<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for What can greens expect from Obama?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by ahmednewenergy http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:59:22 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/1 WHO WILL BE THE ENERGY CZAR?

Another important question is who is going to head up the Dept of Energy???

People like to joke about Al Gore or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but who are the real contenders?

One article I found so far discussed some choices:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/who-will-be-the-ne ...

]]> WHO WILL BE THE ENERGY CZAR?

Another important question is who is going to head up the Dept of Energy???

People like to joke about Al Gore or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but who are the real contenders?

One article I found so far discussed some choices:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/who-will-be-the-ne ...

]]> Comment #2 by Jonas http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:45:00 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/2 Minor problems

Problems are Obama's support for all too lavish subsidies for solar and wind, which are unsustainable and uncompetitive sources of energy, for the time being.

He hasn't mentioned bioenergy, which is, so far, the only true sustainable and competitive source of renewable energy.

His support for clean coal is problematic too.

So: a more reasonable and tech-neutral subsidy regime, combined with more focus on the cost-competitiveness of renewables would make these minor mistakes a thing of the past.

]]> Minor problems

Problems are Obama's support for all too lavish subsidies for solar and wind, which are unsustainable and uncompetitive sources of energy, for the time being.

He hasn't mentioned bioenergy, which is, so far, the only true sustainable and competitive source of renewable energy.

His support for clean coal is problematic too.

So: a more reasonable and tech-neutral subsidy regime, combined with more focus on the cost-competitiveness of renewables would make these minor mistakes a thing of the past.

]]> Comment #3 by gohuskies http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:08:04 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/3 Wow

When was bioenergy ever more economically efficient then wind or solar?

]]> Wow

When was bioenergy ever more economically efficient then wind or solar?

]]> Comment #4 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:09:13 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/4 Nothing wrong with optimism

Recently heard Chomsky interviewed on NPR where he suggested that disillusionment with Obama will soon settle in. Seems to think that real change has and always will come from below--American democracy having become too beholding to corporate interests and so on.

I'm trying out a method where you quote someone you agree with to deflect criticism away from yourself ; )

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Nothing wrong with optimism

Recently heard Chomsky interviewed on NPR where he suggested that disillusionment with Obama will soon settle in. Seems to think that real change has and always will come from below--American democracy having become too beholding to corporate interests and so on.

I'm trying out a method where you quote someone you agree with to deflect criticism away from yourself ; )

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #5 by jbird http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:10:20 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/5 Clean coal? By whose definition of clean?

All this talk about clean coal has apparently been focused on one area - emissions.  This apparently clean coal has lower sulfur, thus it's clean (in fact, I think it looks more like ice than what most people think of when they picture coal).  Has anyone thought about how dirty the process of getting "clean" coal actually is?  Has anyone out there heard of MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL?  How clean is that?  Check out Google Earth for some striking photos of what's been going on in Appalachia for years.  Social justice anyone?
Come on you guys, even if you find a way to safely sequester all of the carbon and the sulfur, coal is NOT the new Green.

]]> Clean coal? By whose definition of clean?

All this talk about clean coal has apparently been focused on one area - emissions.  This apparently clean coal has lower sulfur, thus it's clean (in fact, I think it looks more like ice than what most people think of when they picture coal).  Has anyone thought about how dirty the process of getting "clean" coal actually is?  Has anyone out there heard of MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL?  How clean is that?  Check out Google Earth for some striking photos of what's been going on in Appalachia for years.  Social justice anyone?
Come on you guys, even if you find a way to safely sequester all of the carbon and the sulfur, coal is NOT the new Green.

]]> Comment #6 by SkyHunter http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:23:01 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/6 Solar Energy

NanoSolar is producing utility panels at $0.30 a watt. That is competitive with conventional coal for generating electricity. AES, EDF and the Carlyle Group are now backing them. This technology can be licensed to expand production by an order of magnitude in a few short years. Each factory can produce one gigawatt of these panels a year!
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=10
And this is just the beginning. The .com boom will pale in comparison to the green energy boom.

]]> Solar Energy

NanoSolar is producing utility panels at $0.30 a watt. That is competitive with conventional coal for generating electricity. AES, EDF and the Carlyle Group are now backing them. This technology can be licensed to expand production by an order of magnitude in a few short years. Each factory can produce one gigawatt of these panels a year!
http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=10
And this is just the beginning. The .com boom will pale in comparison to the green energy boom.

]]> Comment #7 by salemguy http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Sat, 08 Nov 2008 07:40:16 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/7 Couple questions for David

David,

Excellent commentary, thank you. I'm puzzled, though (new here) at this assertion about O's energy plan:

"It is marred by its lavish support for biofuels and "clean coal," ....

Do you think we can do without biofuels in the future? What is lavish about his plan?

I think we agree that "clean coal" is an oxymoron, and what I see in his plan is a set of parameters that will moderate its development.

What am I missing?

]]> Couple questions for David

David,

Excellent commentary, thank you. I'm puzzled, though (new here) at this assertion about O's energy plan:

"It is marred by its lavish support for biofuels and "clean coal," ....

Do you think we can do without biofuels in the future? What is lavish about his plan?

I think we agree that "clean coal" is an oxymoron, and what I see in his plan is a set of parameters that will moderate its development.

What am I missing?

]]> Comment #8 by christophersj http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/ Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:44:40 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/strategery-20/8 Obama gives up carbon caps?

The New York Times today implied Obama will no longer emphasize carbon caps.  But the wording is cloudy:

Sunday's NY Times:

"On energy and climate change, Mr. Obama's focus has shifted markedly over the course of the year as the economy has weakened.

An earlier proposal put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gases, requiring industry and utilities to buy credits from the government to emit carbon dioxide. That plan would produce hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue and drive up the cost of energy for everyone.

Mr. Obama is now emphasizing a program to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar and biofuels, and to encourage energy conservation in homes, offices and public buildings. He would also provide substantial financial help to the auto industry to develop high-mileage and electric cars. JOHN M. BRODER"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises. ...

]]> Obama gives up carbon caps?

The New York Times today implied Obama will no longer emphasize carbon caps.  But the wording is cloudy:

Sunday's NY Times:

"On energy and climate change, Mr. Obama's focus has shifted markedly over the course of the year as the economy has weakened.

An earlier proposal put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gases, requiring industry and utilities to buy credits from the government to emit carbon dioxide. That plan would produce hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue and drive up the cost of energy for everyone.

Mr. Obama is now emphasizing a program to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar and biofuels, and to encourage energy conservation in homes, offices and public buildings. He would also provide substantial financial help to the auto industry to develop high-mileage and electric cars. JOHN M. BRODER"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises. ...

]]>