What I want to hear from Bush in the State of the Union speech RE: energy
The new Democratic Congress will be sworn in tomorrow, and the annual ritual of the Presidential State of the Union speech will follow in a few weeks' time. Last year, the Decider-in-Chief said America was "addicted to oil." What will his environmental and energy message be this year?
According to writer Caroline Daniel at MSNBC, it looks like there may be talk of raising CAFE standards and spending more money on hydrogen research. Any positive talk by Bush about the Kyoto protocol, though, remains a pipe dream.
But there is plenty that Bush could mention on the energy front that would make sense to me. I doubt he'll pass along any of these anti-consumption, non-corporate suggestions (this is the president who's post-terrorist attack cure was to tell people to go shopping, remember), but that won't stop me from writing them here.
- Drive less. Take a page from the Australian, Mr. Bush. You're supposedly so close to Prime Minister Howard. Ask him about the Australian Government's Green Vehicle Guide. Car sharing, carpooling, public transportation, biking, walking. There are a hundred ways to get around that don't involve the standard private car method. Let's use them.
- Support for truly clean electric cars through major investment in greener electricity generation. We know how to make electricity without slashing mountains in half and burning the coal we find inside. We also know how to make it without using nuclear energy. I don't expect a quick paradigm shift in the way our electricity is created, but we need to work on improving solar, wind, biomass and other truly green electricity generation techniques. Locally produced, clean energy is the way to go.
- I'll toss in raising the CAFE standards, because that's cool, too. And then maybe Bush'll name at least one thing on my list.
- A reality check on ethanol and hydrogen. I'm not against research into and production of these alternative fuels, but I'd like to see the President come clean with us about how long the hydrogen economy is going to take (and how much it will cost). The DOE has a good idea of what it'll take (decades), so he could go and ask them.
You can read last year's State of the Union speech
[Source: Caroline Daniel / MSNBC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mike Z 1:00AM (1/04/2007)
What is wrong with Nuclear? Its really the only viable clean baseload source we have without getting into some ultra-complex energy storage system. We should ramp up our nuclear generation ASAP.
Reply
Scatter 10:29AM (1/04/2007)
What's wrong with nuclear? The totally unknown and unaccounted for costs of decomissioning power stations and safely storing nuclear material for thousands of years. Somehow I doubt our kids will thank us for our nuclear folly.
Renewables coupled with energy efficiency neatly avoid this problem. America's got lots of coastline - surely you can get nice and predictable wave and tidal power going; not to mention your massive amount of land, perfect for wind farms; and extensive desert regions for solar thermal electric.
Nuclear power has had its chance to prove its worth and failed. Let's use some imagination and ditch nukes once and for all and aim for a clean, green future.
Reply
James 10:01AM (1/04/2007)
Heck, even the former head of Greenpeace who lead protests at 3-mile Island has come out in support of Nuclear power and has even admited that 3-mile Island was a success story, not a disaster.
Nuclear is one of the few technologies we have that is currently capable of delivering the volume of clean energy we need. Heck, I'll even admit that the French got it right for once...:)
Reply
Dan 10:31AM (1/04/2007)
Nuclear waste is what is wrong with nuclear. Also the fuel is not in exhaustible.
Good post Sebastian. We'll hear sensible things like that from Bush when pigs fly.
I think that the language that President Bush uses is insane, and is of an overdone, epic nature. It belongs more in a violent fantasy film or at a basement dungeons and dragons meeting. Here are some quotes from last year's speech that illustrate the types of insanity I speak of:
"the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline"
"we will act boldly in freedom's cause"
"the advance of freedom is the great story of our time"
"the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom"
"the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear"
"the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth"
"There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat."
"we will never surrender to evil"
"Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace"
"The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home"
"showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear"
"their dark vision of hatred and fear"
"America is always more secure when freedom is on the march"
"feed people's fears"
" Sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore. Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing."
"Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage."
It's as if he wants to create and emphasize the black/white differences between good and evil, safety and danger, fear and love.
Reply
Tim 11:16AM (1/04/2007)
Dan- One can lead, follow or get out of the way but only the bold effect change and are remembered. Some people see in black and white and have a clear direction. Right or wrong, only history knows. Others see only fuzzy grey and wander aimlessly. Cowards die a thousand times, the brave die but once and the only people who make no mistakes are those who do nothing. Hey, at least he has a conviction which is his own and isn’t guided by the most recent poll as so many of our other leaders have been. By the way, “what is is?” by Bill Clinton.
Reply
James 12:15PM (1/04/2007)
Tim: good point, I'm not a fan of Bush, but we have to be open to discussing it rather than just reactionary polarization.
Scatter: Nuclear failed? Then why does it provide nearly 80% of France's electricity?
What failed was ill-informed reactionaries who never learned the true story about Nuclear power. Check this article out, it's written by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html
At least he's finally woken up. We can all dream of a fantasy land in which our ideal green energy source will provide all of our needs, but when we grow up and learn about the real world, then we are faced with the reality of these systems. Tidal power is a joke, solar and wind can't come close to providing the amount of power we need. We do need to continue to develop these, and they are important. But if we want a known technology that can get us off coal and oil, and provide a proven backbone for our energy needs, right now Nuclear is the only answer.
Reply
Mike Z 12:44PM (1/04/2007)
I've started to look at wind, and realized that the only way to stabilize wind's output was with Ruth Goldberg approaches that would never be reliable or affordable.
Also claiming nuclear waste is a problem is mainly due to our lack of reprocessing it. Also, we are talking about less waste on a weight bases nation wide than the concrete that goes into one sports stadium.
Reply
Tim 12:41PM (1/04/2007)
James- You're right. Sometimes progress is simply a matter of many baby steps with the occasional fall forward. Nuclear fission technology has indeed come a very long way since 3 Mile Island and will continue to improve and serve us well for many years to come. Being a dreamer, I still have high hopes for cold fusion, however I still believe that ultimately the single best power source is clean, “free” Hot Fusion from our Sun. This is most efficiently collected by concentration either thermally or via PV or by fresh (not fossil) photosynthesis using Algae. Algae doesn’t waste time and energy building a cellulose support structure which is difficult to “digest.” Here are some other interesting technologies being investigated or developed. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_--_RD
Reply
James 12:52PM (1/04/2007)
Tim: man, haven't heard about Cold Fusion in a long time. I'm in your camp that I hold out hope for it, there's just so much potential there. The new recycling of nuclear fuel in current power plants is also very interesting, as it could dramatically reduce waste.
I agree on Solar, there are some exciting breakthroughs being made all the time. One of the more interesting ones was the "paint on" solar panel/paint.
I think the idea of a "distributed solar grid" in which each home has some solar panels, combined with a standard electrical grid is very exciting, it's viable, real-world, and only has to clear a few surmountable hurdles to be economically viable. Who knows, a synthetic algae could be the key to taking solar panel efficiency to the next level. I just don't feel it can be a viable "backbone" technology in the near future, but it's long-term potential might be much greater.
Reply
Scatter 2:32PM (1/04/2007)
Tidal power a joke? What about the tidal barrage at Rance in France which has been quite happily operating since 1966?
I would call the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of tonnes of nuclear waste lying around the world a failure.
But sadly it's looking like the nuclear industry will prevail and guess who will pick up the cost of cleaning up after them? The economics of nuclear (which must surely include external and disposal costs) do not work. Likewise the costs of fossil fuels should be accounted for but they aren't. And then think about the external costs of renewables...
Large scale renewables is not an idle dream; it's a very real possiblity, it's just that we've barely given them a chance.
Reply
Tim 2:04PM (1/04/2007)
James- "distributed solar grid" would lead to "personal energy independence” and greatly enhanced personal and national security. Locally produced biofuels would lead to local and regional independence, security and competition. Competition enhances innovation and lowers costs. We do live in exciting times.
Reply
James 1:13PM (1/04/2007)
Mike: I think you mean "Rube Goldberg" not "Ruth Goldberg". Don't mean to nit pick but if you go around saying Ruth you'll get some funny looks...:)
Reply
1985 Gripen 1:50PM (1/04/2007)
I agree with the nuclear supporters. What will kill us first, climate change due to global warming from CO2 emissions or nuclear waste? The threat of nuclear waste is infintesimal.
I have to at least give this administration credit for fast-tracking approval of the next generation of nuclear power plants (though I'm sure it was in their best interest). Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, solar-thermal, and other renewable energy sources should be combined with nuclear to displace coal and natural gas as our major electricity generation fuels, IMHO. One or two of these technologies can't provide all the electricity we need.
For example, as explained in an article linked to in a blog here at AutoBlogGreen yesterday (http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/23321), in order to meet the President's stated goal to provide 20% of the country's electricity from wind power we'd have to install a new wind turbine every 15 minutes around the clock for many years. It's idealistic, just not realistic.
As for hydrogen powering autos, it's a pipe dream. They can't make a fuel cell vehicle that can sell for less than $100K in 11 years from now (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/03/is-84-000-for-a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle-reasonable/) and even if they could, we still don't have a proven way to produce hydrogen efficiently and cheaply. Sure, there are promising technologies which use algae or pondscum or micro-organisms to produce hydrogen, but like cellulosic ethanol, these are unproven outside of small amounts in a laboratory. I'll believe it when I see actual production quantities produced at a competitive cost with gasoline or petrodiesel.
Raising CAFE standards is a joke when they keep writing loopholes into the standards. When they can claim that a 15 mpg Chevy Suburban gets 30 mpg on ethanol and use that to meet the CAFE standard the standards are USELESS. (http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/05/how-a-suburban-gets-30-mpg-at-least-in-cafe.html)
Remove the stupid loophole, remove all subsidies from both biofuels and petrofuels, revoke tax breaks the oil companys get to drill on Federal lands, make everyone compete on equal ground, IMHO.
As for photovoltaics, while a great IDEA (free power from a free, abundant resource), it's really very inefficient. It's still VERY expensive too. Time might reduce the cost but people have been working on photovoltaics for a long time and the price is still very high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
Solar-thermal is much more efficient and less expensive. One company is currently building a 500MW facility out in the Mojave Desert (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_37/b3950067_mz018.htm).
The world's biggest PV power plant (in Germany) is only 12MW. The entire PV output of the U.S. is less than 500MW. In order to build a PV power plant which can provide the same amount of power as this single Solar-thermal facility (if even possible) it'd cost $3.25 billion.
So while screaming "wind" or "solar" you need to realize that you're being much more idealistic than realistic. I see nuclear (though admittedly not ideal) as the only way to save the world (by reducing greenhouse gases and climate change). As someone here in comments mentioned the U.S. is one of the only countries in the world to not recycle (preprocess) their nuclear waste. We have Yucca Mountain to dispose of the waste but everyone's all up in arms in potential "what if" scenarios about what can happen while transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain. Meanwhile, in the real world the world is heating up and we're experiencing global climate change-related disasters. Hello?
Lastly, Mike: I think you meant RUBE Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg). ;-)
Reply
1985 Gripen 2:01PM (1/04/2007)
Sorry, that should have read "reprocess", not "preprocess".
And the reason the U.S. has refused to reprocess spent nuclear fuel is for "national security" issues. Sound familiar? As if a terrorist is going to come all the way to the U.S. and somehow break into a nuclear facility to steal weapons-grade radioactive material when they can just go to a former Soviet Republic and buy some... Whatever! :-)
Also, what's this "star" system and how do I get one? I want a gold star. ;-)
Reply
1985 Gripen 2:38PM (1/04/2007)
Scatter: I would call the fact that the Earth is proven to be getting hotter and hotter every year, breaking records and causing global calamity a "failure".
Nuclear is a way to help stop or even reverse that trend. It's not ideal, but you could cover the oceans with tidal and wave power machines (you'd have to) and not be able to even equal our current electricity output.
Reply
chesters liver 5:44PM (1/05/2007)
I want to hear, "We're drilling for more black gold!" We need it, we use it, go find it. I don't want to hear about fantasies like ethanol or hydrogen. Or how big oil is getting more money to fund research into fuels to put them out of business. We put a man on the moon (not debating that one people!) so I am sure if we wanted hydrogen or whatever else it could happen in ten years with the right financial committment. So either commit or start drilling baby!
I don't want a long speech and no action. We pay people in government a lot of money to worry about this issue, fix it. Lower fuel prices and let's move on. The one thing we shouldn't accept is higher prices and no action. What are we getting now for our extra green? Nothing. If Iraq was all about oil than lets take our share and lower them prices! Woo hoo!
And you idiots with your suburbans, etc. who drive BY YOURSELF to work 40 miles every morning. STOP IT! Pick someone up on the way stupid! Enough is enough.
Reply
1985 Gripen 3:29PM (1/04/2007)
Scatter: the tidal power on the river Rance in France took 40 years just to pay itself off. It only provides 0.012 (yes, that's 12 thousands of a percent or 12 millipercent) of France's power. Its output is only 240 megawatts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_tidal_power_plant
Every electricity generation method has a downside. This particular one's is that it displaced or eradicated multiple species of fish from the river.
Tidal power is great and all, but no one renewable power source is going to displace coal and fossil-fuel electrical generation. Heck, all of them combined might not be enough. That's why I think nuclear is a "better of two evils" solution. Diversify electricity production amongst the renewable methods is the only feasible way, IMHO.
Reply
James 4:09PM (1/04/2007)
Yes, as Gripen pointed out, tidal power is a joke. It's a joke because it can never provide a significant amount of energy, and it disrupts the environment physically. Just because it doesn't make CO2 doesn't mean it's ok.
I think that's a VERY important detail. It seems like everyone has jumped on St Gore's bandwagon and placed the blame for seemingly everything wrong with the environment on CO2. What about water nutrient degredation from algea growth? Soil depletion from biomass? Production by-products and water consumption of Hydrogen? Alterations to air currents, bird migrations routes and destruction of animal habitats from large wind farms? Increased or decreased solar radiation from solar panels? We can't just blindly follow a new energy source just because it's labeled green. We need to look at it objectively, it's pluses and minuses, and compare it to alternatives. Otherwise, we risk replacing one problem with another.
Scatter: Would you rather have thousands of tons of nuclear waste or billions of tons of particulates and polutants in the air? Does nuclear power have a downside? Yes, but in realistic comparison to other solutions, it's cost effective, clean, and reliable. And if we continue to research cleaner use of nuclear energy it can even become more so. It is potentially dangerous, but so is every other option out there. And it is proven to be a viable, safe solution, in France of all places, which cooincidentally proved that tidal power, in comparison to nuclear, is a joke. Just because tidal power looks, on the surface, to be a clean energy source, doesn't mean that it is.
Tim: I had a replay but the system seemed to loose it. In short, yup, exciting times. Lots of cool stuff comming out in the "green energy" field.
Reply
Scatter 4:25PM (1/04/2007)
Is anyone else getting a long delay between posting and authentication email?
Gripen I would say that the climate change situation we have put ourselves in is a dismal failure but that doesn't mean that fission is the only or best way out of it.
With regards the Rance barrage. The electricity generated is relatively small but i believe this was a prototype for a much larger installation. There is a propoosal for a tidal powerplant across the Severn estuary in the UK which it's expected would supply over 5% of our electricity and most importantly these installations can have a very long lifetime. I agree there are ecological downsides but as you say, what doesn't.
I think i'm being misunderstood though. I'm not proposing just tidal or just wind but using the whole range of options open to us: Tidal, wave, wind, solar PV, gas CHP, biogas, biomass, solar thermal, who knows, maybe even fusion...!?
A german study recently reported that the entire global electricity demand could be generated with solar thermal electric/CSP by covering 0.5% of the world's hot deserts.
here's an outline: http://snipurl.com/16lli
and a bit more detail here: http://www.trecers.net/
All I'm saying is this: Fission is not the inevitable solution to this predicament - there are other ways!
Reply
James 5:24PM (1/04/2007)
Scatter: yeah, sometimes there's a delay, sometimes not.
You make a good point, many of us here are reacting to a "Nuclear Bad!" assumption that got started early on. I think we are responding to help remove that bias and help us realize that when you look at real numbers objectively, nuclear power is a very attractive option.
Let's face it, bashing nuclear energy without learning more about it is one more thing that gives "tree huggers" a bad name. To be a more enlighted environmentalist, we need to be objective, open, and realistic in our approach. Let's face it, here in Texas, "let's bike to work" ain't gonna cut it...not when it's 100 degrees out and work is 30 miles away...:)
I beleive that nuclear is the only currently viable option, and that we do need to pursue it aggressively. But, at the same time we need to pursue solar, etc... equally agressively, with a focus on more long-term solutions. Who knows, some research in those areas might turn up an even better solution. The difference being that nuclear may provide a more viable solution now, as opposed to down the road with others.
BTW: I think that German study has HUGE logical and logistical holes in it (I spotted several just in a casual read). It's food for thought, and suggests a possible form of generation that we should consider, but if we actually tried to implement what they suggest as is, it would be a huge fiasco.
Reply