Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" [PDF] plan. Yesterday, he gave a major speech on this plan in Lansing, Michigan.
This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party:
- Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers ...
- Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas ... [more details below]
- Partner with Domestic Automakers: Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and
loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient
cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas. - Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles
- Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure
- Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: ... The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years.
This is the only way to jumpstart an end to our addiction to oil in a climate friendly way. Indeed, an accelerated transition to plug-in hybrids and electric cars -- a core climate solution -- must be the cornerstone of any serious effort to dramatically reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. That is the crucial litmus test for any presidential candidate's energy independence or clean transportation policy.
As for the test of a candidate's grasp of electricity policy, energy efficiency is obviously the only cheap power left and a limitless resource and the core climate solution. Obama understands energy efficiency in a way few other major politicians do, as his plan makes clear:
- Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source -- Energy Efficiency: Barack Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal -- to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet.
- Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
- Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards: The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards ...
- Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: ... He will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero -- emissions by 2025. He will invest in cost -- effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years.
- Invest in a Smart Grid: ... Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability.
- Weatherize One Million Homes Annually ...
- Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities ...
- Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: An Obama administration will "flip" incentives to utility companies by requiring states to conduct proceedings to implement incentive changes; and offering them targeted technical assistance. These measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency, rather than just from supporting higher energy consumption. This "regulatory equity" starts with the decoupling of profits from increased energy usage, which will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal and state governments to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. The federal government under an Obama administration will play an important and positive role in flipping the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production.
Finally, a presidential nominee that really gets it.
The proposal has lots of other details on short-term solutions and promoting the supply of domestic energy. But let me focus on his low-carbon electricity supply plan:
- Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012 [and 25 percent by 2025]. Barack Obama will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012. Many states are already well on their way to achieving statewide goals and it's time for the federal government to provide leadership for the entire country to support these new industries. This national requirement will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs, especially in rural areas. And Obama will also extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy.
- Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology ...
- Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: ... It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation ... . As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti- terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available.
He also repeats his climate pledge and his jobs pledge:
- Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
- Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years ...
Finally, back to the details of the plug-in hybrid proposal:
As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers to bring plug-in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:
- Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug-ins as security permits; and
- Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012.
This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
One year after his election, Obama on verge of audaciously fulfilling his promise as the green FDR
Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 8:49 am
05 Aug 2008
And what is a low carbon fuel?
Also, just giving targets for carbon emissions doesn't mean much unless the means are specified.
Good: The Federal Government should "green" its buildings and vehicles. This is very important.
Also, unfortunately, the Feds probably need to shovel bucket loads of money, as Obama has called for, so that Detroit can convert to electric vehicles
And of course the ugly: the ccs, expanding nuclear.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:51 pm
05 Aug 2008
Energy density is why gasoline and better yet, diesel are so efficient. To reduce carbon means using massive loads of alternative fuels that have a lower carbon content. So we're back to alternative fuels like it was 1992 again, huh? Well that didn't work so I guess we should do something else.
We all know that natural gas vehicle literally crapped out. Ethanol and methanol each have horrendous diseconomies. Using coal-powered generating units for electric vehicles is really a stupid thing once done on a large scale. I don't get it. Propane has its issues as well, although was actually closest to working in the fleet (LNG was a disaster in the making).
There is no way for modern technology to face the physical properties of these kinds of alternative fuels. There is no magic formula except electrification and a slim possibility of fuel cells. If you blend certification gasoline or diesel, you pay more because you have less energy, and since you have less energy you burn more and get about the same carbon emissions in a combustion motor vehicle.
The trick is to get people out of combustion motor vehicles and stay with gasoline and diesel for needed uses. That's a more rational fuels-based program. Rail and even buses can haul many people more efficiently than driving their own cars. In many cases these larger units are easier to electrify, like subways and urban rail (if you have clean electric power, better). I've thought about this many times and found all the alternative fuels to be a complete crock of snake-oil. I used to be the alternative fuels director at the Texas environmental commission.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 12:57 pm
05 Aug 2008
We need a fully integrated energy plan for the future. It is like a jigsaw puzzle with many interacting pieces. The candidates pick out one piece from the opponent's plan and say, "This won't solve our energy problem by itself, so there is no point in doing this". That argument could be applied to every piece of the puzzle. The problem is too serious to be playing such games.
There are 3 billion people around the world who want to join the middle class. If the U.S. could reduce its emissions to zero instantly, the savings would be gobbled up by the developing world. Conservation will not solve the worlds energy problem.
The most important goal for the U.S. is to use our technical capacity to develop low emission energy sources that are less expensive than fossil fuel. People across the world will switch to the new less expensive sources quickly and voluntarily, not kicking and screaming.
Energy is so important to the human race that we must implement a plan that does not have failure as an option.
SHORT TERM STRATEGY
1 Drill, drill, drill. Drill in Alaska, drill offshore, drill wherever we have oil and gas. Each $10 per barrel that oil goes up costs Americans another $80 billion per year. Each 1 cent per kWh that electricity goes up costs Americans another $40 billion per year.
We need fuel to keep our economy going so that we can afford to develop the new technologies that the world needs.
2 Level the playing field so that we are forced to pay the true cost of energy from each source. Eliminate all energy subsidies.
When you take a load of trash to the city landfill you pay a fee per pound of trash. Humans have been using the atmosphere as a free waste dump since we gained control of fire. Atmospheric dumping of hazardous material is producing severe adverse effects on human health and global climate. We should charge an atmospheric dumping fee equal to the best estimate of the cost of damage done by the toxic waste being injected into our atmosphere. Low emission technologies will become more competitive on a level playing field.
3 Conservation is a strategy that is being implemented already due to rising energy costs, and it will increase. Improving insulation and using more efficient appliances make good sense.
Conservation sometimes comes at a high cost. For example sales of motorcycles and mopeds are exploding. The motorcycle fatality rate per mile is seven times higher than for cars. The fatality rate for bicycles is seven times higher than motorcycles. Econobox cars are less survivable in accidents than large cars built with the same level of technology.
Higher electricity prices mean less security lighting. There'll be more muggings and rapes on college campuses and parking lots. Homes will be colder in winter and hotter in summer. More people on limited income will have to choose between paying for food, medicine or utility bills.
The cost of conservation includes increased human suffering and death. The sooner we develop clean safe abundant sources of inexpensive energy, the sooner we can minimize these costs.
INTERMEDIATE TERM STRATEGY
Use proven technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
1 Accelerate the mainstreaming of emerging technologies including hybrid, all electric and fuel cell vehicles.
2 Mass produce floating nuclear power plants to increase our supply of clean emissions free energy electricity. A company called Offshore Power Systems built a facility to do that in Florida during the seventies, but it was never put into production due to a downturn in the economy that stalled growth and canceled orders.
3 Convert most stationary application of natural gas to electricity. Use our natural gas supply to displace imported oil. Automakers can convert from gasoline to natural gas quickly and cheaply.
LONG TERM STRATEGY
1 Increase R&D for energy by more than a factor of ten to $100 billion per year, 90 cents per day for each of us. Push every technology as hard as possible, build prototypes of everything as it becomes possible and publish the performance data.
When someone says R&D most people only hear Research. In truth Development is the really expensive part, and the U.S. has done very little of that in recent decades.
Build intermediate scale plants of all promising technologies, advanced nuclear, cellulosic biofuel, solar power, geothermal, coal with full sequestration. For those technologies that are successful in medium scale we should built at least one full scale commercial size plant.
We have yet to build a fully sequestered coal plant after years of talk. We need to try even if the first plant is a failure.
There are dozens of ways to split a uranium atom. What are the odds that a steroidal submarine reactor is the best? There are huge improvements to be made in nuclear power plant design and construction, yet we have not built a new experimental reactor since 1973.
2 Spaceship earth is less than 8,000 miles in diameter and covered largely by water. With the appropriate use of technology it could be a near paradise for 500 million to 1 billion people, without putting too much stress on the other species that share this planet, but we are over 6 billion, headed for 10 billion, with two thirds living in poverty.
Earth can never be paradise for 10 billion people, unless your idea of paradise is sitting in an air conditioned high rise apartment building, surfing the internet, eating insect pate. It will take a massive infusion of technology to provide a comfortable life for all those people while preserving whatever is left of the environment.
Population has to be on the table in any serious discussion of the future. The U.S. population has more than doubled since WW II. Had we stabilized it at that level we would have abundant inexpensive energy, water and food supplies.
CONCLUSION
The road of progress is paved with stones of failure. By spending 90 cents per person per day to push every technology as fast as possible, the best technologies and breakthroughs, whatever they are, will emerge as leaders in the shortest possible time. 95% of that money will probably be wasted on unsuccessful technology, but that is cheap insurance to assure that we get the best solution. Think of it as a life insurance premium for the human race. Relying on a bunch of gray haired law school graduates in Washington to cherry pick technology is a formula for disaster.
The new technologies will tend to suppress rising energy costs. I believe the savings could surpass the annual R&D cost within 15 - 20 years, and save over $2,000 per year per person within 30 years, not to mention a large improvement in the environment and quality of life with this approach. 100 years from now energy will be cheap, clean and abundant.
A big R&D push will provide the U.S. with new products that are highly desirable all over the world, providing Americans with high paying manufacturing jobs and products to sell overseas to eliminate our trade deficit and strengthen the dollar.
We have wasted the last 30 years, we need to start implementing this solution now!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:39 pm
05 Aug 2008
Flex fuel could switch to biogas/natural gas/gasoline or diesel, instead of ethanol.
Nuclear, a 10 year experimental program, no new nukes until that testing is completed.
Clean coal, same thing, a 5 year experimental testing prohect. Prove it works, prove the cost.
Switch biofuel efforts to biogas from waste instead of biomass to liquid fuel.
These are easy changes, we have the science to prove they are necessary.
Let the tree to fuel and grass to fuel farming lobby have a few experimental plants too. But let them prove they should be expanded before going that way.
Promote organic fertilizer and farming along with biogas farm energy production.
Obama's basic energy plan framework could be skewed this way.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 1:19 am
06 Aug 2008
Obama's hope for clean coal is also unrealistic and baldly political. Clean coal isn't. And never will be. Yet power generation is a bigger source of CO2 emissions than oil use in passenger cars (which, for better or for worse, will probably take care of itself as oil is depleted.)
Obama also punts on nuclear power. Nuclear power is the only viable strategy to date that can reduce our carbon emissions significantly. The nuclear waste issue has not been solved, but is solvable. At the very least, clean nuclear power is much more realizable than clean coal.
So, unfortunately, while this plan makes several great steps forward, it is bogged in the politics of democrats having to hate nuclear power. Which apparently, is forcing them to LIKE coal. Burning coal will destroy this planet faster than nuclear power ever will or ever could.
More honesty on Joe Romm's part would have been refreshing.
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 1:51 am
06 Aug 2008
A policy that makes mandatory annual reductions in the carbon content of the fuel system is the best means of accounting for carbon in transportation. The best means of reducing carbon from the transportation system is still reducing fuel consumption, through efficiency standards and mass transit. And maybe enacting laws that limit the number of cars allowed into the urban centers, like the one they have in Amsterdam.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:54 am
06 Aug 2008
Could they build a million of these? Yep, no doubt. Rear wheel plugin electric, front wheel regular gas engine.
Why couldn't Detroit build a million like this, with american front wheel drive cars, converted with the plugin rear drive. They can with Obama's plan.
Government federal, state, and local and big business could order a million of them from GM, Ford, and chrysler. just like jeeps, tanks, trucks, planes were built for WW2 victory. let's win this time around, without war, just manufacturing power. Renewable/conservation energy mass production, trust american workers like the country did in WW2.
What's good for american families is good for america, and that will be good for GM and the others. Obama reverses the old corporatist saw, "What's good for GM, is good for america."
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/12 ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:43 am
06 Aug 2008
So, Obama is a toddler who will be pushed around by Mr. Know Alls ?
Hardly so. In fact, Obama is a seasoned listener and he listens to all points of view patiently. As a first-rate politician, his task is about discovering intelligent compromises. This is why his words of encouragement for clean coal and nuclear power (BTW, clean coal sucks and nuclear power rocks).
It is a shame that the puported environmentalists are getting busy touting their tiny little green plans, with complete disregard for a long term future.
When you care about man made global warming, what makes sense is the quantity of fossil fuels that you keep underneath the earth. It doesn't matter whether you burn the fuels now or 10 years later. What matters is a comprehensive check on the maximum amount of fossil fuels that the society will use in the future. If your plan has such a check, then it is a good plan. Otherwise it is not. t is a shame that nobody even bothers to present such numbers.
What we should be talking about is the number of coal plants that we will be shutting down per each year. What we should be finalizing are global targets for the amount of coal reserves that will be kept underneath the surface.
How we achieve these targets is another issue. But without any such target in place, what is the point of making void claims such as we will increase the share of renewable electricity to 10%or that we will make all cars plugin hybrids (both of which are achievable, but utterly inadequate to the global warming question)
And by the way, no mention of trains in the report (a zillion times better investment than a fleet of feel-good plugin hybrids).
Permalink
KenG Posted 4:33 am
06 Aug 2008
However, 1 million plug-ins by 2015 seems like a reasonable goal. Toyota, GM, Ford and others already plan to have PHEVs on the market in 2010. That's only 200,000 per year and Toyota already sells more Prius (Prii?) each year. Development may crash on the PHEVs but right now that looks like a reasonable goal.
Grid capability? No problem at this point with the night baseload capability. Now, if Obama takes the advice of some to shut down base load capacity in favor of solar/wind resources, that would be a whole new ball game.
Permalink