I have been working hard for James Webb, along with other Virginia candidates like Al Weed, Andy Hurst, and Judy Feder and will do what I can until Election Day to help them achieve victory. However, if they pursue nuclear energy as a primary solution to our energy problems, they will all lose in November. So far, Webb has suggested interest in nuclear energy. Not surprisingly, one of their lobbyists appeared at one of his events. Does this mean Webb is a nuclear energy supporter? I doubt it. This is merely a cautionary article urging him and other candidates in Virginia to get educated about the progress of alternative energy and to realize that nuclear energy needs only to be a small part of energy future if we hope to meet the challenges of a dwindling energy supply, global climate change, and environmental quality.
Before our candidates write off the opposition from environmentalists to nuclear energy, we should consider why it has received so much support in recent legislation (even though the technology has slumped for nearly three decades). Perhaps the reason so many Republicans support nuclear energy, is the same reason they support oil, natural gas, and coal: These industries finance their campaigns. They probably know these technologies are not the most cost-effective or the cleanest that we can use; however, they have no other choice to support them because without their support, they will have no-one to keep them in power implement their backwards, right-wing ideology. Republicans certainly know that alternative energy companies will give as much or more money to Democrats, and although some Republicans have shown marginal support for alternative energy technologies, it is clear that the majority of them will put their own careers over America's future.
Now some Democrats believe strongly in nuclear energy, believing the lie that the fossil fuel industry has perpetuated for many years that alternatives will never work, and if we just improve fossil fuel technology, then everything will be all right. However, after years of Republican lawmakers funneling billions into these industries, they have failed to meet these lofty goals and let us down. Like the streetcars killed by the automakers, alternative energy technologies had been killed for years by the fossil fuel industry because they were seen as competition. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and renewables are beginning to surge. Present efforts by Republicans and the Bush Administration to thwart them with misleading initiatives are becoming an embarrassment.
Every Democrat must understand the importance of alternative energy and how we can use energy efficiency, renewables, and advanced fuel-saving technology in the immediate future to create a safer, cleaner world while protecting ourselves from suffering further energy crises in years to come. So let+óGé¼Gäós do a run through of why alternative energy is succeeding and must be pursued to the fullest, and why nuclear cannot and will not be the primary cure-all to our energy woes. Let+óGé¼Gäós start with the alternatives (soon to be the primary energy solutions).
Renewable Energy Technologies
Renewable energy provides roughly 6% of our electric energy supply. Unlike nuclear power, renewable energy continues to grow at a rapid rate. Geothermal power plants (generally isolated to the Western U.S.) are expected to double or triple their capacity in the next decade. There enough projects right now in the planning stages to serve an additional 2 million households by 2010. Total electric capacity from wind farms in the U.S. has risen from 2,550 megawatts by the end of 2000 to 9,149 megawatts by the end of 2005. This is an increase of 359% in 5 years, enough to serve almost 3 million homes and businesses; and it+óGé¼Gäós getting better. By 2010, millions more Americans may be served by clean wind technology. Wind has even more potential to grow (economically) through offshore wind installations. Wind speeds are steadier offshore and the U.S. Department of Energy has assessed the offshore wind potential in the United States at over 900 gigawatts (GW) (enough to serve nearly 2/3rds of the U.S. population even when the wind isn+óGé¼Gäót fully blowing). Nearly 30% of that potential is located in the Mid-Atlantic Coast alone, which would be enough to supply over 80 million homes and businesses with power.
Similarly, solar energy is growing about as fast as is technologically possible. Only materials shortages are limiting its growth as more and more Americans put solar panels on their homes and the construction of new power facilities are underway. In California, legislation has called for one million solar roofs, with ambitious funding of over $3 billion from the California treasury to help curb an energy demand that is spiraling out of control (note the recent blackouts). For years, there have been suggestions to put extensive solar farms in the hot American desert and now these suggestions are becoming reality. Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico, have plans to build large-scale solar power plants. Southern Nevada is making plans to complete construction of a 65 Megawatt solar-powered facility by next year. The Mojave Desert of California is now developing a 500 Megawatt solar dish power plant that will provide for the power needs of several hundred thousand people by 2010. Similar large-scale projects like these are being considered in Arizona and New Mexico.
Another promising technology is biomass. Biomass facilities use waste matter from wood chips and landfills to produce power, and now make up nearly 1% of U.S. power generation. There are planned projects in the works to add more facilities including those that produce electricity by burning methane gas from animal manure (with far less emissions than fossil-fuel plants).
In addition to the innovative technologies mentioned above, existing large-hydro plants can benefit from new technology that can maintain their existing capacity, while small hydro and ocean wave technology have the ability to add to our energy mix, as do fuel cells as an efficient energy conversion technology. These technologies alone may serve millions more people in the next 10 years, in addition to the millions more served by biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind.
Renewable power can be large or small. Off-grid technologies, such as solar panels and fuel cells, can serve residential energy needs. Imagine if a hurricane knocks out transmission lines serving hundreds of thousands of residents, but they have a back-up solar powered generator that can keep the power on, and save lives in the process? Solar power can be used for all sorts of uses, such cooling your car, and powering small electronics.
Truly, there is no limit to what is possible in the future, unless our leaders stand in the way of progress. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), renewable energy technologies were supported with individual solar tax credits and utility-scale production tax credits. However, while renewable power facilities received a 2-year tax credit, nuclear facilities received a 20-year tax credit (with 16 years for natural gas pipelines). Despite getting so little compared to fossil fuel technology, industry growth for renewable energy has remained strong. In fact, if the credit is extended, renewable power capacity is expected to increase by another 20,000 MW (enough for nearly 10 million homes and businesses) by 2010. While nuclear power received four times more money in EPAct than all renewable power technologies combined, you are unlikely to see a single new nuclear power plant during that time
The question often asked is how economical renewable technologies are. The answer is surprising. When natural gas prices rose in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, ratepayers in Denver, Colorado who had chosen the higher-rate wind power option ended up saving money on their energy bills, while ratepayers choosing to ignore the option ended up paying more. This demonstrates the profound change we are seeing today. As natural gas prices are rising and domestic production has gone down (25% less production in 2006 than was projected in 2002), and coal is limited by transportation overloads and additional fuel and water costs, renewables are becoming more competitive than ever before. Their costs are going down, while the costs for traditional, fossil fuel technologies are going up. Even more telling is how high energy prices like these cause damage to American families. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in 2004 as many as 26 percent of housing authority evictions were caused by people unable to pay their energy bills (a figure certain to rise in years to come). This statistic covers the entire nation, but Virginians are certainly among the casualties. Our current Administration has responded by giving less money to renewables and more money to fossil fuels. According to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, the fossil fuel industry receives 5 billion dollars in subsidies from the U.S. government each year. Under the leadership of the Bush Administration, the United States has been reduced to cutting renewable technology programs at a time when the rest of the globe is dramatically increasing research and development. Developers of these technologies are now tempted to invest in renewable power plants in China, India, Europe, Central America, and Southeast Asia rather than invest in the United States.
Transportation Sector
From 1977-85, we cut oil use 17 percent while our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew 27 percent. In these eight years, oil imports fell by 50 percent, and oil imports from the Persian Gulf fell by 87 percent. Achieving this was done through making committed changes in our technology and fuel efficiency, and we can do it again.
One way is through finally enforcing stricter Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), currently available technology can make cars and trucks nearly double their gas mileage to an average of 40 mpg within a decade without reducing the size, power, or the variety of cars available to consumers. When numerous Republican Congressmen (including Frank Wolf and Tom Davis) voted against this in 2001, they cost consumers dearly. According to NAS, had the President passed this law in 2001, consumers would be saving more than $8.7 billion in 2006 alone (more than $500 per new vehicle). The numbers are tragic. Recent statistics have revealed that since 1992, average fuel economy as measured by the EPA has been relatively constant, ranging from 20.6 to 21.4 mpg. The 21.0 mpg value we have today is 5 percent lower than the fleet-average fuel economy peak of 22.1 mpg achieved in 1987-1988. That+óGé¼Gäós right: The average passenger vehicles used in the United States today are LESS fuel-efficient than they were 19 years ago!
Despite the ramblings of auto executives that reaching the NAS targets wouldn+óGé¼Gäót be cost-effective, the technology is set to improve dramatically. The problem is that foreign competitors already have seized an advantage because American companies are still trying to push the same SUVs that have lost them billions of dollars and hoping for the Federal Government to bail them out. Instead of these facts scaring us into raising our standards for fuel efficiency, Republicans have allowed the problem to become worse by loosening standards and bending to the irrational, backwards fears of our auto companies, allowing them to fall further behind. While U.S. automakers have spent years installing computers and advanced safety features to make cars bigger and more high-tech, they left out fuel-efficiency. Now the Big-three U.S. automakers are struggling to sell their big cars and trucks overseas, and are forced to cut thousands more American jobs as their profits continue to drop.
We don+óGé¼Gäót have to let these industries kill themselves through inaction and an inability to take risks. We can start by weeding out inefficiencies and perverse incentives that encourage us to use oil rather than save it. For instance, according to NAS, one prudent policy would be to repeal the $10.7 billion (over the next five years) in tax breaks given to the oil and natural gas industry in EPAct. Another policy would be to enact a windfall profits tax on the oil industry and using the money to fund clean energy development and/or invest in public transportation (which the big three automakers successfully killed in the 1940+óGé¼Gäós +óGé¼GÇ£ remember the streetcars!)
Another concept, described by Amory Lovins in his economic report +óGé¼+ôWinning the Oil Endgame+óGé¼-¥ is feebates. Feebates are designed to help consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars by expanding tax credits (or rebates) for the most fuel efficient vehicles (especially for working class and lower-income groups who face serious mobility problems that limit their ability to find a job), and creating fees for inefficient vehicles with very low fuel efficiency. After all, if we require emissions checks to ensure high-polluting cars are not allowed on the roads, why can+óGé¼Gäót we do the same for fuel-efficiency without creating a regressive tax on the most needy among us?
Fuel efficiency goes beyond hybrid-technology (such as gas-electric hybrids and plug-in hybrids). It also includes ultra-light metals (that have proven just as safe for the driver as heavier metals) and advancements in engineering to improve aerodynamic drag, and increase the efficiency of accelerating and braking (i.e. inertia load).
Another important investment is getting old cars and trucks off the roads. Old trucks are especially problematic, both as gas-guzzlers and emitters of pollutants and greenhouse gases. Heavy-Duty Truck engine retrofits and truck fleet replacements have proven one of the most cost-effective solutions to this problem and can save tens of thousands of barrels of oil each day. These trucks can save even more oil with a combination of advanced technology and anti-idling policies currently being implemented throughout the country to enable trucks to use electricity rather than gas when they idle for hours each night.
Fuel-efficiency is critical for our airplanes, ships, and freight trains. Ever wonder why some airlines are suffering and others are thriving? Perhaps some carriers use just a little less fuel than others when crossing the country.
Fuel-efficiency is also critical to our military. Sure, you may feel like a big man driving a Hummer, but clunky, inefficient vehicles like these end up endangering our troops. We often hear Republicans talk about providing for the military, while making it lighter and more efficient, yet they fail to do anything about fuel-efficiency that would help achieve that goal.
Alternative Fuels
Before you consider alternative fuels, you have to consider the cost of continuing to rely on crude oil. Republicans believe we can drill our way out of the oil crisis. However, we spend billions each year searching for more oil on and off our shores and it hasn+óGé¼Gäót made a dent. We cannot produce oil fast enough to satisfy increasing demand, and we simply don+óGé¼Gäót know how much oil is left or just how much it will cost to find it, protect it, and transport it to market. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. oil refinery capacity has increased in the past three decades, while our domestic supply of oil has decreased by 57%. We are importing more than 60% of our oil, mostly from undesirable countries in turmoil. Our multinational oil companies have preferred to have refineries built overseas rather than pay the high labor and land costs to build in America or contend with the stronger environmental regulations we use to protect the public health of our citizens. (Protecting public health is something Republicans always fail to mention when they complain about refinery capacity).
Before we relied on crude oil for transportation, cars used plant oils like ethanol (primarily from grains such as corn or wheat or soybeans). Today, ethanol is coming back, but in more forms than ever before. While corn ethanol is seeing rapid growth, inevitably, more efficient cellulosic ethanol will be the primary source of alternative fuel. Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes and industrial waste such as sawdust and paper pulp. It can also be produced from energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. The ethanol in Brazil (supplying nearly 50% of their transportation fuel) is developed primarily with cellulosic ethanol from sugar cane. Biofuels (similar to cellulosic ethanol) can be produced from biomass feedstocks, including animal waste (such as pig or cow manure).
Ultimately, in two or three decades, efficient hydrogen conversion technology could enable zero-emission automobiles from fuel cells. Hydrogen, like other alternative fuels, can be produced by renewable energy technologies (although many Republicans would support producing hydrogen through coal and natural gas). Already, there are plans underway to produce alternative fuels with biomass, concentrated solar, wind, and geothermal power sources, and hydrogen could be produced the same way. Although hydrogen is touted to be the next alternative, in 20 years, who knows what new innovations may arise to fuel our automobiles in ways we never imagined.
Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency is vastly underestimated in our homes, buildings, and power facilities. Transportation requires 28% of our energy use, but the rest is used in our homes, businesses, and industrial facilities. While energy efficient products may have a higher price tag today, the only reason they cost more is because they are not sold in higher volume than lower-efficiency products. The more energy-efficient products are sold in the marketplace, the less expensive they will become, until they are in every home and business in America.
21% of our energy use is from residential sources. Space heating and conditioning makes up half of home energy consumption. Energy efficient heating and cooling can greatly increase our energy savings, through efficient air conditioners and furnaces. Energy-efficient technologies using renewable resources are also on the rise. For instance, 1% of the U.S. market uses geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling, and solar thermal heating and cooling has also become popular in recent years, especially since tax credits for these technologies have been made available.
Lighting accounts for 12% of residential energy use. Most light-bulbs today are extremely inefficient, converting as little as 5% of energy from the wall socket to the light. There are technologies on the market that can provide 5 times more efficient lighting for slightly more cost (which is only due to their small market share).
Weatherization is another technique used to protect homes and buildings from weather elements, and saving energy in the process through various measures that involve doors, windows, roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, and pipes. The Bush Administration has repeatedly attempted to zero out the Department of Energy+óGé¼Gäós Weatherization Assistance Program that was created in 1976 to assist low-income families who lacked resources to invest in energy efficiency, despite the fact that the program has helped thousands of low-income families over that time.
Energy conservation is also critical. People who leave their lights and home electronics on even when they leave for the day should face excess energy fees. Why should the rest of us pay for those who are wasteful? Conservatives like to laugh at people who turn off their lights, but they won+óGé¼Gäót be laughing when energy overloads force them to live in more frequent blackouts.
While energy-efficient products like dishwashers, refrigerators, washers and dryers are good investments that save energy in the long run, in order for the energy savings from these products to really make a dent they need greater utilization in the larger, commercial sector. If we save noticeable energy for washers and dryers in our homes, imagine how much energy hotels would save with energy-efficient washers and dryers that are running all day long? How about efficient refrigeration systems for restaurants? How about efficient lighting for skyscrapers and other tall buildings?
We have come a long way in improving efficiency throughout the years, but incentives for these technologies remain inadequate. As new construction takes place as cities and suburbs expand and old buildings are demolished, it is a crime when developers fail to install energy efficient building technology just to save a few dollars. The problem is that in many areas developers have no incentive to install energy saving technology because they are not responsible for the energy bill. This is where government incentives can make a big difference.
Energy Efficiency is not just about using less energy it is about using technologies that get more energy out of every watt that is produced. When considering the potential of these technologies, you can imagine how overall energy usage can drop by orders of magnitude. Numerous assessments have shown dramatic reductions in energy use of up to 25-30% within the next two decades (even when considering population growth).
Electricity sector efficiency
We have the technology to allow existing fossil-fueled power plants to produce more energy while burning cleaner and more efficiently. For instance, cofiring biomass in existing coal-fired power plants can reduce pollution and reduce the need to add more coal. Biomass substitutes such as willow crops and switchgrass are already being used for this purpose in at least 10 U.S. States.
Another electric power efficiency technology is Combined Heat and Power (CHP) +óGé¼GÇ£ also known as cogeneration. CHP captures waste heat from electrical generation that goes unused and applies it to thermal energy needs of the power plant, such as space heating, humidity control, air conditioning, water cooling, product drying, and any other thermal energy need. As a result this enables a plant to put more energy on the grid instead of using the power to operate the plant. CHP is used in coal and natural gas facilities throughout the world (especially in Europe) where the technology has been demonstrated to as much as double the efficiency of some power plants.
Another issue is saved natural gas. Natural gas prices have spiked precipitously twice in the last 6 years, and it will likely do so again. If we advance new technologies capable of saving natural gas through efficiency at electric generating plants (along with reducing uses of natural gas for heating through energy-efficient end-use technologies) we can actually save natural gas and put it to better use, such as replace oil with clean natural gas (CNG) as an alternative fuel. (CNG already fuels Arlington+óGé¼Gäós buses).
So what about Nuclear?
New nuclear power facilities are inevitable. In Europe and Asia, several new nuclear facilities will be coming online in the next few years. However, in the United States, blessed with natural resources, nuclear energy must not be the primary solution. When you look at the history of nuclear technology, you see heavily subsidized facilities that have constantly exceeded cost estimates and taken much longer than expected to build. In fact, a U.S. Department of Energy study found that 75 U.S. nuclear power plants experienced construction cost overruns totaling $100 billion. The Energy Information Administration estimates that it will take at least nine years to build a new nuclear power plant. In fact, a recent release by a Texas company building new nuclear facilities claim construction of the two plants (totally 2.7 GW) is expected to cost $5.2 billion (even with the subsidies) and is expected to come online sometime +óGé¼+ôwithin the next ten years+óGé¼-¥.
Nuclear energy should not simply be developed because the industry has more money to funnel into political campaigns to get needed subsidies. They should be developed because they are the most efficient. Nuclear energy is a quintessential example of corporate welfare, where big government intervenes to heavily subsidize one form of energy production over another. Although Republicans should have an ideological problem with this anti-free market tactic used in the energy industry, it seems that as long as those big checks come before each November, they don+óGé¼Gäót seem to mind.
Nuclear energy companies were the first to attack renewables in the 1970s after the first energy crisis. They saw them as competition and lobbied with their far superior bank accounts to ensure that renewable technology would not supplant them in years to come. Fast forward three decades and we see that the nuclear industry is having the same problems they had before while renewable technologies have advanced and seen reductions in cost just as Americans are once again confronted with spikes in energy prices. In fact nuclear power hasn+óGé¼Gäót seen a new power facility begin development since the late-1970s (some began construction in the late-1970s that did not come online until the 1990s!) While they have been adding capacity to existing facilities, progress has been slow.
Nuclear Power, unlike renewables, also has several downsides that must be addressed:
1) Nuclear power holds over it the specter of nuclear disaster from meltdown or the threat of terrorist attack. No terrorist would attack a geothermal, biomass, wind, or solar-power plant, because doing so wouldn+óGé¼Gäót cause any damage outside the facility. A terrorist attack on a nuclear facility, on the other hand, could lead to the death of millions of Americans. While terrorist attacks or meltdowns may be unlikely, they are enough to make it nearly impossible for any insurance company to protect against them. In 1954, the Federal Government agreed to pay the cost of the clean up. However, according to the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the liability limit for the U.S. Government is less than $10 billion, so the additional costs of cleaning up a nuclear accident would fall squarely onto the American taxpayer. To put this into a frame of reference, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioned study, performed in 2000, estimated that damages from a severe nuclear accident at one single plant could cost as much as $560 billion.
2) Environmental drawbacks also linger for nuclear energy, including water usage and nuclear waste. Nuclear facilities currently require significant water usage for steam production and cooling whereas alternative energy facilities such as wind, solar, and geothermal require little to no water use to operate. Nuclear waste contains radioactive material that must be buried under the earth. While in some cases the spent fuel can be recycled, most of the nuclear waste in the U.S. remains unused and is kept at the facility, although efforts have been made to store nuclear waste elsewhere. For instance, as far as Republicans are concerned, storing this waste in our oceans and underneath our mountains would be a good idea and wouldn+óGé¼Gäót do any harm. Of course that is a highly dubious assumption. Nuclear facilities themselves affect local communities. In fact, studies have shown that cancer rates (especially among children) are higher in the vicinity of nuclear power facilities. For example, a study performed by the Radiation and Public Health Project (an educational, scientific non-profit organization) found that when studying cancer rates among children living nearby one of the largest nuclear facilities in Pennsylvania, the local rate of childhood cancer in the 1990s was 77% above the state and national rates.
3) Nuclear proliferation is another byproduct of nuclear energy. If too many nations rely on nuclear energy, they may use it for nefarious purposes, or even sell knowledge to nations and groups that seek to cause harm. Nuclear development also causes tensions between industrialized countries and third world countries. These countries wonder why the U.S. and Western Europe can build these facilities without question, while they must go through thorough reviews or see their development banned completely while millions of their population remains mired in poverty due to their lack of access to electricity.
Nuclear Power and climate change
In this article I am not saying that nuclear facilities should never be built. Undoubtedly with the threat of climate change and the need for new power facilities, nuclear may be preferable to coal if clean coal technology is not sufficient or economical. However, we have limited time to solve this crisis and while we are waiting years for new nuclear facilities to be built (with heavy price-tags) we have the opportunity to focus on renewable technologies that are becoming more and more economical. The problem with nuclear technology is the cost and time lag of demonstrating advancements. The cost of testing new wind turbines or solar dish technology can run into the millions and be developed and tested within a few years time, while doing the same for nuclear technology can run into the billions and take many years before they are applicable.
Since Nuclear energy got nearly $12 billion in subsidies in the last energy bill (about 4 times as much as renewable energy technologies), we must examine what is the opportunity cost of the $12 billion. Renewable technologies are more nascent than nuclear energy. They require more study for larger installations. While 10 Megawatt wind farms used to be considered large installations, now 500 Megawatt wind farms are beginning construction. These facilities cost less per installed-kilowatt than nuclear facilities and can be built 4-5 times quicker. We will not solve our climate woes by WAITING for new nuclear plants to come online, and paying the additional costs of overruns. Renewable technologies are proven job creators that create needed tax revenues, especially for struggling rural communities. It creates new entrepreneurs and new investment in our domestic infrastructure. Hundreds of new renewable power plants (creating thousands of new jobs) will come online before the next new nuclear facility ever feeds enough energy to turn on a light bulb.
As Democratic activists, volunteers, and supporters, we cannot let our Democratic candidates buy into the +óGé¼+ônuclear energy is the primary option+óGé¼-¥ rhetoric. Jim Webb, in particular, should follow the lead of candidates like Al Weed, who has made alternative energy and biofuels the centerpiece of his campaign. Remember that George Allen is ANTI-Renewable and we can beat him on his support of big oil. However, we lose ALL OF OUR CREDIBILITY when we side with the nuclear industry that has siphoned BILLIONS of dollars from the Department of Energy without a sniff of progress in 30 years at the expense of alternative energy solutions that can start contributing to reduced emissions of greenhouse gases in the immediate future. If we let our candidates go down this path, WE have failed them, rather than vice-versa. Remember that our candidates are not all knowing. They are experts on some issues and not on others. So it is vitally important that we share this message with them, so they understand the importance of the issue. In fact, energy is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE in the world today. People kill for it, billions are poor because they don+óGé¼Gäót have it, and millions more die because of the pollution and climate alterations it creates.
Is renewable energy and energy efficiency enough on its own?
According to the Energy Information Agency, the U.S. will need another 335,000 GW hours of electricity by 2015 (based on 2004 numbers); a growth of about 8.4%. If we assume, conservatively, that number is based on today (2006) we realize that renewable technologies, combined with energy efficiency can take care of most of that new demand. According to the Western Governor+óGé¼Gäós Association, near-term geothermal potential can make up 10-15% economically by 2015. If we look at potential wind production, and estimates of known potential, we find that wind can make up another 10-15% economically by that time. Solar and biomass have tremendous potential as well as wave technology. These can feasibly make up another 10-15% of this new demand. In fact, the Western Governor+óGé¼Gäós Association is planning on 60% of new demand by 2015 to be met by renewable power plants. Together with CHP and cofiring, our plants can operate more efficiently, and through energy-efficiency technologies we can reduce additional energy uses by 10-20% very possibly by 2015 if we apply the right incentives and policies. All told, we can meet the vast majority of our new energy demand without fossil fuel technology. New, more efficient coal and natural gas plants will be built during that time anyway, but by 2025 it is conceivable that we will no longer need fossil fuels if advancements continue. Certain technologies are approaching a tipping point where renewables and other alternative energy technologies will widen the spectrum of their application and breakthroughs will move us far beyond what is possible with existing technology. We must follow the lead of President Kennedy who said we would put a man on the moon by decades+óGé¼Gäó end, and did just that. Always remember his vision, and remember to dream big. Doing otherwise is not an option.
*This is solely the opinion of Dan from Raising Kaine. There are some of those who support nuclear technology, but I feel it is a losing issue
**If you read any book on the subject of saving oil, please consider +óGé¼+ôWinning the Oil Endgame+óGé¼-¥ by Amory Lovins, the energy consultant and brilliant researcher who leads the Rocky Mountain Institute
***If you check out any website on energy policy and climate change, please consider the Union of Concerned Scientists who discuss nuclear and renewable energy technologies in more depth.
Thanks to Sharon F. for her help editing this article