Clean Power

Published on August 27th, 2012 | by Guest Contributor

Why Does the Republican Party Ignore Science, and What Will Happen to Make Them Change Their Position? (Reader Post)

August 27th, 2012 by Guest Contributor

This is a guest post from one of our regular readers, Phoenix. In my opinion, it’s one of our best posts ever. Check it out:

US flag on map via Shutterstock

Before I launch into this article, let me share a few things about myself that may help to explain all of this. Ever since I can remember, my life has revolved around being a Republican. When I was in first grade, I remember seeing Reagan on the news and my family loved him. There have been times in my life when I would just simply look for the R and vote for that person.

But these days I have become disillusioned with the mainstream Republican party. Despite fact, science, and other countries pioneering ground-breaking accomplishments in renewable energies, the party fights its progress as if it were a plague. But why? If you think it is just because they are paid to do so by Dirty Energy, you would be at least partially correct. But there is so much more history and psychology there as well; and to leave that out would be to tell only a half-truth.

Years ago, it used to be the Republican party that encouraged business, while the Democratic party represented the needs of the less fortunate, people who needed someone to fight for them. And during Reagan’s time, there was a critical mass of people within the United States that the Republican Party stood for. They were the middle class, the blue collar population. And during that time frame, there were lots of corporations that lobbied, but elections were somehow more connected to the people.

Also back then, there was a disconnect between Republicans and the fledgling green movement. Very little research was done to understand our impact on the planet, and those who fought pollution were hippies outside of the norm of establishment. For thousands of years, we were able to do anything we wanted and the natural cleansing properties of the planet would easily fix our transgressions. Doing anything to help the planet was viewed as simply unnecessary and a waste of precious business resources. The roots of conservation are deeply marred in the psyche of the Republican Party, much the same way that as a nation we have a deep-rooted belief of freedom of speech. The Republican Party viewed progress as a synonym to clearing the land and building industrial complexes powered by oil, coal, and nuclear energy. Those who controlled these forces controlled the powerbase. Anything outside of this collective was viewed with distrust.

To make matters worse, when Al Gore came out with his message to the world, “An Inconvenient Truth,” it only widened the chasm between Republicans and anything outside of business. Some have argued that if a Republican had brought this message to the world, the Republicans would be more supportive. But this still doesn’t explain why some of the really intelligent people I know still refuse to recognize the facts that are written on the wall for anyone to see. Which brings us to the next point about people and their deeply seeded need to associate with groups like themselves. Inside all of us is a need to hang out with others similar to ourselves. People who enjoy the food we like are the groups we associate with. We also have a desire to have everything within our social framework co-exist in similar ways.

Let me draw this last point in a different perspective. I grew up in a family that had a really poor example of a father. And when my sister was younger, she protected this dysfunctional person despite his best efforts to sabotage her development. She had to do a lot of growing up as a person before she realized that she could still love her father but simultaneously realize that he was a really poor role model. They say that is a sign of higher intelligence, when someone can hold two contradictory ideas in their mind and their intelligence can accept both. My sister now realizes that she can love her father but also knows that she can’t depend on him, whereas when she was younger she thought she had to love him and protect him for fear that the truth would change that.

Many really intelligent people I know have this same problem with their politics. We know that Germany can run 50% of their country on solar, wind, and other renewables, and they are growing their job and industrial base because of this green revolution within their borders. We see their local tax revenues fueling their economy while the rest of the world struggles. Articles are written about how profitable solar is for regular people, and yet all of this information is blasphemy to regular people in this country who simultaneously complain that we lack job growth and see a rising debt load.

I have found myself pondering this question: “How bad does it get before sheer embarrassment makes those in charge of the Republican Party change their position?”

Here are 10 possible catalysts of change:

Other countries choose to take action against the US because of lack of attention, while simultaneously being one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions.

Reality: German politicians have already talked publicly about our issues on this side of the pond. They have openly discussed that one of the things holding us back are the likes of the Republicans and the Koch Brothers. It doesn’t seem too farfetched that this kind of talk could spread and change to demands of action.

The rest of the world is catching up and passing us, we won’t be able to wield our dominance over them forever. We are already being left behind in renewable energies — what would happen if China came out with a process to power cars with processed algae before the United States? Well, we could buy their technology from them instead of selling it and making a profit for ourselves. Imagine how the Chinese economy would grow if we sent them 700 billion US dollars every year for their oil instead of the Middle East. They would profit, we wouldn’t.

What if the rest of the world decides that enough is enough and something must be done to reign in US emissions?

The sheer success of other countries.

Reality: Germany is leading the world in the development of renewable energy. They have entire cities that run completely on renewable energy and make a huge profit selling excess energy back to the grid. They have been working to successfully turn off all of their nuclear energy and replace it with solar and other greener alternatives. Other countries are taking notice, with Japan about to start a similar program of Feed-in Tariffs. If you look at Germany’s economy, it is one of the strongest in the world right now. Their stock market is soaring, they are creating jobs, and regular people are getting richer because they sell freely acquired energy back to the grid. As this type of program gains momentum, it is only a matter of time before we feel left out and demand that our country catch up with the rest of the world.

The sheer demise of our country.

Reality: The only reason we didn’t go into a deep depression 4 years ago is because we spent our way out of it. Had we embraced austerity, we too would have hit 25%+ unemployment. Combine that with all the outsourcing that has taken place to fuel China and India’s success at our peril, and one has to wonder if we are even capable of getting back to even without something to drive it. The current theory is that we don’t have to pay off our debt, just grow the rest of our economy while keeping the debt static and the percentage of the debt gets smaller and smaller relative to the growth of GDP, making it less and less important. But, what if we go backwards, or the debt gets blown out of proportion to our growth? What are we going to do, sell all the gold in Fort Knox to get back to even?

Cataclysmic weather conditions.

Reality: A winter or two ago, some Republicans jumped up on the table and in the dead of winter asked the world where Global Warming was? I guess it would be in poor taste for anyone to point out that severe drought is one of many symptoms of climate change. Maybe no one says anything because they are afraid that as soon as someone does it may reverse and they will look foolish. So how bad does it get before we are forced to address the elephant in the room? If we have to use a lot of our resources to combat drought, what will be left over for prosperity? If our farmers can’t grow food, then what?

Greenland becomes green again.

Reality: Story after story has been in the news about massive chunks of ice breaking off of the north and south poles. We see that massive amounts of ice are melting in Greenland as well. Some have speculated that climate change will escalate; and when it starts to rain on that ice sheet, one can conclude that it will escalate rapidly. Perhaps we should start a pool and ask how much the water level will rise before we start to evacuate cities, before we realize we can’t ignore the issue?

Regular people want to get rich just as much as rich people do.

Reality: Venture Capitalists are putting billions more into renewable energy here in the US every year. And as I have pointed out to skeptics, they don’t invest out of the goodness of their hearts. They invest for sheer profit. There is a school of thought that suggests Republicans are denying science just long enough to allow the rich to build all the new power plants, thus allowing them to keep selling energy to us and to continue to get rich like they always have. As many articles about Germany have pointed out, regular people in that country are getting richer by getting their own power sources and selling back to the grid. But in this country, we like to make the rich richer. Are you profiting from Republicans shielding the rich? If not, why not?

Another Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island.

Reality: Germany was a nuclear power until the Chernobyl radiation cloud floated over their country and they learned how powerless they were to do anything about it. They started to hate that power source way back then, and Fukushima only reinvigorated that taste. Japan embraced nuclear power as well, and all around the world it was viewed as a power source. But after the entire world has and is still being radiated yet again by another meltdown, Japan has drafted their version of the feed-in tariff that was so successful in Germany. And many places around the world have seen a huge backlash towards the most expensive and most dangerous power source the world has ever seen. If the US were to see another meltdown, one within our border, we would see a similarly powerful resentment towards the technology. Even without this happening, the sheer cost of nuclear is turning that industry into the Dodo bird. (Think: extinct.) And as some have pointed out, when a windmill or solar panel goes bad, it doesn’t wipe out entire cities for decades (or radiate the entire world).

Grid Parity.

Reality: At the end of the day, profit and a desire to do as little as possible win out over the environment. But, money and profit will always rule the roost. So, as some have already written, when it is cheaper, pound for pound, to build a solar CSP plant compared with a natural gas or coal-fired plant, without taking into consideration negative externalities like health issues — when that happens — stockholders will favor renewable energy, not because it saves the planet, but because the cost difference helps them achieve that bonus. As that point becomes more real in the minds and hearts of board members, the right decision will be made every time.

Social Ostracism.

Reality: There was an article I read about a California politician that built many windmills decades ago and was referred to as Moonbeam because mainstream politics refused to fathom the potential. That tide is slowly changing. Ford Motor Company started turning off their computers every night and saves over 1 million a year in just idol waste. Imagine how much money would be saved in this country if every person in every corporation turned off their computer every night before leaving. One of the reasons why the suits don’t act to save money is because they are afraid of what their peers will think if they suggest something so outside the norm in business. And yet, the Empire State building is saving millions in energy efficiency renovations in one year alone. There are literally trillions of dollars of waste built into our economy that is up for grabs, but people are afraid of appearing liberal or hippy in the pursuit of these wasted dollars. But as more corporations realize real profits in cost savings, executives will get on board in bigger numbers. Because to do otherwise would be to leave money on the table. In one of my finance classes, we were told that, pound for pound, it is more profitable to cut costs then it is to increase sales, because every penny of cutting costs goes directly to the bottom line.

Democrats Rise in Power.

Reality: I am a registered Republican, though some will label me liberal because I am capable of loving my party but realizing they are becoming less relevant by ignoring science, attacking the middle class and taking bribes from the super rich. If Democrats started selling conservatism and generating jobs for the middle class, there really wouldn’t be anything the Republicans could claim as their own any more. Imagine if Obama in his second term created even more jobs, eliminated affirmative action, and brought more manufacturing back to the States in the form of green energy production. What would the Republicans have? Almost nothing anymore, except those people who love them because they hate the idea of liking an idea from the left more than just being pragmatic and educated on science and the very real effects on an economy when new industries are embraced.

Mass Extinctions / Cancer / Infections Run Wild</li>

Reality: I really wanted to only give 10 of these, but as I was brainstorming and I couldn’t ignore this one. How many animals will go extinct before we decide that the planet’s natural ability to bounce back has been overwhelmed by our billions and billions served? What if polar bears, whales, tigers, frogs, bees, salmon, apes, elephants, rhino, and several other species go extinct in our lifetime? What if cancer becomes the dominant sickness as more and more trees are cut down to grow coffee? What if the quality of our life is impacted because the ecosystems in the world get thrown out of balance? Now, to be honest, I have a hard time thinking that this would impact us negatively, but I suppose it could.

I am a pragmatic person, I don’t like labels like Republican, or Democrat, and I hate being called a liberal by Republicans and a Republican by liberals. I subscribe to the Pragmatic movement — whatever the best solution is, I am for. And right now I see that the world can be a much better place because of renewable industries. I am not a hippy, or a liberal — I want job creation, local tax revenues, better health, a stronger economy. I wish a Republican would have created “An Inconvenient Truth,” because based on the ideals of the Republican Party that I grew up with, making a profit from developing industries is a Republican ideal, not a Democratic one. I am saddened that top Republicans ignore science and come off as just mean, and I wonder what will happen next — book burnings, witch hunts, or communist accusations? Support whichever political party you want to support, but realize you can speak out against bad policy and STILL support your party in every other way. Vote Republican if you want to, but don’t support or continue to parrot back propaganda that isn’t making you rich.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Congress, GOP, Republicans

About the Author

Guest Contributor is many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts in a large variety of fields. This is our contributor account for those special people. :D

Matthew

I would like to share this video of a Republican Business owner who doesn’t care about climate change, but is making a profit from the manufacturing of windmills. He talks about how developing nations are only concerned with manufacturing and how manufacturing in this country is being destroyed.

What I would propose is that the Republican Party regroup and focus on bringing about the next industrial revolution in renewable energies. As mentioned, this would create jobs, local tax revenue, energy independence, and quite honestly, we don’t have to care about the environment, but it would help that too!

Check out this video:
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  Srsly, with the economic growth potential of renewables, there’s absolutely no reason Republicans shouldn’t be behind it. Well, there are 2 reasons:
  1. Obama is for it.
  2. Big Oil & Big Coal & Big Nuclear are against it.
http://www.facebook.com/edward.kerr.33 Edward Kerr

After reading this guest post (he should have signed such a good article) and all of the comments, it occurs to me that his point is affirmed by the comments themselves.

The ‘obvious’ Republican commenters expose their lack of scientific knowledge, especially as it relates to renewable energy, by reverting to republican talking points that are apocryphal and designed to confuse the issue. In a few instances they degenerate to calling names at those who they disagree with and, of course, blaming it all on Obama. Pathetic. We, as a species are facing a catastrophe of biblical proportions and they have nothing to add to the conversation. They lack imagination and are behaving like Luddites. (look it up)…

This situation is not a politically partisan one. All of us are in danger. Ironically, even if the specter of global warming were not an issue at all we would still face dire consequences if we fail to transition to clean renewable energy production. The official Republican platform of “drill baby drill’ is so wrong that it amounts to advocating a crime against humanity (and themselves) and for that alone I will not vote Republican.

Disclaimer: I was a Republican for many years as I believe in a small but effective government and personal freedom. However, I have become an independent ( I also have problems with Democrats). The Republican still claim to want a smaller government with fewer regulations unless you happen to be a woman and then they want the government to control your body. They want less spending unless it’s to build implements of destruction so that their corporations can make the world safe for democracy (read that the ability to plunder other peoples resources) After the bankers decimated to middle class forcing many hard working people ( many Republicans too) into poverty they want to tear a big hold in the safety net of food stamps, etc..
Not only are they out of touch they have lost their humanity and have embarrassed me to the point of abandoning the party.

We will find a way to solve this problem in spite of the resistance of the Republicans to a change. If they keep this insanity up they will relegate themselves to the dust bin of histories failures.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  Well said, Ed.
  
  It’s painfully obvious to anyone who looks at facts — the Republican party (and, for that matter, decent portions of the Democrats) are blatantly hurting the people and society they are supposed to be helping.
Bill Leavens

This is an excellent post and, as a Republican, it parallels much of my thinking. There is a lot of discussion of energy issues in the responses, but no mention of thorium as the potential power source that can halt or reverse many of the negative global trends that this deals with. If the Republicans have any sense at all, they will ditch Big Carbon and Big Uranium and support funding for research on thorium fission. We did it 50 years ago and the time is certainly right now.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Bill, thorium is a hypothesis. It is an unproven idea.
  
  Perhaps someone will build a thorium reactor that produces cheap electricity, I believe the Chinese are giving it a try. If someone can demonstrate that it is possible to make affordable electricity with thorium then we should give it a serious consideration. This is a well-researched idea, it’s not like we aren’t trying.
  
  But, do remember, even if we figure out how to use thorium the cost of building a new reactor is immense. And it takes many years which means that a lot of debt accumulates. The end result is that nuclear, regardless of fuel, is too expensive.
  
  We need to go to war with the army we have, not the army we might or might not have later on. Right now wind is producing cheap electricity. Solar has reached grid parity in a few places and its price is dropping rapidly. We could install enough wind and solar to allow us to shut down coal plants – without adding storage to the grid.
  
  Later via a combination of renewables, storage and load-shifting we could get natural gas down to a very small portion of our grid. Perhaps use NG only when we have the very rare event of low sunshine and wind over several days.
Hans

The problem with U.S. politics is the legal corruption: You can only gather enough votes to get a seat, if your campaign budget is big enough. Big corporations are happy to sponsor you, as long as you adapt your policies to their interests. Most of the time these policy adaptations only benefit the corporate sponsors, not business in general, and certainly not society in general. Both parties suffer from this, but the republican party the most. So, of course they deny science, they are paid to do so.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  Exactly.
Dawn

Seriously John? http://www.schydrogen.org/html/news/apr_12_news.html Is this what you are talking about? I think the point here is that we absolutely must pursue alternative energy–to ignore future progress is obscene. Why can’t we move forward by suggesting ideas, trying them and see which holds true. That’s what has made America strong. To spread fear and mis-information only leads to destruction. We can be strong as a party while disagreeing with our parties problems.
JADR

The great problem with so-called “renewables” is that they are wholly unreliable. You get one windless overcast day, and there’s NO power generated. If you can accept a life entirely subject to the whims of nature, great. If not, then you’re out of luck.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  You get one bad shipment of “tubes” and a whole nuclear reactor goes down for months. Perhaps forever.
  
  You get one earthquake and a couple of nuclear reactors go offline for months.
  
  You get one doofus crawling around the innards of a nuclear reactor and the things goes offline for years.
  
  (Is there something you don’t understand about storage and backup generation for renewables?)
  - JADR
    
    Bob, when reliable power can be generated by renewables, we’ll all be claimoring for it. I have used home-based renewables; I’m a fan of the concept. But, they have proven unreliable. Until it can be proven reliable, we need something more – on a grand scale. There are plenty of ways to continue using “dirty” energy in clean ways. I live near two coal fired power plants and they are remarkably clean and we have excellent air quality – because it is managed properly.
    
    The writer imagines a situation where the rest of the world will tell us we’re using too much dirty energy. But, the reality is that the BRIC nations, and many others, are expanding “dirty” energy exploration and usage at a scale far greater than the US ever has. The US is a leading exporter of coal – our customers use more of it than we do! There are enormous ways we can continue to explore ALL alternatives.
    
    The problem isn’t Republicans not wanting science or clean energy. The problem is the Marxists trying to wrest US sovereignty imagine gaining control of all of us by making energy more expensive, not more available.
    
    I’m all for available renewable energy. But, I don’t want to wait for a windy day to have it.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      JADR – you really should get out more. Experience the droughts and heat waves those coal plants are bringing to our lives. Mega-snows, 100 year floods every couple of years – all sorts of gifts from your neighbors.
      Read up on how melting out the Arctic sea ice is slowing the jet stream and causing our weather to get ‘stuck’. A normal heat wave hangs around for a few extra days and cooks us. A normal cold spell hangs around for a few extra days and freezes our butts. That extra 4% of water in the now-warmer air comes down to flood us out or bury us in snow.
      
      Now this –
      
      ” The problem is the Marxists trying to wrest US sovereignty imagine gaining control of all of us by making energy more expensive, not more available. ”
      
      I think that the largest shovel full of horseshit I’ve seen in a long time.
      Marxists? There are no Marxists left in the world. That’s beyond stupid.
      And do you realize that renewable energy will make our electricity cheaper? It’s already happening in Germany and Texas. Adequate solar and wind on the grid are pulling down the cost of electricity.
      
      Consider this. Wind turbines financed over 20 years produce electricity for $0.05/kWh or less. EIA projections are that the price will drop to 4 cents or less in the next few years.
      
      At the end of the 20 year period those turbines are paid off and will produce power for another 20 years or so for even less money.
      
      Same for solar. We are heading toward solar for less than 10 cents in the near future. Twenty years of power for a dime and then 20, 30, ? years of almost free electricity. We really don’t know how long solar panels will last, the oldest ones in service are now over 30 years old and have lost very little output.
      
      (I’ll bet you don’t realize that you pay a great big subsidy with your tax dollars and health insurance premiums to cover the health problems caused by coal. That ‘oh, so sweet smelling’ coal-electricity is the most expensive source of all.)
      
      Wake up, my friend. The fossil fuel industry is the danger in all our lives. They are cleaning out our bank account and wrecking both our health and our planet.
    - Ross
      
      Where are the stories of people giving up on home renewables? The opposite appears to be the case.
      
      Coal with tighter emissions restrictions to keep the air clean locally still causes global warming as the CO2 isn’t filtered out.
      
      The reality is most of the BRIC nations are doing more than the US to shift their energy supplies to renewables. Get up to date with what China is doing.
      
      It is laughable to suggest that a few Marxists are significant. It is speculation and good old capitalist supply and demand that sets energy prices.
      
      The wind blows almost all the time. Turbines operate between a wide range of speeds. The Sun is pretty reliable at coming up too.
    - dcard88
      
      Calling people who believe in ‘some’ socialistic ideas ‘Marxists’ does not and never will make it so, no matter how many times you hear it on Faux
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Thing is, some of these folks can’t tell the difference between socialism and group purchasing.
        
        The military, fire protection, police, health insurance for all, old age security – all that is nothing more than all of us pooling our money in order to get the best deal possible.
        
        Ever think what it would cost to fund your own private army?
    - Matthew
      
      JADR,
      Clean coal? Really? Where does all that coal ash go?
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html
      That is the stuff that kills everything when it spills, then what goes into the air creates cancer on levels never before seen. If you compare coal to solar or wind, there is not comparison with respect to clean.
      JADR, Solar pays for itself in a few years then it is free for you to use for 20 or 30 years. Can you please explain to me how FREE is “more expensive or not available”?
      Solar is a great home based business.
      Don’t take my word for it, read this article about a town in Germany producint 321% of their electricity from Renewable energy and selling the rest for profit:
      http://inhabitat.com/german-village-produces-321-more-energy-than-it-needs/
      Again, can you please explain to me how making a profit is marxist? I really need to understand that.
    - Roy Wagner
      
      City of Gainesville Florida 7 MW of installed Solar
      PV
      
      Cleanest coal plant in the Country when built
      They do not use the Scrubbers because they are to expensive to run.
      Coal plants are only 84% reliable Gas less 78%
      they need backup systems too
- http://yrihf.com John Bailo
  
  This is why Germany is connecting solar and wind generation to hydrogen storage.
  
  This will allow them to manage “baseload” purely on renewables.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    Is it not the case that Germany is researching hydrogen as a storage solution? I don’t think that Germany has committed to hydrogen storage.
    Lots of ideas are being researched. Hydrogen is a pretty lossy storage system.
    - Matthew
      
      Hey Bob,
      My understanding is that molten salt is one of the latest promising technologies for storing energy. This is being heated by Concentrating Solar Power, ie reflecting sunlight at a tower to super heat the salt. That molton salt can be stored for days.
      But lets think about this in terms of the US. Even without Molton storage systems. It is concievable that a connected grid could better utilize solar in this country. When the sun comes up on the East coast it could begin to power the West coast. And as the sun goes down on the East coast the sun on the West could still power the East. There are times of the day when Sun without storage would be difficult. But, combined with wind, see wind blows a lot during the night because the difference between light and night creates winds as temperatures change. We have too much power from wind at night right now. I would like to understand more about hydrogen, but I think the problem now is that it takes more energy to convert water into H, so the technology is still young.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        The wider one spreads their grid, the less variability they experience.
        
        I suspect our future grid will be very wide and capable of moving a lot of electricity from region to region. A wide-spread grid minimizes the amount of storage and “deep” backup generation needed.
        
        Europe’s “Desertec” idea of building a grid from Iceland to the Middle East extends the solar day by about six hours – from when the Sun peaks up in Saudi Arabia to when it slides down off the coast of North Africa.
- question
  
  This simply isn’t true. Even on an overcast day solar generates about 30% of the full sun case. Throw in hydro, some power storage and the fact that the grid can deliver every from hundreds of miles away (is it every overcast, and windless over a region hundreds of miles across?) and you have at least some power (probably approaching 40%) in all conditions. Now include dynamic load-shedding and you have a situation where the critical functions (including essentially all consumer level electricity) can be handled without breaking a sweat. It you really need to, add in a few fast ramping natural gas generators.. you just won’t run them more than a few percent of the time.
  
  So, this “whims of nature” thing is simply a talking point. It isn’t true, not even by a long shot.
- Matthew
  
  JADR, read the latest information on Renewables. Germany has significantly less sun than we have here in the US, and they are discovering that a connected network can provide a base load of power, RELIABLY! What is interesting is that a few years ago, pro solar people didn’t think this was possible. But today we know differently. Above and beyond this, the latest and greatest technology is storing energy in molten salt which can be used to provide power days after the sun went down. Your FEAR is only an emotion, it is not a reality. Welcome to a brave new world.
http://yrihf.com John Bailo

During the Bush Administration, over $1 Billion was spent to fund the DOE’s Hydrogen Initiative. This program fostered basic sciences of chemistry, nanotechnology and fuel cell engineering. During that time our universities and corporations make breakthrough discoveries to make hydrogen technology affordable.

What did Obama do? He scrapped the whole thing.

What did the rest of the world do? They took our technology and ran with it. That’s right…while nearly every industrialized nation on Earth is pursuing and implementing the one workable alternative technology of hydrogen, the US cut funding down to the bone.

Only recently this year, have the anti-technologists of the current administration realized their tragic mistake and restored a paltry percent of the funding.

To say that Obama is pro-science and anti-political when it comes to technology and alternative energy is to strain the credulity of even the most gullible citizen.
- JADR
  
  For Democrats, any science that doesn’t leave them able to control the populace as our marxist benefactors, it must be evil.
  - Ross
    
    The world doesn’t care if you’re republican or democrat or even marxist. If you dump more CO2 into its atmosphere the greenhouse effect will cause it to retain more heat until it reaches a new equilibrium point. John Tyndall worked this out in the 19th century and the science since then continues to support that basic understanding.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    ”
    For Democrats, any science that doesn’t leave them able to control the populace as our marxist benefactors, it must be evil.”
    
    And this from the party that changes laws so that utility companies can seize money from their customers in order to build risky nuclear reactors, putting the risk on the customers rather than the owners. And then force their customers to purchase the expensive power.
    
    Talk about using government to control citizens….
  - Matthew
    
    You know JADR, that is a really interesting statement. In Germany many regular citizens are cashing in on the ability to have a home based business, selling energy back to the grid. That isn’t marxist, that is pure capitalism. That is Americans making profit. But you know what happens in this country instead? Mega corporations propagate false information so that they can control the masses. What does that sound like? Are you getting rich parroting back misinformation? Or are you a slave to those who are making money while you fight their fights for them?
  - Hans
    
    Types like you are so afraid of communism, that in reality is long dead and buried, that you don’t notice that you are ruled by corporations.
- question
  
  This is again not even close to true… point to a single nation where the hydrogen economy is developed to even a fraction of the solar economy. You can’t, because there aren’t any! Hydrogen may have an important role in our renewable future, but right now the battle is in primary energy generation. After all, hydrogen fuel is simply an energy storage and transfer technology. And not one that is really ready for prime time yet. Once we have made more significant progress in the primary energy generation area (for example, reducing coal emissions to close to zero) we’ll have plenty of time to get hydrogen right.
  - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
    
    Hydrogen Highways:
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_highway
    
    http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
    
    Germany Invests in Hydrogen Technology for Renewable Storage, Vehicles
    
    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/germany-invests-in-hydrogen-technology-for-renewable-storage-vehicles
    
    England: ITM Power has been awarded a grant by the Technology Strategy Board to build and integrate a hydrogen energy storage and vehicle refuelling system on the Isle of Wight.
    
    http://renews.biz/story.php?page_id=74&news_id=2235
- dcard88
  
  And you believe we can shoot down missiles with lasers too, dont you, Mr Gullible Citzen
  - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
    
    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/13/business/la-fi-laser13-2010feb13
    
    “A flying Boeing 747 jumbo jet equipped with a massive laser gun shot down a Scud-like missile over the Pacific late Thursday night, marking what analysts said was a major milestone in the development of the nation’s missile defense system.
    
    The test shoot-down at 8:44 p.m. over a military test range near Point Mugu is expected to renew debate over spending billions of dollars for a system that is years behind schedule and derided by some as irrelevant in today’s conflicts.”
    - dcard88
      
      2 years ago?!? and you think this is a viable technology? A single test? I would be happy to wager it will be a decade before any country has a usable system. Designed in teh mid 90’s. 15 years later – no system
- Hans
  
  Hydrogen makes only sense as a storage technology for renewable energies. Bush cut funding for renewables and invested money in hydrogen storage. It made no sense.
  - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
    
    Hydrogen can be made from water using sunlight.
    
    When consumed in a fuel cell, or “burned” it reverts back to water.
    
    It is the ultimate fuel. The ultimate renewable.
    
    Which is why the Hydrogen Initiative under Bush was the best spent energy research dollars ever.
    
    When a child gets emphysema because his school is close to a railroad or interstate, and he breathes diesel fumes all day, you can thank Mr. Obama for that.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Your first two sentences are correct. But you fail to include all the facts.
      
      Hydrogen is nothing but a storage system. Making hydrogen from water using renewable electricity is very inefficient. It’s much more efficient to use that electricity directly in vehicles.
      
      We’re years away from reasonably priced and long lasting fuel cells. EVs and PHEVs are on the road now.
      
      Were we to move to hydrogen as a energy storage systems we would have to build massive infrastructure to manufacture and distribute hydrogen. The electric grid is already in place.
      
      EVs and PHEVs are likely to increase in range and drop in price over the next few years. While we’re still figuring out how to make and distribute hydrogen. EVs and PHEVs will be “locked into” the market because of their low operation cost.
      
      In order to fuel cell/hydrogen vehicles to establish a market presence they would have to offer either vastly superior performance or vastly cheaper purchase/operating prices. I don’t see how they do that.
      
      Hydrogen is the ultimate renewable fuel only if you ignore electricity.
      - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
        
        The point of hydrogen is baseload.
        
        Power plants need to keep a constant voltage, or baseload. They do this by spinning up coal generators in excess of what they need and adding that power to the grid (or taking it away). Because coal “stores energy”.
        
        Hydrogen, a fuel, stores energy. So it can be used in fuel cells as needed — at night, or in low wind. That is the value.
        
        EVs are inherently inefficient because batteries scale to the size of the storage of electricity. Right now, a Toyota Prius has a curb weight of over 3000 lbs — more than my KIA Spectra! And 700 lbs of that is battery.
        
        Hydrogen storage tanks are is miniscule and they don’t scale linearly to the size of the energy stored.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        OK, saw “fuel” in the email feed and assumed vehicle fuel.
        
        Hydrogen – not baseload. Fill-in possibly.
        
        Lots of ways to store energy. Hydrogen might be one we would use. It might be fine for very deep backup – rare long periods of little solar/wind input. It’s not likely to be used for normal storage – it’s just too “lossy” when compared to utility scale batteries.
        
        —
        
        To say that EVs are inherently inefficient is to admit that you don’t have facts in hand. EVs put about 90% of the energy input into moving the vehicle. Batteries are heavy right now, but that is very likely to improve.
        
        There’s a tradeoff between vehicle weight and system efficiency. It’s not likely that hydrogen will win this one.
    - Hans
      
      And did Bush invest in technologies that actually created hydrogen from sunlight? Let me help you, the answer is “no”. The whole hydrogen program was just a red herring to distract from his pampering of the fossil fuel industry, and his destruction of environmental regulation. So thank Bush for the emphysema.
      - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
        
        Under the Hydrogen Initiative funding was supplied to basic science such as nanotechnology.
        
        This resulted in breakthroughs such as that by Nocera of MIT who created “artificial leaves”. These use sunlight directly to catalyze water and separate the hydrogen. 100% clean.
      - Hans
        
        Nocera is still doing research on the topic of creating hydrogen, so apparently the government provided some other funding.
        
        But enough nitpicking let’s focus on the bigger picture:
        
        Research like that of Nocera only got some crums from the budget. Most of the money went to hydrogen storage, implementation in cars, and production of hydrogen by nuclear power plants, and from fossil fuels.
        
        This made no sense. If he would have been serious about a hydrogen economy, and would have understood the basic concept, he would have funded renewable energy research at least equally to hydrogen storage technologies.
        
        If you are concerned about emphysema you should be angry about the continued efforts of the republican party to dismantle environmental standards.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I doubt a “hydrogen economy” is taken seriously.
        
        There’s plenty of basic research ongoing that is dealing with production, storage and utilization Hydrogen just can’t compete with electricity when it comes to transportation.
        
        There might be a role for long term energy storage but we’re so far from needing long term storage that there is no need to pump major money in that direction.
      - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
        
        Unworkable battery cars cannot go far, expend lots of energy in uphill or other stress situations. They also carry around the detriment of heavy expensive batteries that need to be replaced every 80,000 miles or so. The batteries in a small car like the Prius weigh 700 lbs!
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Unworkable? Depends on what you need.
        
        For a household which has more than one car and at least one of them essentially never travels further than the EV range, then an EV is 100% workable.
        
        For someone who mostly travels no more than the range of a PHEV but does need to go further at times, then a PHEV is 100% workable. 30 or more miles on electricity and then hybrid mileage all day long.
        
        A combination of EVs and PHEVs could cut our oil use more than 75%. Right now.
        
        (BTW, battery guarantees are generally 100,000 miles. About what the very best engine guarantees run. The Toshiba SCiB lithium-ion battery is rated at 2,000 cycles. In a 100 mile range EV that’s a 200,000 mile life expectancy.)
      - http://yrihf.com John Bailo
        
        Storage is as important as creation, but the bottom line is hydrogen is workable right now.
        
        That is why manufacturers have been shifting up dates for going to regular production with fuel cell vehicles.
        
        As far as Republican vs. Democrat, Republicans “policy” is not regulation but innovation…like Bush’s Hydrogen Initiative. Trying to legislate the technology that creates the current power grid is a joke at best…however, putting money into nanotechnology and hydrogen, like Bush did, creates the next leap in clean energy production and storage.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Hydrogen is not workable now, at least at an affordable price.
        
        Making hydrogen from natural gas is a loser.
        
        Making, compressing, and distributing hydrogen using renewable energy wastes a lot of energy. We have no affordable long-lasting fuel cells. The overall efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is too low to make them a player.
        
        Republicans have no policy of innovation. That’s a Ryan-level lie.
        
        Republicans attempt to kill research and innovation money as often as possible. Unless it’s designed for the pockets of their major contributors.
        Bush – joke of the Century. A really bad, bad joke which we’ll be paying for many, many years into the future. Just look at what he did to our national debt….
    - Malaclypse
      
      I just want to point out that there is some interesting hydrogen related research going on in Germany: producing methane from H2+CO2.
      
      Splitting water to get H2 and putting it in a high pressure atmosphere with CO2 makes CH4. This takes away the major difficulties of storing H2 (due to it being highly corrosive), which makes it 100% compatible with the existing natural gas storage and distribution network.
      
      Apparently this technology has the highest potential in terms of storing energy for long periods of time. In addition wind+NG is highly complimentary, due to the quick response time of gas turbines.
      
      http://www.iwes.fraunhofer.de/en/abteilungen/energiewirtschaft/energy_economy_andsystemsanalysis/staff/personal_energiewirtschaftundsystemanalyse/norman_gerhardt.html
- http://www.facebook.com/jacob.stai.94 Jacob Stai
  
  …
  …?
  
  Really? You want me to imagine that Bush had some moralistic desire to allocate $1 billion of small-government funding in order to find ways to make the world cleaner and greener, and then decided, just on the side, to slash a few environmental protections while he was at it? What really strains the gullible mind is the idea that George Bush was trying to be some sort of techno-enviro-hero. His record suggests otherwise.
  
  True breakthroughs in hydrogen have been few and far between. I don’t really know of any. Yes, we’ve learned an awful lot about hydrogen systems over the years, but most of that learning has simply confirmed what we already knew; that hydrogen fuel cells require a lot of time, a lot of energy, and too much scarce and expensive metal, i.e., platinum. Look up if you want to know why platinum should be so prohibitive.
Alienated

Unfortunately, I am so tired of hearing that “the entire Republican Party is against science” that I am now unsubscribing from this blog. I am a lifelong Republican, I happen to agree with many of the Party’s platforms….their stance on environmental issues is not one of them. But to hear you ream out anyone belonging to the party is NOT a great way to win supporters to OUR cause.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  What evidence can you give us that proves any more than a tiny minority of Republicans are “for” science?
- John
  
  Hey Alienated, I re-read the article and the author says clearly that those controlling the Republican party. But at no point in time does it say everyone. But to be fair, Newt got up and laughed and said, “Would you put algae in your car?” No Newt, algae is an unprocessed fuel, you wouldn’t put that in your car anymore than you would put oil in your gas tank. Then romney said you wouldn’t put a windmill on your car. No romney, no one has ever suggested that.
  Romney at one time liked renewable energy. Then Rush came out on national radio and said if he did, he wouldn’t get the nomination. The next day, romeny changed his stripes.
  In romneys energy plan, he mentions oil, 154 times, and climage change zero. What kind of energy policy is that, especially when governments all over the world are actually talking about it openly and with their citizens? Obama says we should use all of the above, including oil and natural gas. That makes sense, we can’t simply turn one off and the other on.
  Listen, I am not a fan of Obama, but he has an eneryg plan that is working. The republicans, well, independant sources say their plan is not possible. So yeah it seems a bit on the hating science side. But that doesn’t mean all republicans are bad, just those leading the party right now. As Republicans we should speak out and help guide our party. They are misaligned, thats all. Don’t take it personally.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  interesting that this post actually comes from a Republican.