In a Choice Election on Energy, Voters Favoring Obama
As the presidential campaign enters its home stretch and voters start making up their minds based on each candidate’s policy positions, 2012 is becoming a clear choice election on energy issues. And on energy, Americans heavily favor Barack Obama and clean energy technology.
This shift away from a fossil-fueled future is highlighted by a new USA Today/Gallup poll that finds Obama leading Mitt Romney by 13 points on energy issues. Respondents were asked which candidate they thought was better equipped to handle energy, and Obama received 53 percent of support, compared to just 40 percent for Romney.
The poll was conducted in the days immediately before Romney unveiled his plan to create American energy independence by 2020 by expanding oil drilling, approving the Keystone XL pipeline, loosening environmental regulations, and encouraging states to control energy production like fracking within their borders.
Shockingly, it was first teased at a fundraiser where Romney raised millions from oil company executives. Even more shockingly, his plan mentions climate change zero times while mentioning oil 154 times. Energy analysts have already called Romney’s plan unrealistic and his goal “almost impossible to reach.”
While Obama has encouraged the production of oil and gas resources, his overall platform couldn’t be more different. In the first four years of the Obama presidency, major investments have been made in renewable electricity, energy efficiency, electric and hybrid vehicles, and smart grid technology. These actions have doubled the amount of energy generated by renewables in the U.S. since 2008, and contributed to 3.1 million green jobs – compared to 780,000 in oil, gas, and coal.
Additionally, Obama wants to extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), a 2.2 cent credit paid to wind producers for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce. The PTC has generated around $1 billion in annual revenue for wind farms and, if extended, is forecast to create 54,000 new green jobs. Romney has said he would let the PTC expire, a move expected to cost the economy 37,000 jobs. Uncertainty over the PTC has already led to layoffs within the industry, and considering fossil fuel subsidies are roughly ten times renewable subsidies, killing the PTC while maintaining oil tax breaks doesn’t seem to make much economic sense.
But beyond energy technology, a clear choice exists on environmental and climate change issues. A new election guide from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions shows voters have a clear choice in 2012 – energy policy based on finite fossil fuels with no regard for climate change, or energy policy that supports renewable energy while reducing emissions.
This isn’t to say Obama’s energy and environmental record is ideal in every way – it’s not. In a perfect world, he could have pushed harder for cap-and-trade policy in 2008, clearly opposed the Keystone XL pipeline, or prevented new oil, gas, and coal leases. But a Romney administration would mean significant steps backward on climate, renewables, and clean tech.
I’m not ecstatic over Obama’s record, but with the world well past 350 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we’re out of time to stop progress toward a clean energy future. I’m an energy and climate voter, and on these issues, he’s got my vote. From the looks of polling, it seems like he’s got a lot of other energy-issue votes too.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
The article is biased in favor of Barack Obama and Clean Energy, despite the fact alot of the money spent has been wasted on efforts like Solyndra and he has stood in the way of fossil fuel exploration and production and even natural gas on federal land. All of the progress on energy during his administration has been on private land.
Of course it’s biased toward Barack Obama and Clean Energy — this is a website promoting clean energy, something that Republicans seem to be staunchly opposed to. Perhaps if Republicans weren’t gutting education, more people would have better reading comprehension and realize this…
I am a republican and am certainly NOT against clean energy….
…also, I am not sure if getting the unions out of education is “gutting” it
I am a republican too, totally for clean energy, I work in the field. But I feel that people are totally misinformed about its true capabiliy to create grid-compatible electricity on a large scale at this point.
You guys say that about any article that gives Obama credit for anything, guess you don’t care about the planet you live on huh
The planet we live on will take care of itself…at the expense of us, the humans. This planet has survived worse than we’ll ever put out however we, the humans, will not survive what we put out. We are destroying ourselves, our air, not the earth. It will go on living long long after we are gone.
Humans are resilient and many are good. Many will survive and prosper. Im not afraid, we will find solutions.
You do know that hair spray is bad for the environment don’t you?
I very much care about the environment, I just contend how much wind or solar are legitimate solutions. This may be surprising coming from someone who works in the solar industry. Most people dont understand the real costs associated with making these intermittent renewable energy sources (solar/wind) compatible with the electrical grid. The grid requires a constant predictable supply for large scale generators. Wind and solar deployed at a large scale (>20% generation) really isnt feasible right now because the costs of energy storage or backup generation to make them grid compatible would be absolutely astronomical. Obama is putting money into these industries to appease environmentally minded voters. But he is undermining our true desire to get away from fossil fuels because there is no possibility that renewables can do it for us at this point. Renewables should be subsidized on an R&D not commercial level. Natural gas is actually doing more to decrease emissions right now than wind or solar are capable of. The increased use of natural gas and decreased price due to fracking have lowered the overall US emission rate to the lowest its been since 1992. This is because natural gas is much cleaner than coal and has displaced it for much of the US baseload generation. Romney will work to ensure a steady supply of cheaper natural gas to keep emissions down while working to remove barriers for emissions free nuclear. He has the right strategy, Obama is wasting money by subsidizing impractical renewables, preventing fracking on federal land, delaying the oil pipeline, and not investing in nuclear development. Spread the word.
So many things wrong in such a short post…
First, Solyndra was largely a Bush administration project. The loan guarantee money was created during Bush’s time in office and the DOE committee that approved the loan guarantee was established while Bush was in office. (The CEO of Solyndra was a Republican.)
Second, Solyndra had a winning idea. It would have created a lot of American jobs and put a lot of solar on rooftops but it was wiped out by the rapid fall in PV solar prices. Something that no one saw coming.
Third, when the loan guarantee program was set up it was recognized that not all projects were likely to succeed. Solyndra didn’t, and it represented a very small percentage of the overall program. A small part of the expected fail rate that the Republican House wrote into the bill.
Fourth, PBO in no way has stood in the way of exploration and production for oil and natural gas on federal land. That is a huge pile of dishonesty. He did call a halt to deep water oil drilling until the drillers could get emergency plans and equipment in place to deal with a possible blowout. I suspect you recall how they were not ready to deal with the Miconda disaster?
Fifth, in no way was all the progress on energy during PBO’s administration been on public land. That’s just a dumb statement.
Perhaps you should speak with Tonto. Let him help you get some facts beneath your cowboy hat. You’re shooting blanks.
I agree except for “Solyndra had a winning idea”. Since no solar PV company currently has a soltuion for making intermittent PV grid compatible on a large scale then none of them are winners. We need to fund research into answering this question or invest in other solutions (wind or nuclear). Commercial PV penetration is very limited right now and commercial subsidies are a waste of money.
Again. We are under 1% solar. Way under. It will take a few more years to reach 1%.
The grid can easily accept 5% solar. Right now. No additional generation, no additional storage, no modifications. Just turn off dispatchable sources when solar is supplying.
Solar, right now, will bring down the cost of electricity because it produces during peak demand times and eliminates expensive peaker power.
Give these a read…
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/solar-pv-reducing-price-of-electricity-in-germany/ http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/23/german-solar-bringing-down-price-of-afternoon-electricity-big-time-more-charts-facts/
And check this bit that I copied from another site…
Powers also shared with the *Reader* an article he penned for the September issue of*Natural Gas & Electricity Journal*, which argues that while the need for these new “peaker” plants, designed to come online quickly in the event extra power is needed for a temporary event, is already low, *their utility will be further diminished as the spread of on-site solar power in both residential and commercial reduces strain on the power grid during typical midday times of peak demand*. In the article, Powers actually suggests that due to the adoption of localized solar power, *these midday hours that have historically strained the grid most as consumers crank up the air conditioning will actually transition into the times of lowest demand*, since the same excess sunshine that drives electricity demand will be providing the power needed to stave off future energy emergencies.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2012/aug/23/san-diego -had-surplus-power-even-during-recent-hea/
@Bob_Wallace:disqus Ive been giving you a hard time. I really agree with you for the most part. I happen to have a 6kW monocrystalline system on my roof. But you are missing the fundamental point of my argument which is: sure solar and wind can provide a decent chunk of energy supply, but they cant make us emission free. Nuclear can. You’ve been touting the potential and future costs of PV and wind but dont you realize that there are a whole league of optimists that feel the same way about nuclear? There are reasons that Bill Gates, China, India, and Korea are all betting big on nuclear. Look up thorium and traveling wave reactors. Also modular reactor designs such as the AP1000 definetely decrease cost by virtue of expediting the regulatory process not by dropping production costs. Nuclear can make the world emission free. Don’t close your mind to it.
The lifetime carbon footprint of nuclear is higher than that of wind and solar. It’s low compared to coal and NG, but it’s higher than wind and solar.
Bill Gates is not someone I would put on my expert list. He’s willing to give some money to research new nuclear tech, and that’s a good thing. But as of now he has no product.
China is greatly increasing their wind and solar installations and has been giving hints about cutting back on nuclear.
Do notice that the places where you are talking about nuclear being built are places that will use public, not private, money to build. And I wouldn’t count too much on India, there’s a lot of opposition to nuclear building. And a lot of solar and wind being installed.
I don’t need to look up thorium or traveling wave generation.
There are no thorium or traveling wave reactors producing market-priced electricity. They are unproven technology. If someone builds one that generates affordable electricity then we can consider more. Until then, fairy dust….
Hey I appreciate you responding to my comments I have learned a lot from your answers and provided links. It is beneficial to debate because I am learing more. There are publications that will point to the contrary in PV vs nuclear CO2 emissions, and you have to factor in the cost and environmental factors included in future storage technologies. If someone builds a dispatchable PV plant that generates affordable electricity then we can consider more. Until then, fairy dust….. Thanks
Now you’re just making stuff up. There’s no need for dispatchable PV solar. PV is on route to being very inexpensive and we’ll use it when it’s available. Use something else when it isn’t.
We might store some – and that would be dispatchable.
We’re also building thermal solar with molten salts heat storage. That will be dispatchable.
Take a look at the Aquion and MIT liquid metal battery technologies. Prices promise to be very cheap and there are no environmental issues.
For a grid powered by a majority of renewables they have to be somewhat controllable. not making stuff up.
Well, dud. Of course there has to be adequate control over supply and demand to keep the grid running.
Use wind,solar, tidal and wave when they present. Fill in with storage and use dispatchable load to cut demand when supply is low.
I didn’t even bring biogas into the mix. Sewage/feedlot/landfill methane is a carbon neutral fill-in source.
Given the true costs of wind and solar due to their intermittent nature, these sources of energy require very costly energy storage or back-up generation capabilities in order to be grid compatible at a significant contribution to overall production. To meet electricity demand for the entire US by Photovoltaic power would require 10 billion 300 watt panels at $3/watt installed + the costs of backup or energy storage + a smart grid to manage it all. Do the math for yourself and you will likely conclude that it simply isn’t a feasible option at this point.
Nuclear is truly safe, cost effective, and scalable. It is the real solution at this point in time. Solar should maintain funding as an R&D pursuit, but subsidizing it commercially is detracting from solutions that are practical right now. Nuclear.
nuclear safe??? wishful thinking… I honestly wish it were, however it is simply not….
No man, do your research on three-mile island and fukushima. The fatalaties of these “disasters” can be counted on one hand. New designs are even safer. Do some research before you make up you mind on this I beg you. google the hell out of the topic and you will be astonished about how much fear-mongering the media does on this topic. All of the unreasonable fear drives up regulation and insurance costs for the plants too. My guess is that coal, oil, and natural gas corporations spread a lot of the misinformation about nuclear safety. Bill Gates, Nathan Myhrvold, Vinod Khosla, and Richard Branson all realize that it is the only feasible non-fossil fuel energy source and are investing greatly into it. Do some research and tell me I’m wrong.
I’m sure the 80,000 people evacuated from their homes in a 12 mile radius of the plant and not able to return for possibly decades will find it consoling to know that nuclear is in fact so safe.
Umm yea 80,000 people evacuated, not one fatality. Did i mention that one of the worst Earth Quakes in history had occured? New nuclear reactors can be safe in the same scenario, but it would still be best if they were forbidden from seismic zones.
How about you do some research on how many close misses we’ve had and how miserably nuclear plants have been run?
New designs will still be built and operated by Homers. We’ve had enough of that, thank you.
Ive done that research thank you. I dont think you have. Please look up the Westinghouse AP1000, the traveling wave reactor, and thorium reactors and evaluate the evolving safety.
The price is too high.
The time to build is too long.
The technology is unproven.
There are not enough sites to build as many reactors as we would need.
Renewables are cheaper, faster and safer.
*the power is dispatchable
Some nuclear plants can be turned down a bit. But here’s the thing that really kills nuclear…
——-
OK, you build a nuclear plant. In order to break even you have to sell your power for 15 cents. (Use 12 cents if it makes you feel better.)
You have to sell for that price 24/365 (minus expected refueling time). You’ve got a great big loan to pay and a lot of capex to recover, can’t “dispatch” them.
Someone builds a wind farm in your area and starts producing power at 5 cents. Let’s say the wind produces strongly 50% of the time. You can’t shut down your costs so you have to drop your price to less that of wind in order to get wind to curtail. Half the time you will be loosing 11 cents per kWh.
In order to make up that 11 cent loss you will have to sell the other 50% of the time at 26 cents.
Solar comes along at 15 cents (current price) and grabs another 25% of the market. Now you’ve got to make up the loss to wind and the loss to solar in only 25% of the available hours. You’ve got to sell for 40(?) cents.
Did I mention that natural gas produces for about 5 cents?
Now, explain to your potential investors how you are going to make any money at all.
We’re listening…..
I dont think i meant dispatchable. I think I meant constant. Why does nuclear have to curtail generation? The dispatchable cushion will probably remain NG, it will deal with load variability and reverse load variability. So maybe not 100%nuclear. Also your numbers are biased. not every site produces wind for 5 cents. Goodnight
Read it again.
How do you make money selling into a market when your competition can sell for less than you?
‘Splain that to me….
I’ll simplify it for you. Wind, solar and natural gas produce electricity cheaper than nuclear can.
In the best of all worlds we would not be considering natural gas because it adds to our GHG problems, but the world is not ready to deal with that problem yet. The world will make its decision on cost. A hunk of wind, a hunk of solar, and a hunk of NG makes for 24/365 power at less than the cost of nuclear.
Where does more expensive nuclear make any money?
‘Splain to me how you keep avoiding the topic of my argument which is wind and solar costs both have to take into account the need for some type of backup power due to their intermittent nature. Your LCOE estimates leave this part out. There will inevitably be some type of NG backup needed that will run idle during times of high wind/solar resource and this cost needs to be included. Wind and solar have their place in combination with dispatchable hydro or NG but nuclear makes sense as a non GHG baseload. Cheap and reliable battery storage could be a game changer. We’ll see what happens.
Lord, child, I’ve explained the 25%/35% – no new storage or fill-in needed over and over.
I’ve explained to you why EVs/PHEVs on the grid will raise those limits.
I’ve told you about what is in the pipeline in terms of large scale battery storage. And how we could covert existing dams to pump-up storage.
I didn’t bring dispatchable load into the conversation, but that’s another way that the grid deals with variability in supply/demand. That facility will grow as the grid gets smarter.
There was a very interesting study in which they balanced out the variability in a large solar array by linking output to the air circulation in a large building. They were able to keep supply/use level without the building occupants even noticing any change in air flow.
We do not charge the LCOE of nuclear with the 25GW of storage we built to carry its excess capacity forward to peak demand times.
You’re making absolute statements such as “(t)here will inevitably be some type of NG backup needed that will run idle” and “nuclear makes sense as a non GHG baseload” with too few facts under control.
We can fill in for wind and solar with dispatchable hydro and nuclear has a higher CO2 footprint than both wind and solar.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~msamano/renewable_intermittency.pdf Others predict a higher cost for storage. I hope it becomes real cheap as you believe it will. Nuclear has potential to become cheaper than coal. I have no problem with people who support wind or solar, but the implicationsm of next generation reactors are very promising regarding scalability and price. Neglecting to fund this area will be a mistake. Agree to disagree?
@silvio, do you understand/agree with the true costs of renewables as explained below? Please do research it, I know its hard to trust an anonymous post online for any credibility but I truly work as a engineer for a solar company and learning more about the electrical grid has made the true costs apparent.
Wind is much more practical for grid integration on a large scale because wind farms can be surrounded by anemometer sensors at the perimeter. This can tell the utility what the wind speed will be and how they should ramp up/ramp down supplemental gas turbines as a function of the wind farm output so that the supply to the grid remains stable. This is currently practiced in Texas. Also, wind turbines have rotating inertia, so loss of power is much more gradual than a solar panel that can lose 80% of its power more or less instantaneously as a result of cloud cover. Predicting cloud cover is much more difficult than measuring incoming wind.
Wind could power a decent portion of the country, but nuclear is absolutely necessary if we want to be 100% free from fossil fuel generation.
many, myself included consider the long term consequences of nuclear to be untenable…. wind does have some practical applications however there are certainly implications not yet discovered (after all nothing is truly free) , wind is basically unsightly, and I understand there may be harmonic issues. Actually, the real problem is simply over population…..
Please explain to me how nuclear is unsafe. Fatalaties in the western world from nuclear generation are less than any other significant production source. The fukushima disaster caused no fatalaties and left a mere 10 km of land surrounding the plant with dangerous radiation levels. Also it took one of the worlds worst earthquakes and the ensuing tsunami to cause this minimal damage. Newly designed reactors improve upon the failed fukushima design by implementing core cooling functions that are passive and dont rely on grid or backup power. All modern reactors are built to withstand terrorist attack via a direct hit by a boeing 747. Contrary to popular belief, weapons proliferation via nuclear waste is extremely difficult. Countries such as North Korea and Iran spend billions to unsuccessfully build nuclear weapons from nuclear waste. The likelihood of a foreign country obtaining US nuclear waste is slim to none. Storage is capable as demonstrated by the Yucca Mt proposal. The energy is cheap and new reactor types backed by Bill gates (terrapower) and others (thorium) look very promising with the prospect of creating no weapons grade material as a waste product at all. Nuclear is the answer for a prospering society of the future.
How is unclear unsafe… first, how about the life time of the byproducts, the materials and waste created and used in its production. how about the very simple concept of Murphys Law? and believe me it Murphys Law is precise and cannot be escaped.or ignored… you think that furushima was one of the worst incidents… wake up…Regarding proliferation… again wake up… Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, India, the US under an egomaniac such as, well anyone… do not be a fool…. be careful what you wish for
I’m wide awake, I have faith in mankind to use the nuclear resource safely. Don’t blindly accept what I say but really challenge it by doing some research. How many fatalaties have resulted from US nuclear waste storage? O yea, ZERO! How many fatalaties did Three Mile Island result in? O yea, ZERO! are modern nuclear reactors safer than previous generations? Absolutely, they contain passive and redundant safety mechanisms that dont require human intervention or outside power sources to function. They have been designed to account for catastrophic natural and terrorist events. US nuclear energy generation has nothing to do with the nuclear aspirations of foreign countries you mentioned. These countries wont have access to any of our waste. See the Yucca Mt proposal for how waste can be stored safely. Please explain to me how solar and wind can provide grid compatible electricity for a feasible cost if you think they are the real solution. Im guessing you are just misinformed about the true capabilities of wind and solar like so many others.
Apparently everyone forgot about the Solyndra debacle.
Really you are stuck on this one bad example when every other country on this planet is trying to go green we are bickering over one company that went bankrupt, shit happens and there’s a whole industry out there still getting shit done that you want to hamper because of one company
Solyndra is one of many…. the government should not get involved financing these types of things… perhaps some tax breaks might be in order…. in any even, you should see the movie 2016
Every major country in the world has a government that supports industry through direct loans and tax breaks. We compete with China, Japan and all of the EU. Ever hear of AirBus? How about the Japanese car industry? Or the way China highly subsidizes it electricity. Come out of your pipe dream.
@facebook-1686336003:disqus What you say is true but the difference is whether it is a good investment or not. Solar is an intermittent energy resource that would require a MAJOR investment in order for it to be compatible with the electrical grid on a large scale. The current technology isn’t feasible as a real solution at this point and should be a R&D investment rather than a commercial venture. The difference in scope, cost, and accomplishment in R&D funding and commercial subsidy is huge and it is why I wont vote for Obama. That money subsidy money should go to nuclear because it is a practical non carbon solution right now.
This R&D argument from Romney is BS. His real plan is business as usual with the dirty, dangerous fossil fuel and nuclear industries and to hell with the environmental and health costs of ignoring global warming.
I wouldn’t doubt that Romney in fact does not care very much about the environment or global warming. I definetely do care. Oddly enough Romney’s platform to utilize more natural gas in the short term, and enable nuclear energy more in the long term is really our best chance to become emissions free. R&D in solar PV is very robust worldwide, a breakthrough may come but it is a very instensely studied area and potential efficiencies arent all that high. I wouldn’t hold my breath that it can ever compete in cost. Sure I would be willing to pay the extra costs for solar and wind electricity but billions will not. Wind should certainly be used in areas with high wind resource, but it cant power the entire country.
Wind is now $0.05/kWh and expected to fall into the $0.03 to $0.04/kWh range soon.
Solar is expected to be under $0.10/kWh within five years. Ten cents per kWh for peak hour power is quite good.
Both prices include no subsidies.
Nuclear is a non-starter. It would produce electricity at somewhere around $0.15/kWh and that’s only with extensive subsidies. Plus nuclear takes too long to build and we have far too few available sites for the number of reactors we would need.
Right now we could generate 25% (Eastern grid) to 35% (Western grid) from renewables without any additional storage. We could use wind and solar when available and fill in with NG while we build storage. That would allow us to shut down all coal generation and curtail NG to some extent.
Our power would be cheaper in the long run.
Wind turbines last for at least 30 years. We’re just now taking down the 30 year old turbines at Altamont Pass, our first wind farm. They were starting to need maintenance. Newer, taller, more efficient turbines should last even longer. We’re now building turbines without gear trains, which were the parts that created the most maintenance costs.
When we calculate LCOE (levelized cost of energy) we generally use 20 years as the payoff period for the technology being considered. Those wind farms generating $0.03 to $0.05/kWh power over 20 years are going to generate even cheaper, almost free power for the next decade or two. They will be paid for and have no fuel costs.
Those solar panels generating $0.09.kWh power for 20 years will then generate electricity for close to $0.00/kWh for another 20, 30, ? years. They also have no fuel costs and almost no maintenance costs.
Natural gas plants will always need natural gas to make electricity. Can’t get around the fuel cost.
You can check LCOE prices here – http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/ – both historical and projected forward.
Yes Bob, agreed, Wind can supply a large amount of our power cost effectively, but not all of it. So why are you so adverse to nuclear producing a majority of the remaining baseload? would you rather rely on natural gas?
I want neither natural gas nor nuclear. I recognize that we will have a fair amount of NG on the grid for the next few years because that is what many utilities are building.
We are extremely unlikely to increase the amount of nuclear on the grid. We’re building two new reactors in Georgia and finishing one in Tennessee (Alabama? TVA project). The two existing reactors in San Diego are looking like they won’t restart, the repair price is too high and the need for their power has disappeared.
I’m afraid that we’ll have to accept a certain amount of NG but I think (can’t prove) that we are very close to affordable large scale battery storage.
Aquion is presently opening a factory and has stated that their first product will store electricity for $0.06/kWh. Charge up with $0.05/kWh wind and you’ve got power for less than what nuclear can provide.
Aquion has stated that they expect to get that price down to $0.015/kWh. And wind is headed to $0.04/kWh or a bit less. Natural gas price will almost certainly rise. When wind is up NG will be shut down. At some point stored wind will be cheaper than NG so NG will get shut down some more. As those plants get used less their cost of production rises, making renewables + storage even more competitive.
I see NG as a bridge we will be forced to use, but I expect NG generation to be on the decline within ten years.
Thnks for the info on Aquion. We also have to include costs for automated management of storage and generation system.
Costs am costs. Right now management costs are not included in LCOE but are included in grid price. All inputs have to be managed to match outputs.
I don’t know why batteries would cost more, in fact, they should cost less. Batteries are pretty much an ‘automatic’ supply source. If grid voltage falls below the set level on the inverter then batteries kick in. Almost instantly.
Managing the grid without batteries is more difficult. Grid managers have to keep something spinning, such as unloaded hyrdo turbines. Put a hunk of batteries on the grid and the job becomes a lot easier. The system gets a signal that batteries are being used and there will be time to decide whether or not to start warming up a gas turbine. 15 minutes of battery storage would make grid management much easier. That would give plenty of time to bring a gas turbine up to speed.
It would be hard to find any technology that did not receive government assistance to get up and going.
The computer you are using, the internet, the power grid – they all received massive government assistance. Trains, planes, ships and highways.
If the government did not get involved we would be far, far behind where we are now.
Yes but please comment on the cost of making intermittent solar power grid compatible on a large scale. New technology needs to be invented for this and costs accounted for. Since the solution doesn’t exist yet we should be investing in R&D, not subsidizing commercialization. Its a difference in investment strategy. But hell Nuclear works right now.
The cost of making variable solar power grid compatible on a ~5% of total generation?
Zero.
Zero.
Get it up close to 1% and the cost of electricity will come down. We’ve seen that in Germany and we are starting (apparently) to see that in Southern California.
It will take us a few years to get above 5% solar even at accelerating rates of installation we’re now seeing.
Add up the dispatchable hydro and the natural gas generation on the grid and that will tell you how much solar (and daytime wind) we can utilize. When the Sun is out and the wind is blowing we can save our water and gas.
5% solar is 5%. Nuclear + Wind + Hydro could do 100% without CO2.
50% solar + 50% wind + ample storage is essentially carbon free.
Add hydro in as a storage system since much of it is dispatchable. Add in some tidal and some geothermal. Perhaps some wave. All are cheaper than nuclear.
Nuclear is just too expensive and takes too long to build. We have no solution for nuclear waste. Thorium is an unproven technology, so far no one has built a thorium reactor that produces even expensive power.
50% wind + 50% solar + ample storage at a reasonable cost is unproven. All the prices for solar and wind you have given are based on the best possible resources and the discount rate you are assuming is debatable. Thanks for the discussion. We’ll see what the future holds, my bet is clearly on nuclear energy.
You could look up the prices on the EIA site I linked for you.
Here – I’ll post it again – http://en.openei.org/apps/TCDB/
You have not explained how the owner of a nuclear plant can make money competing against NG, wind and solar. Unless you can explain how then you are putting your money on the nose of a nag that may not make it out of the starting gate….
We’re bickering because it was $500 million that Solyndra lost. Obama left the taxpayers holding the bag (against govt rules) instead of the company execs who are his political backers. Obama is using green energy as a tool to downsize the US. It takes decades to convert fron one technology to another. He’s tried to do it in 4 years.
The CEO of Solyndra was a Republican.
No backer of PBO received any of the Solyndra money and no backer of PBO was in line to make money from Solyndra.
Right now we are exporting about a billion dollars a day in order to obtain oil. Moving to green energy and electric transportation will keep that almost $400 billion dollars a year inside the country and it can be spent on things here. That’s downsizing?
Downsizing is when Romney/Bain take over an American company and ship its jobs overseas. That’s downsizing.
Actually it’s a great example of how O wrecklessly spends American taxpayers money without researching the strength of a company.
Why don’t you get upset about the $500 billion per year in health costs coal causes? You don’t even have to believe the peer reviewed climate scientists on global warming to see that coal imposed huge external costs on the economy.
True, Coal sucks, natural gas is cheaper the easiest and least controversial step is to replace all coal in the US with natural gas. This would cut CO2 emissions in half.
Horsefeathers. Solyndra was largely approved under Bush. The application was not fully completed and was sent back to be completed.
Bush tried to get the uncompleted loan guarantee granted before he left office so that he would have something green on his resume.
When returned, the very same group of people who worked under Bush approved the loan guarantee.
Going green is absolutely the goal, its all about how you try to achieve it. Solar right now just plain and simply is not feasible on a large scale. Whole cities will not be powered by solar anytime soon due to the high capital costs, and low intermittent yield. It is a bad commercial investment at this point because it is not grid compatible on a large scale without backup generation or supplemental energy storage. Therefore WE SHOULDNT SUBSIDIZE IT UNTIL MORE R&D MAKES IT VIABLE! Wind is half way there. and Nuclear is the real winner. Also, more natural gas extraction means less coal burning. Emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992 due to fracking. Bottom line is:nuclear + natural gas + domestic oil + no wasteful solar subsidies = vote for Romney
The Romney plan is a poke in the eye to anyone that seriously wants to shift the energy supply to sustainable sources not subject to supply and costs shocks, war deaths and health costs.
Ok, explain to me the costs and feasibility involved in powering the entire country on solar and wind please?
No. Just because Obama put money into that doesn’t mean he had forseen knowledge it would go bankrupt….he didn’t run the company. Put the blame where it belongs…the company’s owners and how they didn’t spend their money properly.
No, put the blame on no one. Not Obama, not Bush who was the major supporter of Solyndra, not on Solyndra’s management.
Solyndra had a good idea. They started building a large factory in order to expand their business and bring more affordable solar to rooftops.
The price of solar PV fell very rapidly which no one anticipated. That undercut Solyndra’s product.
I can’t find anyone at fault for Solyndra’s failure. Just like one would not hold the manufacturer’s of typewriters at fault for their company’s failure when computers were invented and destroyed their business.
@Bob_Wallace:disqus You are right, Bush is equally or more to blame for Solyndra.
No one is to blame for Solyndra. Solyndra was a decent approach for cutting the price of solar. Someone else just came up with an even better approach.
No one – no one – predicted the rapid drop in PV solar that happened. Do a search of the news and see if you can find one single prediction that made it to print.
Lots and lots and lots and lots of Monday morning quarterbacking going on with Solyndra.
The quarterback threw a perfect pass. The wide end ran a perfect pattern and was open in the end zone.
No one saw the sea gull swooping in on its way to crash into the ball….
Solyndra never really had a chance because it launched based on a thin-film PV technology with the value proposition that thin-film was cheaper than silicon. Once silicon dropped in price due to huge Chinese subsidies ($30 billion USD in one year) Solyndra didnt have a prayer to compete. Not many market experts saw this coming and the whole PV industry has been rocked by China’s subsidies. Obama shouldn’t invest in PV yet because it isn’t practical yet. It is an intermittent power source and making it produce dispatchable grid compatible energy on a large scale has not been figured out yet. Obama is just trying to look good. Commercial subsidies will do little at this point. R&D could make the difference.
PV is more than practical now.
PV on the grid is bringing down peak prices. It is making power cheaper for everyone in places where an adequate amount has been installed.
We don’t need R&D for PV solar. Obviously it would be smart to do more research and improve the product, but panel prices are already low enough.
The problem in the US is permitting and paperwork costs. Panel, hardware and labor prices are low enough. The real costs are under $2/watt. It’s the non-system costs that are keeping installed prices too high.
Germany is installing at an average cost of just over $2/watt because they have minimized the non-system costs, which we have not yet done.
If we got our installed price (no subsidies) down to $2/watt then one could put panels on their roof and lock down the price of their electricity at $0.09/kWh or less in the lower 48 (except for the upper PNW coast). Their electricity price would be frozen at $0.09/kWh or less for 20 years and then would be free for another 20+ years.
What we really need right now is for the federal government to work with state and local governments to make the permitting process efficient and cheap.
For ~5%
A lot of companies fail. So, if you invest in companies, a certain percentage are going to fail. Deal with it. If you want to be on the cutting edge, then you have to take risks. It was not a debacle. Republicans just screamed about it so much that people think it was a failure. The government wasn’t picking winners and losers, it was subsidizing a new technology. If America wants to succeed in the future, it needs to be forward-looking now. Republicans can only see short-term profit and losses, while Democrats see long term investments.
I agree, investing is a risky venture. But when Governments invest tax payer money they have the responsibility to make a more informed decision. Solar is not commercially viable at this point and therefore should not be commercially subsidized. R&D funding is much more appropriate.
There was nothing wrong with the decision to fund.
An unknown, rapid fall in PV prices, occurred and killed the business. You can’t hold anyone at fault for that.
True, no one seemed to see the drop in silicon prices coming. I still think commercial subsidies are kind of a waste for PV though. This money should go to R&D. Current PV technology isn’t likely to supply a significant portion of our electricity. Innovation could allow it to.
We are now manufacturing solar for about $0.75/Watt and should be down to $0.50/W soon. That is cheap enough to make solar viable.
More research is great, but we are already on track to solar for about $0.30/W. Research might get us there quicker or it might make panels more efficient, lowering mounting/shipping/installation costs, but that’s minor.
We’ve got something good enough. Something that will pay for itself in 20 years and give us free power for another 20. We need to take big bite out of CO2 emissions.
Install the hell out of what we have. If we invent something better, then we can change over.
I agree to an extent, Its just that we cant supply a large portion of grid electricity at the costs that people talk about due to intermittency. We need to put money into a solution that is scalable to meet a larger portion of our energy needs.
Also, solar prices are artificially low right now, Maybe you are right and they go down quickly but I don’t think there is any guarantee.
No, they are not artificially low. Solar prices have fallen rapidly and will fall further.
First Solar (IIRC) us at $0,.76/watt and projects $0.50/watt in 2-3 years.
The entire solar industry agrees that prices will continue to fall.
Nobody seems interested in hydro, waterwheels or hydrogen
Wrong.
Are you serious? I have an active submission with NYSERDA, the state agency, but cannot get anything from DOE, because Obama is catering to foreign despots. For anything to happen, Obama would have to talk exports.
This was your claim – ”
Nobody seems interested in hydro, waterwheels or hydrogen”
We are in the process of converting some existing dams to electricity producers. The federal government has conducted studies to find which other dams might be converted and where we could install run of the river generation.
“Waterwheels”, I doubt there is much interest in waterwheels, but developments are being made in water turbine technology. Clearly someone is interested in this part of the hardware.
Hydrogen – there is a tremendous amount of research being carried out how to better generate hydrogen, how to store it, and how to build a better fuel cell.
Your claim is simply 100% incorrect.
No one is taking your submission seriously? Perhaps you didn’t get your facts together for that either.
You certainly didn’t get your facts together when you inaccurately claim that PBO is catering to foreign despots. You might want to take a look at Libya and Syria to check your facts. Or how he’s dealing with Putin.
Sorry, you’re a fount of misinformation….
Some dams? The Hydro Association says only 3% of existing dams generate electricity.
There is already excess wind and hydro that Obama refuses to use to generate hydrogen, which could supplement natural gas u to 20%.
And not only do waterwheels work, they would generate electricity more than 90% cheaper than wind or solar ever could, but like Harry Reid’s taxes, Obama not only has his own facts and figures but will not disclose anything. Water flows 24 7 365 and is not only 865 times heavier than air but can be scaled up.
What engineering school did you go to?
We are converting more dams to electricity producers. 3% is increasing.
There is little extra wind and hydro. It does not occur regularly enough and in an adequately localized area to support a hydrogen plant. Extra hydro is generally in the spring. Extra wind is generally in the spring.
The fact that you have an “idea” and can’t get anyone to take your idea seriously, then spend energy lashing out at public figures who don’t recognize your genius, well, a certain odor starts to creep into the conversation….
The fact you claim no excess winr showe how expensive and wasteful wind is.
As for waterwheels, I am okay with Mitt and Dubya, but again, Obama has his own facts wnd figures.He clearly refuses to export, for example.
Still no engineering background. Sort of like Obama never having run a lemonade stand or a garage sale.
Perhaps you could rewrite that comment so that it is understandable?
$ 4 per gal for fuel before elections. my vote goes to Mitt
It will be higher than $4 if he is elected…he needs that money to line him pockets.
Mitt is counting on people like you.
People who don’t understand that there is no more cheap oil.
We’ve burned the easy to get to, cheap to extract/transport/refine oil. Now we’re having to go further and expend more energy to get it out of the ground and turn it into fuel.
Mitt will tell you what you want to hear. He can’t deliver.
@Bob_Wallace:disqus Oil is used for transportation, Solar, Nuclear, Wind, can’t compete in this area. Much is being invested in EVs which is good, but these arent practical yet and battery advancement doesn’t follow Moore’s law. The fact is the country would shut down without oil, it is a necessary evil at this point. It needs to be subsidized we really dont have a choice unless we use natural gas. The US and Canadian oil reserves are bigger now due to discovery and the ability to utilize shale oil. My guess is that Romney can keep the price relatively stable.
Right now almost every driver in the US would be well served with either a 100 mile range EV or a 40 mile range PHEV. If we switched everyone to EVs and PHEVs we would cut our personal oil use by over 75%.
The cost of batteries is an economy of scale issue. It is not a materials, labor, energy to manufacture problem. We simply need to make more in order for mass production savings to kick in.
Right now if you bought a full priced Nissan Leaf it would cost you the same amount to own and drive over ten years (no subsidies) as a $20k, 40mpg gasmobile. The price of EVs will come down. The price of gas will not.
Romney probably can’t do anything. New oil fields take a decade or so to come on line. Nothing anyone does today to create additional capacity will have an effect on pump price for at least ten years.
Additionally, there are no cheap places left to drill. It’s going to be expensive to pump oil out of the Arctic Ocean – if there is any there.
We could move some of our transportation to natural gas, but the amount we have available is not clear. Proven reserves are about 20 years. The 100 years that some toss around is very speculative. And both ends of the range 20 – 100 is based on a 2010 burn rate. Double our burn rate by using much more NG for electricity plus some for transportation plus exporting some (which we are preparing to do) and those number drop to 10 – 50.
Smart thing – don’t increase our use of NG. It’s a great fill in for variable wind and solar and it puts more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Ok but Bob, who can afford nissan leaf + a car for traveling longer distances? What about battery degradation? What about the cost of replacing batteries. My TDI is 10 years old and It will probably be driven for another 10 by someone. The Volt is practical for most, the leaf definetely not. Niether is likely to be adopted on a wide scale soon.
1. Battery costs are a function of manufacturing volume. Look up the materials list for an EV battery. There are not pounds of unobtainium in EV batteries. Once we begin building them in larger numbers the price will fall.
2a. If you need to drive more that a Leaf distance very often then consider a PHEV like the Volt. Forty miles on electricity and unlimited on gas. Very few people drive more than 40 miles a day which means that most will do most of their driving on electricity.
2b. If you could use a Leaf most days but need a longer range car a couple times a year then rent a gasmobile.
3. Prius hybrid batteries have been lasting as long as 300k. EV/PHEV manufacturers are giving 100k guarantees. We generally expect things to last long than their guarantee. The A123 lithium-ion is now rated at 2,000 100% DoD cycles. In a 100 mile range EV that’s 200,000 miles.
4. Electric motors last much longer than ICEVs. An EV may have no transmission to wear out. Brakes will last 2-3 or more times longer in an EV due to regenerative braking. Of course there are no oil changes, radiator flushes, oxygen sensor repairs, ….
If I were to read this article on a fossil fuel page it would say just the opposite about what the people think. This is sensationalism for your own purpose. I am not against any type of energy, but this article seems to be based on opinion of how we the people feel and not backed by polls or facts. State your poll that you are looking at.
Where is this writer getting his facts? 3.1 million jobs from green energy. They must count all jobs recovered that were lost in the Great Recession as green jobs. What a pile of sh…..!!!!!
The generally accepted analogy when discussing labor markets goes something like this: A janitor at a hospital is a healthcare job.
0 solar panels on the Whitehouse in 3 1/2 years! Obama is not an energy policy leader!
People, this publication is called Cleantechnica (with a green leaf as the graphic). If you think the article was going to be about big oil you have really lost your mind. UGH. If you want a positive spin on the oil industry check out oil voice dot com. As for 4 dollar a gallon gas before the elections, get used to it, you will never see gas under 3 dollars ever again. My vote is for Obama and an actual plan for something 20 years from now so my daughter has choices and is not at the mercy of the oil companies.
Romney will make the economy stronger for your daughter and he will fund nuclear which is a legitimate alternative to natural gas and coal. Renewables unfortunately are not due to the cost implications caused by intermittency.
Nuclear was supposed to be too cheap to meter. Whatever happened to that?
@716d4860d48b04f908dadca6b36fffc0:disqus Nuclear can be very cheap at the meter. Look up the economics of the Palo Verde nuclear power plant of AZ. Its electricity $/kWh is second only hydro power. The capital investment for this project was somewhere around $6 billion. For solar PV panels in AZ (great solar resource) to create the same amount of annual energy as the Palo Verde Nuke plant you would need to install 15 GW of panels at $3/Watt installed. you would then need to invest in smart grid infrastructure, energy storage, or back up generation in order to make the variable power delivered by the plant compatible with the grid so that brown-outs dont occur. O and Solar PV power plants have half the operational life (30 yrs) as nuclear reactors do (60 yrs). If you do the math I think you will see my point. I am an engineer for the solar industry. Right now it is economical for applications where no electrical grid exists. Large-scale grid integration is a hurdle that still needs to be resolved with more R&D. Commercial investment is a waste of money, current solar technology wont be powering cities anytime soon. We need to invest in the R&D not commercial subsidies. We can use this money to displace more coal with natural gas. US emissions are the lowest theyve been since 1992 right now because more natural gas is being used in place of coal.
Its funny how I state objective facts and people vote my comments down. We need more rational people in the world, not people who feed into sensationalism.
The short rebuttal is – you are wrong.
Building a new nuclear plant would be very expensive and the power it would produce would be expensive. You cannot build a nuclear reactor today using 1970s prices.
Even the people who own and build nuclear plants have said so.
@Bob_Wallace:disqus Once again you are right, the electricity markets have been liberalized and the risk assessments of nuclear energy require more regulation and insurance than they had in the past. I feel that policy can change in favor of nuclear once new modular reactor designs are deployed and proven in other countries (China). Even at currrent projected costs for new nuclear though (12-16 cents per kWh in the US) it still beats solar by several factors, do the math for the scenario in my previous comment. The catch is I am talking about solar that comprises a large percentage of grid electricity, say >10%. At this scale solar requires additional investment to maintain electrical grid stability. A variable reverse load such as solar would require a huge investment and innovation in energy storage technologies or dispatchable back-up generation in addition to a smart grid to manage it. Most people arent aware of intermittency issues of solar and the media doesnt portray it. Should we invest in this? Sure, I am willing to pay the costs but I know the general public will not, and nuclear is much more realistic at this point in time, not too mention really promising in the future. What is your rebuttal to that?
No, nuclear at 12 – 16 cents does not beat solar. Large commercial solar in the US sunbelt is now under 15 cents. The EIA is projecting solar to fall below 10 cents by 2017 and there is no way a new reactor could be built by then.
The only claim I’ve seen for new nuclear at 12 cents came from an industry insider who refused to state what costs were and were not included in his costs. He would not share his math. I think 15 cents is a conservative estimate and something more like 20 cents more likely. Remember, no one was willing to build a new reactor for Turkey and guarantee a 20 cent rate.
Modular is a pipe dream. It’s based on economy of scale an one does not achieve economy of scale with a few hundred units. It takes thousands of units to make drastic price improvements.
Our grid, as I stated upthread, can take 25% to 35% wind and solar without any changes. Bring a bunch of EVs to the mix and that number goes way up.
We’re only at ~4% for wind and well under 1% for solar so we don’t need to concern ourselves about additional storage or fill-in generation for many years.
Solar on the grid has reduced electricity prices in Germany and it seems to be doing so in Southern California. Even at the current higher prices for solar it is paying its way.
Solar AND WIND can be implemented into the grid 30% without upgrades, but the solar contributing factor is going to be much smaller due to the fact that it is more volatile as an intermittent source. Incoming wind speeds are much easier to predict than cloud cover and wind turbines have inertia whereas a solar panel can lose 80% of its power almost instantaneously due to cloud cover. I dont know what the magic number is for solar penetration without a storage and grid management solution, but I doubt that it is any higher than 5% based on what is occuring in Germany. We should focus on solving this problem first, then the commercial part will actually be practical.
Rooftop solar is very widely distributed and much less affected by moving clouds than you would think.
5% solar is what I understand the current level to be. Since we are well under 1% how about we work hard on getting up to 5% and we can solve the rest of the problem as we go along.
Remember, all those gas turbines we are now installing to replace coal are dispatchable. Lots of sunshine? Turn them off. Heavy clouds cover the entire area or the Sun goes down? Turn them off. The grid will likely be 20% gas before long.
(You’re posting the same thing over and over.)
The grid is already 34% gas I believe
In 2011 NG was 24.8%. Coal was 42.2%
I understand that coal is now below 35% so NG might have move above 30%….
O and I forgot to mention that a solar PV power plant has half the serviceable life (30 years) that a nuclear plant does (60 years). There is a huge disparity in actual costs yet, I think it could come down some day but Romney really is right about R&D for renewables rather than commercial subsidies. We can cut more GHG emissions in the short term by making Natural Gas replace coal generation.
That is also incorrect.
We don’t know how long solar panels will last. The oldest we have in service are now over 30 years old and are still performing close to factory specs.
We can cut CO2 by switching from coal to NG – as long as we reduce current levels of methane leaks. Methane loose in the atmosphere is worse than CO2 and eventually turns into CO2.
The smart move is to move to wind and solar and use hydro and NG as fill-ins while we develop better batteries. And if we can’t develop better batteries we have hundreds of existing dams which can be converted into pump-up hydro storage.
@Bob_Wallace:disqus Hey Bob, I actually studied Photovoltaic reliability in grad school and I work for a PV company.
what you said is true. PV panels might very well outlast their
predictable service life by quite a bit depending on the environment
they are deployed in, the quality of the lamination materials, and the resistance of metallization to corrsion, but can they last for 60 years as a Nuclear reactor can? The cost to make PV, an intermittent source, compatible with grid electricity at a large scale is still very large and hasn’t been accomplished anywhere to date. Germany has the highest percentage of PV production at 3% and they are trying to curtail their feed-in-tarrif program in part because of concerns about grid stability. I am hopeful that PV will be practical on the large scale some day, but if we want to really cut emissions now nuclear is the answer.
I remember a discussion in which someone talked about how well people built their barns back in earlier days.
Someone else pointed out that the poorly built barns had fallen down and only the better built ones remained standing.
Might I point out all the reactors which did not last 60 years? Rancho Seco – familiar with that one? How about TMI? San Onofre 1 lasted only 25 years. Looks like San Onofre 2 and 3 are going to be 40 year plants.
Here’s a list of some of the reactors that didn’t last 60 years. I notice Humboldt Bay is not on the list. I think we got about 10 years of service out of that one.
Zion 1 & 2IL1973-1998Millstone 1CT1970-1998Maine YankeeME1972-1997Connecticut YankeeCT1967-1997TrojanOR1976-1993San Onofre 1CA1968-1992Yankee RoweMA 1961-1992ShorehamNY1989-1989Fort St. VrainCO1979-1989Rancho SecoCA1975-1989 TMI-2PA1978-1979Dresden 1IL1960-1978Indian Point 1NY1962-1974
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of these. I feel however that new modular reactors can last 60 years based on the knowledge gained from previous winning and losing designs.
Too expensive.
Too long to build.
Unproven.
Too hard to site.
gd…. wake up you fool
The author of this article is simply trying to push his own (obama’s) agenda…. He is after all in public relations for a leftist agenda.
This artical is total Propaganda.Were the hell was this poll Taken?The fundementl diffrance between Obama and Romeny is that Obama fills he knows what is best for everyone and everyone should be forced to do it his way VS Romeny who has faith that people will do what is best for them and in turn if everyone does what is best for them it will agragetly be the best. Freedom is a far better approch than totalitarinism under the guis of a good guy badge.
Really? Is he tell you to give up your full size pick up? No, he is not. His way is about options. Romeny would remove those options and we would be left with only oil.
You have the option to put a govt subsidized PV system on your roof right now to supply all of your energy needs. go do it.
total propaganda with complete lack of facts…Americans are tired of paying more than they should to heat their homes… we need to work together to create clean energy and maintain the strength of our nation ny providing our own energy Mitt is the Man to do that… Obama’s goal is to downsize America and make us weak…not good… lets get back to being AMERICA! Vote for MITT!
Clean energy and burning fossil fuels are incompatible. America will fall further behind the rest of the world in shifting its energy supply to sustainable sources.
Work at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado is premiere in the world as far as renewables are concerned. When a cost effective solar or wind technology exists we will likely be the country who invents/discovers it. We should divert the subsidy money for renewables from the commercial sector to the R&D sector. At least for PV, wind is pretty practical in many areas.
Come on. China is eating our lunch. And dinner.
China is supporting their industries and producing both wind turbines and solar panels at prices that are killing our plants.
This is the integral thing you are misunderstanding. China may be beating us in commercial prices but not in R&D capability. Commercial solar has limited ability right now, probably cant comprise more than 10% of grid generation without causing instability. R&D to develop PV that could really meet worldwide demand is a much better investment.
1. 10% solar is far into the future. Many years. Let’s not worry today about something so remote. Pay attention to promising battery technology like Aquion’s sodium-ion grid storage batteries and MIT’s liquid metal batteries. If either pans out we could run on 100% solar if we had to.
(Aquion should be manufacturing later this year.)
We can go to 5% solar ‘as is’. Adding EVs to the grid would probably take us past 10%.
2, See #1.
Really this article is complete false propaganda… too bad… how does this get published? enough people believe this to give you some credibilty?
A clear choice is true… Mitt to make America Strong or Obama to downsize it and degrade us to 3rd world standing… I go MITT!
Mitt to chain us to filthy, polluting, health destroying 20th century technology largely produced in nations who hate us and have the potential to cut our supply and plunge us into an economic crisis. Mitt who wants to cut off at the knees the American renewable energy industry just as it is taking off, which employees hundreds of thousands of American workers keeping the money at home and not in the hands of middle eastern cartels. Or Obama who wants to diversify our energy sources, under whom more domestic oil is being produced then ever was under Bush but who also supports the development and roll out of 21st century renewable generation sources, and who wants to produce our energy domestically rather then be economic slaves to volatile international regimes.
Bull Crap. You are full of it if you believe this garbage.
We could sure use Tesla now to set up Wardenclyffe like he had intended to. Then, power would be free!! too bad JP Morgan was so greedy so that he refused to finish his agreed-upon financing of the project…….If he had helped the project move forward, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now……