Democrats must push clean alternative energy

Although alternative energy seems like a bipartisan issue, we have seen this Administration cut alternative energy programs time and time again. Perhaps the reason so many Republicans stand against these technologies is because the fossil fuel industry (including oil and gas, coal, and nuclear technologies) 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 back them because without their support they will have no-one to keep them in power to 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+óGé¼Gäós future.

For too long, politicians have pushed the lie that if we just remove regulations and provide more money to fossil fuel technology, energy will be cheap and abundant, and everything will be all right.  However, after years of Republican lawmakers funneling billions into these industries, these industries have failed to deliver.  Our reliance on fossil fuels has put our security at tremendous risk as climate change will pose catastrophic costs to our economy, while in the meanwhile we spend billions to protect oil and gas supplies in the Middle East, leading to incidents of torture and horrendous collateral damage to civilian populations, further turning their populations against us.  We must ask ourselves, is protecting dirty sources of energy overseas really a better option than promoting clean sources of energy here at home? 
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 and alternative energy sources 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, alternative fuels, 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. This article is a run through of alternative energy technologies that must be pursued to the fullest, and a breakdown of the fossil fuel technologies we continue to rely on. 

Renewable Energy Technologies

Renewable energy is produced from resources that never run out (like the sun, the wind, the rivers and oceans, and the heat from beneath the earth).  Renewable energy provides roughly 6% of current U.S. electric energy supply. Unlike fossil-fuel power, new renewable energy development 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 will be served by clean wind technology. Wind has even more potential to grow (economically) in the future 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.

Similar to wind, solar energy is growing about as fast as the technology can be installed. 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 budget to help curb an energy demand that is spiraling out of control (note the recent blackouts and record energy demand). For years, there have been suggestions to put extensive solar farms in the hot American desert and now these suggestions are coming into fruition. Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico, have plans to build large-scale solar power plants. Southern Nevada will see completed construction of a 64 Megawatt solar-powered facility by next year. In the Mojave Desert of California a 500 Megawatt solar dish power plant is under development that will provide for the power needs of several hundred thousand people by 2010.

Another promising technology is biomass. Biomass facilities use waste matter from wood 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).  It is kind of like in Back to the Future where Doc Brown uses trash instead of plutonium to power the DeLorian. 

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 with clean zero-emission technology, 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 or fuel-cell generator that can keep the power on, saving lives in the process?  Solar power, especially, can be used in all sorts of small-scale ways, such cooling your car and powering small electronics.

Truly, there is no limit to what is possible in the future, as long as our leaders do not 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 (aka the Federal PTC). However, while renewable power facilities received a 2-year tax credit, nuclear facilities received a 20-year tax credit and natural gas pipelines got 16 years. 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.

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 +óGé¼+ôgreen power+óGé¼-¥ wind 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.  People forget that fuel-price volatility affects fossil fuel plants that require lots of excess fuel for transport and additional uses, whereas the wind, the sun, and the heat from the earth require no excess fuel but the renewable power source to operate. 

Even more telling is how high energy prices from fossil fuel plants 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 Africa, 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 truly 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! Is that progress?

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.  Is that progress?

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 incredible research 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 that encourage states to fund infrastructure that enables 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. In fact, fuel-efficiency is essential to our military success. 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).

The main advantage of alternative fuels is that they are domestically produced.  Efficiency is a great thing, but so is creating domestic jobs.  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, which grows throughout the United States.  The ethanol in Brazil (supplying nearly 50% of their transportation fuel) is developed primarily with ethanol from sugar cane. Biofuels (similar to cellulosic ethanol) can be produced from biomass feedstocks, including animal fat and animal waste (such as pig or cow manure +óGé¼GÇ£ just like can be used for electricity production for biomass power facilities and which otherwise would be a burden to get rid of).

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). This kind of defeats the purpose of the technology, doesn+óGé¼Gäót it? 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 (including geothermal heat pumps installed in George W. Bush+óGé¼Gäós Crawford Ranch) and solar thermal heating and cooling has also become popular in recent years, especially since tax credits for these technologies have been made available. Waste-heat recovery is another option to save heat energy.  Waste-heat recovery takes thermal energy from waste gases released from industrial boilers and furnaces to create excess power or heat, rather than let it go to waste. 

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 (this could become the cheapest option if they increased market share).  Efforts are also underway to utilize hybrid solar lighting, collecting the suns rays to power light bulbs inside large buildings.

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.  Regardless of this complacent disregard by so many legislators and developers, the residential green building market continues to boom as more and more profit from the energy savings.  The green building market is anticipated to grow from $19 billion (in 2005) to $38 billion (in 2010).  These buildings not only save energy through advanced technologies and architectural know-how, they also save water through efficient drainage systems and air-cooled heating systems.

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 that dramatic reductions in energy use of up to 25-30% are possible within the next two decades (even when considering population growth). 

Even more importantly is using energy-efficient technology to reduce imports and our trade gap by creating a competitive advantage over energy conservation to reduce the costs of American-made goods.  For example, geothermal direct-use heating has enabled domestic production of shrimp, flowers, fruits, and tropical fish, that would otherwise fall victim to foreign competition.

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 materials 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).

Before we move onto fossil fuels, we also have to examine our transmission infrastructure. 160,000 miles of transmission lines (equivalent to over 6 +é-+ times the diameter of planet earth) run across the United States in all directions.  To manage this system and its demand, electric utilities spend more than $5 billion per year just for the operations, maintenance, necessary improvements and upgrades.  Before these costs become an out of control disaster, grid management advances are being pursued to reduce future costs.  The advances include increasing the efficiency of distribution centers through new technologies and increasing efficiency of managing the system through real-time ratings (which manage the demand response of the electric grid the hour before demand is needed rather than the day before).  Although transmission lines are expensive to replace, when replacements must be made, isn+óGé¼Gäót it better if we use advanced technology?  For example, superconductor electric transmission cable systems are currently being built in Long Island.  Superconductor wire can carry three to five times more power than traditional copper wire. The benefit of these lines is less voltage needed to move the same amount of power. This is important during periods of peak demand (especially during major heat waves) to avoid rolling blackouts and to limit operations and maintenance costs.  Beyond advancements in transmission lines are advancements in the transporters on top of utility poles.  The U.S. Department of Energy is working on increasing efficiency of these transformers that take high voltage power and ensure it doesn+óGé¼Gäót overload customers.  Experts say tremendous efficiency gains can be made through new research.

Be wary of the same old technologies

When a politician claims that fossil fuel production will be the best option we have for years to come, check their pocket books and you will probably find some serious lobbyist cash.  Government investment in clean energy projects has historically resulted in tremendous returns to the economy.  The development by the federal government of the first geothermal binary plant in 1981 has led to numerous efficient, zero-emission renewable power plants being built in the U.S. and the world, serving millions of families with clean energy.  This is a few million dollars investment turning into a few billion in revenues.  The PTC (mentioned in the renewable energy technologies section) was originally passed in 1992 and still exists today.  The PTC has helped lead to the boom in wind, solar, and geothermal power production over the past 5 years.  Billions of dollars in tax revenues and thousands of domestic jobs were created due to this investment.

To some degree, there is truth in the fact that fossil fuels will be the main source of our energy for years to come.  However, if we continue to step up and capitalize off the tremendous returns for clean energy technologies, we will reach a tipping point where alternative energy options multiply themselves, and well-capitalized industries are able to develop more efficient and better power facilities that revolutionize the way we get our power; cleaner and with less impact on the environment, reducing health costs associated with pollution and reducing insurance costs associated with climate change.

As we can clearly see, oil is the problem and not the solution.  No matter how many supplies we can find, there will never be enough if we continue to our heavy reliance; especially on imports from nations in turmoil.  The oil the world consumes each day took millions of years to form, and simply can+óGé¼Gäót be produced fast enough anymore.  Natural gas, while cleaner than oil, faces similar supply limitations and also requires heavy imports from the Middle East.  The oil and gas industry lobbyists claim all we need to do is open up more of our oceans and seas, but leave out the danger of distribution the ecological destruction caused by oil spills and natural gas pipeline explosions.

Coal does not have the import issues that oil and natural gas do, but faces supply limitations caused by the need for deeper strip mining, mountaintop removal, and overloads of distribution capacity (i.e. rail lines).  Furthermore, coal is among the dirtiest energy technologies.  Most coal facilities being planned for construction will be significant polluters and will add significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.  The coal industry is the leading funding source for climate change skeptics who push politically driven psuedo-research.  The development of +óGé¼+ôclean coal+óGé¼-¥ pushed by President Bush still has not been demonstrated to be economical compared to renewables, and although clean coal may play a role in future energy production, the first +óGé¼+ôclean+óGé¼-¥ coal plant (where emissions are expected to be near-zero) is estimated to be at least 10 years from construction and even modest cost estimates are in excess of $1 billion.  Carbon sequestration, where the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is buried beneath the earth is still in the development stages, and remains a long-term (not short-term) technology; as well as an uncertain one. 

That brings us to nuclear power, which among fossil fuel technologies is the cleanest in terms of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.  However, the same concern over climate change that may advance new nuclear developments may also limit their development.  Recent heat waves in Europe (where many countries rely heavily on nuclear power) forced plant shutdowns when water temperatures became insufficient for their water-cooling needs and caused potential environmental hazards if the plants kept running.  Clearly, if nuclear technology is pursued, it must be done so with careful attention to ensure efficiency and prevent cost overruns.  Nuclear waste can potentially be recycled, but thousands of tons of it is sitting idle in nuclear facilities across the country, with potentially harmful health consequences for local populations.

Perhaps the major challenge for the nuclear industry is for its developers to rebel against the age-old fossil-fuel industry war on renewable alternatives.  With climate change concerns demonstrating the resurgence in interest in nuclear power, the industry should be compelled to align with renewable energy instead of aligning with the fossil fuel industries. 

Of course the major advantage of nuclear power is capacity.  A large nuclear plant can serve the needs of 1-2 million homes and businesses.  The problem is cost overruns (A recent U.S. Department of Energy study found that 75 U.S. nuclear power plants experienced construction cost overruns totaling $100 billion).  Furthermore, constructing a nuclear power facility takes a decade or more.  Clearly, if the nuclear industry is to keep constructing plants, they shouldn+óGé¼Gäót do so at the expense of renewable technologies, which, if enough capacity is available, are preferable based on environmental quality, economic development, cost-effectiveness, insurance (U.S. taxpayers get the bill for a nuclear disaster), and limiting the threat of attacks on nuclear facilities and the unintended consequences that can arise from nuclear proliferation.

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% of that new demand 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%. 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, nuclear, 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.  (10 gigawatts (GW) of natural gas capacity came online in 2005, compared with less than 1 GW of coal, and well over 3 GW of renewables). 

There are renewable technologies approaching a tipping point where renewables and other alternative energy technologies will widen their scope of potential applications and breakthroughs will move us far beyond what is possible with existing technology. Ultimately the greatest short-term promise rests with energy efficiency and conservation.  Americans do not have to change their way of life, they just have to accept that sacrifices must be made to achieve lasting peace and security.  Paying a few dollars more today for energy-efficient light-bulbs, air conditioners, along with clean renewable energy, will save hundreds if not thousands of dollars tomorrow when the benefits accrue.  This concept, sometimes referred to as +óGé¼+ônegawatts+óGé¼-¥, is the most cost-effective way to lower energy costs.  We can manufacture energy-efficient products domestically if we train domestic engineers and emphasize efficiency in university programs based on architecture and engineering. 

We+óGé¼Gäóll likely never be so efficient that these products will kill our economy.  In the short-term they are the only thing that can save our economy.  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. As Democratic activists, volunteers, and supporters, we must push our Democratic candidates to promote these technologies and the tremendous advantage they give to our country.  I+óGé¼Gäóve been to a farm where tropical fish are bred even in winter using geothermal heating.  I+óGé¼Gäóve seen the advantage a wind farm brings to a struggling rural town under threat of extinction.  I+óGé¼Gäóve talked to people using energy-efficient technology who are savings hundreds of dollars per month on their energy bills.  These cases are just a few of the thousands of success stories taking place every year.  To truly take our country back, we must be pursuing these technologies.  To paraphrase Joe Lieberman+óGé¼-ªto not do so would be +óGé¼+ôat our own peril+óGé¼-¥!

*This is solely the opinion of Dan from Raising Kaine.

**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

Comments