<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Not much]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by chrispaine http://www.grist.org/article/sotu-what-kind-of-money-we-talking-about/ Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:33:24 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/sotu-what-kind-of-money-we-talking-about/1 SOTU: What kind of money we talking about?

Less than David Roberts thinks, unfortunately. The 22% increase in "clean energy research" cannot be assumed to be within the efficiency and renewables budget, because $281 million of it is for "clean coal" (without carbon capture) and another $54 million is for "FutureGen," an advanced coal demonstration plant with carbon capture. So that's $335 million for "nonrenewable" energy right there. Solar and wind together get $192 million -- considerably less than the $257 million dollar cost of a single F-22 fighter plane. "Homegrown renewable biofuels" get $150 million, and hydrogen fuel cells -- the least effective technology for oil savings in the short run -- gets the most money --$289 million. Fuel cells are a "renewable" energy technology only to the extent that the energy consumed in separating, purifying, compressing and transporting hydrogen comes from renewable sources, which it currently doesn't. So that's a toal of $624 million for non-renewable energy and $342 million for renewables. Efficiency improvements in cars, appliances, and buildings -- a huge potential source of energy savings -- are not even mentioned.

]]> SOTU: What kind of money we talking about?

Less than David Roberts thinks, unfortunately. The 22% increase in "clean energy research" cannot be assumed to be within the efficiency and renewables budget, because $281 million of it is for "clean coal" (without carbon capture) and another $54 million is for "FutureGen," an advanced coal demonstration plant with carbon capture. So that's $335 million for "nonrenewable" energy right there. Solar and wind together get $192 million -- considerably less than the $257 million dollar cost of a single F-22 fighter plane. "Homegrown renewable biofuels" get $150 million, and hydrogen fuel cells -- the least effective technology for oil savings in the short run -- gets the most money --$289 million. Fuel cells are a "renewable" energy technology only to the extent that the energy consumed in separating, purifying, compressing and transporting hydrogen comes from renewable sources, which it currently doesn't. So that's a toal of $624 million for non-renewable energy and $342 million for renewables. Efficiency improvements in cars, appliances, and buildings -- a huge potential source of energy savings -- are not even mentioned.

]]>