On Thursday night, Barack Obama appeared on the (highly rated) Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC. Continuing his comprehensive effort to say things that make me really happy, he had a long exchange with Maddow about ... the electrical grid. Seriously!
He says, "we're going to have to have a smart grid -- if we want to use plug-in hybrids, then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that's generated from those car batteries, back into the grid."
Are you kidding me? I think it's safe to say that this is the most a presidential candidate has ever talked about the grid during a campaign. It's certainly the first time a presidential candidate has explicitly tied together economic stimulus spending, infrastructure, national security, smart grids, and plug-in hybrids. Just like my op-ed! Is Obama reading Gristmill? Inquiring minds want to know.
Here's the excerpt from the transcript:
MADDOW: There may be some policy fights ahead, particularly in responding to the economic crisis that will have both a practical and an ideological component. If we are looking at economic stimulus, is there a possibility that you could see in your first term, if you are elected, that we'd need an economic stimulus program that felt to Americans a little bit like a public works program, a little bit like an FDR-style infrastructure building program?
OBAMA: Well, I've actually talked about this. And I haven't been hiding the ball on this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China's doing right now. Their trains are faster than us, their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive 21st century economy and we're not.
One of the most frustrating things over the last eight years has been the ability of George Bush to pile up debt and huge deficits and not have anything to show for it, right? So, if you're going to run deficit spending, then it better be in rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our sewer lines, our water system, laying broadband lines.
One of, I think, the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid. Because if we're going to be serious about renewable energy, I want to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago. And we're going to have to have a smart grid if we want to use plug-in hybrids then we want to be able to have ordinary consumers sell back the electricity that's generated from those car batteries, back into the grid. That can create 5 million new jobs, just in new energy.
But, it's huge projects that generally speaking, you're not going to have private enterprise would want to take all those risks. And we're going to have to be involved in that process.
MADDOW: Also an issue on something like the electrical grid, that's an issue of American resilience, even against the threat of terrorism. A lot of times when you look at counter-terrorism, officials think that they came out, or an al-Qaeda attack on the electrical grid.
OBAMA: That's exactly right.
MADDOW: Well you know, at this point, a snow storm is an attack on our electrical grid.
OBAMA: That's exactly right.
MADDOW: Are there Homeland Security vulnerabilities that you think are fixable in ways that would also be good for the economy?
OBAMA: Well, you mentioned one. The electricity grid I think is important.
Sigh. He talks so purty ...
Here's the video -- the relevant bit starts about 7:15 in:
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Flat
stopgreenpath Posted 5:30 am
31 Oct 2008
Obama, they call Chicago the Windy City. Why on EARTH would you need to IMPORT WIND FROM NORTH DAKOTA? ever heard of microwind? on every building in that city and its humongous suburbs? solar panels? conservation? THESE are the programs that will decongest the existing grid, will save our open spaces, will enrich PEOPLE (with Feed In Tariffs) not Big Energy monopolists and will prevent the huge-scale eminent domain and GHG emissions of giant powerlines.
It boils down to this: do you want to kill our open spaces and use all our taxpayer and ratepayer money to build a gigantic, inefficient, insecure, unreliable centralized power matrix OWNED BY BIG ENERGY, or do you want to save our open spaces and use our taxpayer and ratepayer money to build efficient, clean, reliable point of use solutions that will create a SUSTAINABLE future for America, and will allow democracy to prevail over corporatocracy?
Too bad the choice is not mine, as usual.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
hdsolarguy Posted 11:19 am
31 Oct 2008
It is a global energy network and, like the internet, it will change our culture, society and how we do business. More importantly, it will alter how we use, transform and exchange energy.
Enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year.
There is no energy supply problem, there is an energy distribution problem -- and the emerging solution is a new world wide web of electricity.
For more information, see http://www.terrawatts.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:42 pm
31 Oct 2008
Take note all teevee-phobic progressives, there is a new media emerging inspired by Murrough and proplelled by progressives who have infiltrated the corporate media combine.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 1:14 am
01 Nov 2008
who are the co-sponsors?
Is Bernie Sanders interested?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:09 am
01 Nov 2008
...Becomes a law, a classic.
Where is the sleazy reagan revolutionary version? Complete with torture crazy corporate kristian krusading contractors.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:43 am
01 Nov 2008
as an example, we had a feed in tariff introduced last year that would allow CA residents to oversize PV and microwind systems on their properties and get paid for excess power produced. the amount of the tariffs paid above retail price would be amortized across the grid, just like when utilities build their power plants and powerlines, only WE would own the systems (we would NOT get to amortize our system costs, of course, since we are peons who don't own the government) and our open spaces would be spared. WAY cheaper for ratepayers and taxpayers, plus an economic stimulus in terms of skilled local jobs, and actual checks cut to the people doing the right thing. what's not to love? well, by the time our Big Energy Aristocracy gutted the bill, they crushed system sizes so ratepayers were NOT ALLOWED TO OVERSIZE their systems even though they were paying for them (hunh? i thought we wanted renewable energy?? RPS?? etc.??) and were paid puny wholesale rates (which are falsely low due to massive subsidies), rather than the types of rates that every other nation uses - a modest multiple of retail. at that point, nobody even wanted the bill and it died. the conclusion? not "Big Energy is killing the democratic process." no, it's "we tried feed in tariffs - they just won't work." insane.
in other words, there is NOBODY LOOKING OUT FOR THE PLANET OR FOR RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS, including Mr. Obama, including Sierra Club, including NRDC, including California. at least with righties, we know they are proud to kill the planet for money - this is creepier. Big Solar and Big Wind and Big Geothermal are just new manifestations of Big Coal, Big Gas and Big Oil, with their whole goal being to monopolize supply, suck up taxpayer and ratepayer guarantees and subsidies, prevent us from getting energy independence, and to force a false "urgency" to kill off our public lands to build their private profit centers. if renewable energy is so urgent, why aren't RAPIDLY SCALABLE solutions like rooftop solar being pursued rather than aggressively stifled? see the CPUC website which clearly states they don't want rooftop solar to "burden" the grid, even though it decongests the grid. hmmm.
in an era when wind and sun are the primary fuels being contemplated, there is NO reason to build ANY remote power plants any more, other than Big Energy mercenaries hijacking our democratic process. it is all about PV and microwind and conservation, at point of use, owned by the people, who should be rewarded for doing the right thing, and who should be encouraged to over-produce and participate in the Green Energy Revolution as more than hijacked ratepayers. you simply cannot pretend to care about the planet and endorse killing millions more acres of it, totally unnecessarily, for energy production.
we are trying to put together a ballot initiative in CA for 2009 that will create a fair feed in tariff, despite the chokehold Big Energy has on our state and our country. Germany, Japan, Spain, South Korea, and basically the rest of Europe and Australia all have generous, successful FITs. as usual, USA is last at the party and our own "environmentalists" are leading the charge to the bottom by investing heavily in super-destructive Big Solar and Big Wind.
we were told early on not to bother objecting to certain Big Solar projects like those being built by Bright Source, even though they will kill off gorgeous functioning ecosystem, will run mostly on gas, and will deplete desert water supplies in the tens if not hundreds of millions of gallons a year. you know why? because Robt. Kennedy, Jr. of NRDC was a big investor. these are people we thought would be our allies, but they have turned against the environment for personal profit, so now we are down to educating real people one at a time. they are counting on soundbytes "solar is green" "Pickens is saving America" (that from Carl Pope, head of Sierra Club), and hoping americans are too lazy to learn the truth. they also provide cover for legislators who want to pretend to be green while doing the bidding of their Big Energy masters. all this, even though it has been proven that the building and maintaining new transmission lines alone will emit so many GHGs that they can NEVER BE OFFSET no matter how many solar or wind plants are connected, no matter how many carbon offsets are bought, and no matter how many "mitigations" are undertaken. so they are warming the planet, while killing off the fantastic carbon sink that is the Mojave, while decimating intact ecosystem, shaving off mountaintops, and totally depleting aquifers. is that what you call "renewable?"
the whole thing is horrifying, but the good news is that every single person we have discussed this with (who is not entrenched in mercenary energy profiteering) has agreed with us, across party lines, so now there are tens of thousands of us, instead of 5 or however many we had 2 years ago.
so, if and when we get a legislator whose hands are clean, and/or if we get a proposition prepared for the referendum process, i will let you know. in the meantime, please spread the word. killing our wilderness for money is wrong, especially since there is a totally viable alternative. it doesn't become right just because you use the sun as an excuse.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 5:06 am
01 Nov 2008
but discipline yourself not to demonize people; do not call names even if warranted
otherwise, it is easier to marginalize you
it takes discipline to stay cool
cannot win without it
you can gain ground, but it will take time and a lot of people's effort
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 11:45 am
01 Nov 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:07 pm
01 Nov 2008
Technology that makes each home a stable portion of a stable grid. Local loops composed of self sufficient homes, farms, and businesses that generate and store power.
Can leadership on a national level peer down into the micro level of the individual family? He seems to do that in other respects.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 1:13 am
02 Nov 2008
heard in Congress
otherwise, the other voices will dominate
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:52 am
02 Nov 2008
One would hope that Gore can assemble them. If that were the case, wouldn't they already be appearing in the media as a strong united front?
Instead we get leaders like Lester Brown and Gore and Lovins all sticking to their own venues. This is troubling.
How can the fractured constituency of green citizenry push these guys all up front enmasse? Are the leaders of the standard enviro groups too busy protecting their own lobbying/fund raising turf to push together?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink