CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power ernest moniz

Published on March 5th, 2013 | by Guest Contributor

3

DOE Secretary Nominee Ernest Moniz On Climate Change, Natural Gas, Cleantech, Nuclear Energy, & Energy Efficiency

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

March 5th, 2013 by
 
Reposted from Climate Progress:

ernest monizBy Rebecca Leber, with support from Tiffany Germain

President Obama nominated MIT physicist Ernest Moniz as Secretary of Energy to replace outgoing Steven Chu. In his announcement, Obama called Moniz a “brilliant scientist” who “knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, our water, and our climate.”

Here is where the nominee stands on the most important energy issues:

Climate Change and a Price On Carbon: According to the Washington Post, Moniz is “alarmed about climate change and devoted to funding scientific research into low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuel.” In a video interview, Moniz said, “What I believe is if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on cost, and it brings along a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push toward clean technology; it brings along with it a push toward security,” he said. A 2011 MIT gas study calls for greenhouse pollution reductions greater than 50 percent.

Energy Efficiency: A sign the DOE will continue to prioritize energy efficiency is Moniz’s own words on the topic. “The most important thing is lowering your use of energy in ways that actually save you money,’ he said. ‘It sounds trivial, but putting out lights really does matter.”

Solar Energy: He describes himself as “bullish” on solar energy. According to Solar Freedom Now, “He ‘gets’ the practical realities of solar R&D,” and has advised a number of solar finance and technology companies.

Nuclear Energy: Moniz has been embraced by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, for his long-time support of the industry. In 2011, he wrote that it would be a “mistake” to allow Japan’s nuclear disaster to “cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits” due to his belief that nuclear power can be a partial solution to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in the long-term.

Natural Gas: Moniz wrote that “natural gas truly is a bridge to a low-carbon future” in an academic report. He favors its use as “bridge” to transition to renewables: “For the next several decades, however, natural gas will play a crucial role in enabling very substantial reductions in carbon emissions.” But Moniz also warned that natural gas could slow the growth in clean energy.

Fracking: The Energy Department would have no jurisdiction over fracking policy even though Moniz supports the controversial drilling technique. Moniz has been criticized for a pro-fracking MIT report bankrolled by oil and gas companies. However, the MIT study also supports mandatory disclosure of fracking chemicals.

Some groups, such as Public Citizen and Food & Water Watch, have criticized Moniz over his support for natural gas and hydrofracking, since neither are particularly good for the environment or climate. According to The Hill, none of the largest environmental organizations opposes his nomination. The Sierra Club expressed hesitancy that “an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy policy only means more of the same.”

Following Obama’s announcement, Natural Resources Defense Council released a statement of support that said, “Professor Moniz has the hands-on experience and the expertise needed to help further the climate and energy goals our country urgently needs. His background, coupled with his long history of constructive engagement with, and at, the Energy Department, will serve the American people well.” Republicans like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) also back Moniz’s nomination, calling him someone “we could work with.”

ThinkProgress War Room Senior Climate/Energy Researcher Tiffany Germain contributed research to this post.

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.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

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



  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1009991842 Ron Wagner

    Natural gas has allowed America to far surpass CO2 and pollution emission improvements of Europe which is just now fracking, and has been relying on solar and wind. They have had to import our coal to keep their energy going. Their electricity costs over twice what we pay.

    • Otis11

      But NG is merely a stop-gap energy source, not the end solution, so while we may have reduced our CO2 more than them (If we have? I’m not so sure that’s true) we will have to build out an entirely new Renewable energy grid while they are already 20% to the final solution.

      Second, Europe is importing coal to keep going because they decided to shut down nuclear instead of coal. Their RE has been exploding, power 15% of their entire energy mix. And while their use of coal has actually declined over the past 5 years, it hasn’t declined as much as it could because, Like I said, their 1st priority is removing nuclear, which they have done ahead of schedule.

      As for the point on price – Europe’s energy costs have always been much more expensive than the US’s energy costs for a variety of reasons, but all of them predate RE becoming a significant source of energy and as such, are not because of their choices related to RE. Some of the more recent choices MAY have impacted this price, but not nearly to the level most people think, and we cannot realistically compare Europe’s cost to ours because of the original price disparity.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

        Furthermore, look at the starting points of the US vs Europe. Europe is far ahead, making cuts harder.

Back to Top ↑