good idea...
My point is, good ideas aren't always good law. There is much to be considered, and hopefully the Senate can figure those out the right way without being too politically motivated for votes... maybe.
Thanks for your thoughts.
PS- using China as an example is a poor choice. Maybe Brazil or somebody instead.... ;-)
China has just surpassed the U.S. CO2 annual emissions. But China is choking on its own pollution, creating political unrest. That's the reason for China's recent commitment of $265 billion in renewables.
Dan: "Under plans already announced, China intends to spend $50 billion to build 32 nuclear plants by 2020."
We'll see.
"Even if China built 30 GW of nuclear plants by 2020, it'd replace only a tenth of the overall worldwide retirements. No other nation contemplates anywhere such an ambitious effort, and even China seems unlikely to complete that proposed addition as its power market becomes more competitive and its polity more transparent: nuclear power today is a Treasury-financed state monopoly whose power sales are guaranteed."
"CREIA reports the industry belief that China's 20-GW 2020 windpower target could be exceeded by twofold (thereby surpassing its ambitious 32-plant nuclear-additions goal): "China has potential to be world's biggest wind energy market by 2020," 6 Nov. 2005, www.ewea.org/documents/051106WF12Chinalaunchrelease.pdf. In Nov. 2005, China's leaders set a goal to raise total renewables from 2004's 7% (half big hydro) to 15% of all energy, and in Dec. 2005, they're expected to raise the 2020 windpower goal to 30 GW (E. Martinot, pers. comm., 4 Dec. 2005). Most observers would consider it more plausible that China will add 30 GW of wind than 32 nuclear plants by 2020.
Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential
""Even if China built 30 GW of nuclear plants by 2020, it'd replace only a tenth of the overall worldwide retirements."
I don't doubt that at all but by then considering the power use in 2020 that means nuclear will be displacing a much greater amount of C02 (percentage wise) than today.
I might agree, except for the fact that coal mining is also an environmental nightmare.
Moving Mountains: The battle for justice comes to the coal fields of Appalachia
Where does the idea come from that we need coal and nuclear energy to meet our needs? Do you ever stop to think that that idea comes from the coal and nuclear industries?
Renewable energy can (and ultimately will) provide all our energy.
"Each day, more solar energy bathes Earth than its 5.9 billion inhabitants consume in equivalent electric power in 27 years, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.... A patch of 100 square miles of open space covered with efficient solar panels such as in Nevada, where sun rays are powerful, could generate all the electrical power needs of the United States, according to NREL calculations."
Solar power: the great untapped energy source
"Every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year."
America's Solar Energy Potential
The potential cost-effective windpower in the Dakotas could make as much hydrogen as the world now uses—enough, if used in efficient fuel-cell vehicles, to displace all oil now used by U.S. highway vehicles.
Amory B. Lovins's Hydrogen Primer
Nuclear is not the best, the cheapest, or the most rapidly deployable method to displace CO2 emissions, if it can even be effective at displacing CO2 emissions at all. The nuclear industry is simply (and cynically) using the climate change problem to self-promote its own destructive and expensive agenda.
Micropower (combined renewable and efficiency) is already growing faster than nuclear energy, and that accelerated growth advantage will continue. Without governments propping up the nuclear industry, it couldn't exist. That will not be the case for renewables, and the only reason to favor government supports now is to speed deployment at a time when climate stability and national security call for it.
"Every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year.""
But we don't have the ability to harness that power and the sun don't shine at night.
We need cheap clean energy right now, nuclear is providing clean safe secure power right now and can provide more.
"if it can even be effective at displacing CO2 emissions at all."
What?
Nuclear plants put out almost no C02, Cradle to grave even alternatives (except geothermal) put out much larger amounts of C02 than nuclear.
OK, I'll bite. Ever stop to think those figures come from the solar power industry?
What are the chances do you think, or the environmental impact of, surfacing 100 square miles of Nevada with solar panels, then running the power lines from it across the whole country?
I'm all for solar power where it makes sense, don't get me wrong. I just don't think one size fits all. Like many, including me, I don't think you know the details of what they are arguing about in the Senate over, yet right off the bat the move is to sensationalize it is all.
Take care.
That figure is given only to indicate solar energy's potential. No one advocates actually setting off 100 square miles - you're right, that wouldn't make sense. But solar panels on every roof in the U.S. would yield 5x the electricity we need. I have long advocated lining our interstate and intrastate highway systems with concentrated solar devices, the way Germany is lining the Autobahn with solar collectors.
John: "I'm all for solar power where it makes sense, don't get me wrong. I just don't think one size fits all."
Solar makes sense in Germany and Canada. Where do you think it doesn't make sense?
But I'm not advocating solar exclusively. There is also wind, wave, biomass, geothermal, etc.
So it's better to build decentralized solar systems than large, centralized nuclear plants. Storage is not a problem. I've given you that information before.
Dan: "Nuclear plants put out almost no C02, Cradle to grave even alternatives (except geothermal) put out much larger amounts of C02 than nuclear."
Nuclear plants put out almost no CO2 once they're built, maybe, but building them is them, maintaining them, and replacing them - that is another story. Nuclear plants are built with massive amounts of concrete, which in itself is very carbon intensive. That is not true of renewables, and I see you don't bother to document that claim.
Sam. I don't think Bali will have any effect whatsoever. The senate will kill the rps and other incentives for renewables, e.g., ptc for wind, as senate republicans will not allow subsidies to be repealed for the oil/coal industries. The 35 mpg CAFE standard may stand, but that may be all. It's going to take a democratic administration and/or a veto proof congress to push any meaningful legislation on renewable energy.
"I see you don't bother to document that claim."
I've documented it in previous posts, and you know I have, If you don't want to accept it that's up to you but that statement of yours is disingenuous.
"Nuclear plants put out almost no CO2 once they're built," "That is not true of renewables,"
Wind turbines are made out of steel and they sit on are massive concrete foundations, both energy intensive processes.
P.V. solar panels are made of steel and glass, massive amounts of energy are required to make P.V. panels from it's basic element "sand".
The documentation I provided in previous posts showed that even alternatives produced more C02 than nuclear cradle to grave.
All of the studies I have quoted in past articles show that no matter how you look at it nuclear beats just about every form of energy currently available in the terms of cost, reliability and safety, now you and Sam have had every opportunity to challenge the information I have posted but have not done so. You two keep on falling back on your fear mongering when I challenge you with facts.
I even saw a thing on TV the other day that is a wind turbine, only more vertical without spinning blades; allowing more of them in a smaller area. Technologies will be the ultimate answer to much of this, and stimulating that development is key in my mind.
I fear emotional or hasty PC voting will hamper some of that, such as with the bio-fuels push. The big winners in that were the agriculture lobbies for example. Turning food into fuel such as corn, is a bad idea in the big picture, but a few years ago it sounded "renewable" great. Because sugarcane doesn't grow here easily or well, the "Corn Lobby"(?) has somehow convinced and had legislated through special interest laws and subsidies that would be better served elsewhere. Not even to mention growing increases in production on limited land with yet more fertilizers and insecticides to deal with in aquifers and run-off; plus lower gas mileage! It is an example of something sounding good, "get off oil etc.", but is not the answer except in limited usage. In fact, countries are starting to yell about increased food prices and shortages because of it. Those companies/lobbies make more money selling it as fuel, than they can get for making cereal or feeding livestock...
Anyway, take care and thanks for the note.
"Technologies will be the ultimate answer to much of this, and stimulating that development is key in my mind."
Stimulating renewables was the goal of the energy bill. Several sources stated why it stalled in the senate. Republicans didn't want to repeal tax subsidies/incentives for fossils - that would be the fossil industry that has enjoyed subsidies/incentives for decades, and are currently enjoying record profits.
John: "I fear emotional or hasty PC voting will hamper some of that, such as with the bio-fuels push."
I wouldn't disagree with you on that, but biofuels was likely one of the least controversial issues of the bill. The bill did include incentives for cellulosic ethanol. The controversial items were the renewable portfolio standard for utilities and paying for incentives for renewables with repeals of incentives for fossils. The renewable portfolio standard would require utilities to produce 15% electricity production from renewables by 2020. That had already been negotiated down from 20%, and 4% could have come from efficiency technology.
For a good description of the main provisions of this bill, see Energy Bill Update: A Washington Insider's View
"At issue is the $13 billion in tax incentives taken from the oil and natural gas industries and given to the renewable energy industries. Because the Democrats have pledged a "pay as you go" approach to crafting legislation, they argue that it is necessary to take tax incentives from the well-established fossil energy industries to give to the relatively nascent renewable energy industries."
"There are also concerns from Senators about the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would require utilities to get 15% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2020. Some politicians and lobbyists say that a RES will raise electricity prices and put an unfair burden on utilities. But as the cost of conventional sources of energy continues to rise, industry advocates argue that increased reliance on renewables will lower retail electricity rates for consumers in the coming years."
If not, they are not being serious about passing an energy bill.
Spin away, Dan. The hold-up is senate republicans and the administration. They are protecting established industries. The last thing they want is a level playing field.
Democrats will likely "compromise" (again) with republicans (they already had compromised rps down to 15%, 4% of which could come from efficiency). Something will likely pass, but nothing serious until a new administration takes office.
They are just fussin so people like you will say "well the Dems tried but that mean evil & nasty Bush wouldn't pass it".
They are as much a part of the corrupt system (that you hate so much) as the Republicans are.
It's just they know who they can dupe.