It's the 'Green' Mountain state for a reason

We need an energy revolution 4

The United States today spends some $400 billion a year importing oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mexico, Russia, and Venezuela. Think for a moment what an incredible impact that same $400 billion a year could have on our country if that money were invested here and not abroad, in such areas as weatherization, energy efficiency, sustainable energies like wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, public transportation and automobiles that are energy efficient or don’t use fossil fuels at all.

What we are talking about is an energy revolution that leads us toward energy independence, the cessation of support for foreign dictatorships and the ability to avoid Mideast wars fought over oil.  What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enable us to address the global warming crisis that threatens our planet with increases in floods, drought, extreme weather conditions, disease and wars fought over limited natural resources.  What we are talking about is an energy revolution that will result in cleaner air, water and food and make us a healthier nation.

And, as our nation struggles to recover from the worst economic times since the Great Depression, what we also are talking about is an energy revolution that has the capability of creating millions of good-paying green jobs.

These are jobs that will occur at every level of education and for every skill set. These are jobs for scientists, engineers, machinists, and electricians. These are jobs for workers who weatherize older homes and buildings and save consumers substantial sums on their fuel bills. These are jobs for factory workers who produce advanced insulation material, energy-efficient windows, improved roofing materials and LED light bulbs. These are jobs that build, distribute, install and maintain wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, solar hot water systems, geothermal heating and cooling systems, and biomass heating systems. These are jobs on our farms and in our forests producing biofuels and converting farm waste to electricity.

I see a future where by 2025, we are producing a quarter or more of our electricity from clean, sustainable energy sources. I see a revitalized American manufacturing base where instead of importing 90 percent of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles, 46 percent of solar photovoltaic cells and modules, and half of all wind turbines used in the U.S., those product are made right here at home. I see a future where American companies lead the world in the production of hybrid-plug in cars and electric vehicles.

I see a future where instead of creating 330 jobs to build yet another fossil-fuel power plant, we create 4,000 jobs building a solar thermal plant that has no carbon dioxide emissions and does not pollute our air because the only fuel is endlessly renewed, no-cost sunlight. These plants, according to the Interior Department secretary, could provide up to 29 percent of the electrical needs of our country.

I see a future where by 2020 our nation follows the example of a state like Vermont, which, in the last two years, has seen electricity demand lowered because of energy efficiency efforts. Investing in energy efficiency is cost-effective; it saves 3 cents per kilowatt hour compared to the 14 cents it costs to generate the same amount of power.

I see a future where states compete with one another to see which can be the most efficient, and where businesses seek out efficient states in which to locate so they can reap the economic and environmental benefits for their businesses and employees.

I see a future where getting to work, or to school, or to the store does not have to cause pollution. I see a future where plug-in hybrid cars and electric vehicles are commonplace, producing a fraction of the emissions of conventional vehicles while providing the same mobility for drivers.

I see a future where we rebuild our mass transportation and rail systems. For every $1 billion we invest in public transportation, we create 30,000 jobs, save thousands of dollars a year for each commuter, and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The bad news is that if we do not act boldly to address the global warming crisis, the consequences for our planet and future generations will be dire.  The good news is that we have the knowledge and technology today, which will only improve in the future, to address that crisis.  Yes, we can dramatically cut greenhouse gas emission. Yes, we can create an energy independent nation.  Yes, we can create millions of good paying green jobs in the process.  Let’s do it!

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is chairman of the Green Jobs and the New Economy Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. CozyHome's avatar

    CozyHome Posted 2:38 pm
    23 Jul 2009

    I always value an optimistic vision for a sustianabie future. Thank you for this.However...as a partner in a home performance contracting company, I am getting tired of vision while opportunities are missed for invigorating the transition that is needed.Market transformation to benefit job growth, oil reductions, and CO2 mitigation requires more incentives  for energy efficiency: the most immediately  way to reduce our energy use.  Why do incentives currently favor renewables, making efficiency upgrades a tougher sell then they should?For instance, the tax credit for Renewables is not capped, while energye efficiency upgrades are capped at $1500. This effectivel dis-incentivizes practical investments in EE. It almost to time to stop rallying the masses, and start getting policy makers to put in place incentive strucutres to get us to our glorious future.
  2. coleyfudge Posted 1:47 pm
    24 Jul 2009

    I am a project manager for a solar installation company and I agree with cozyhome. I live in NY state and had to insulate our first house, a fixer upper victorian with nothing but air in the walls. Luckily NY state has an excellent program for this and we were able to get some financing , however we found that tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades are available only every other year!?The Solar industry was capped at $2000. for tax credits until this last January (2009) and uncapping them for us was a great boon to getting more customers and putting in more solar installations. So I understand completely what CozyHome and his industry are experiencing.  What I see as beneficial for both CozyHome and our industry is to treat all these alternative energy and energy efficiency installations and upgrades with the same tax credits and programs. Also simplifying the guidelines so it makes it easy for people to make financial decisions without having to consult a tax expert.Furthermore in the solar and wind industry we are having to fight the utilities in order to be able to install these systems as they have no incentive to allow these installations. Here in NY we have over five utility companies all doing everything in their power to prevent these installations either by limiting the amount of netmetering per year and or limiting the size of installations. If there were federal rules regarding size of installations for residences and businesses and netmetering mandates for all utilities it would have al arge effect. Cutting these paperwork costs and redundacies would allow me to charge less to customers and hire more longterm crews to install. On a final note, It is good to see that our representatives are thinking along these lines and I applaud your vision. I am the soup to nuts guy for solar and wind arrays as CozyHome is to energy efficiency ugrades and I can not speak for him but for me a well thought out, inclusive federal energy policy for both our industries is needed to provide clear information and guidelines to States, Utilities, and most importantly to the people and businesses who will drive this energy vision by upgrading heaters and appliances, Insulating their homes, and meeting their energy needs from the wind and sun.   
    1. CozyHome's avatar

      CozyHome Posted 4:03 pm
      24 Jul 2009

      Coley Well said. Its great to be reminded that our industries are indeed both striving for the same thing- reduced CO2 and all related benefits.As Coley eluded to, market transformation to trully impelement Sen. Bernie's vision for these sustainable industries to grow and thrive is not  going to come from utiltiy programs. Although mandating utility investment in cost effective investments in efficiency and renewables, they are still owned by shareholders who profit from more fossil fuel energy sold.
      True market transformation will come from  significant temporary incentives such as those proposed in the REEP component of the Markey-Waxman bill (introduced by Peter Welch-VT). America is the best at innovation, but skewed govt. support may catch up with us this time. It is extremely important that policy makers across the isle believe that it is the end of the fossil fuel based economy. If we don't do it , China and india will- then we will be buying our panels and other new tech. from them.Bernie, if you are still in the room, let us know!
  3. vbstenswick Posted 7:07 pm
    25 Jul 2009

    I agree we need a revolution, but I have a few ideas.  First, and most important, give electricity from waste heat the the same incentives as wind, which I think is $0.02/kwh for ten years.  Second, keep the current incentives for solar in place, but give addtional incentives based on some sort of solar index, the higher the  index the greater the incentive.  If you only had 1000 solar panels, and wanted to have the most effect, where would you put them, Seattle or Phoenix?  As for the first incentive, I did a few calculations, having to make a few assumptions, but here they are.  WOW Energies claims to be able to recover 30% of the waste heat if it is at 700 degrees.   Now a coal fired power plant will not have waste heat that high, so I will guesstimate that 10% can be recovered.  If a plant is 35% efficient, that means there is 65% waste heat.  10% of that is 6.5%.  6.5 % as a fraction of 35% is 18.6%, or call it 20% or 1/5.  That means a 500 MW power plant could become a 600 MW power plant and 100 MW of coal generated electricity removed from the system elsewhere, nearby.  The cost of this upgrade would be about $180 million.  Let's assume that this is in a state like mine, Minnesota, that has a law requiring CO2 emissions to be reduced.  So assume the utility only uses this investment for 10 years before shutting the upgraded plant down.  That is $18 million per year, divided by 5 million people in the state and you get $3.60 per person per year, and you prevented alot of CO2 from being put into the atmosphere.  I am not an expert in all areas of energy, or in any area, but this looks pretty cost effective to me.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement