Comments on: Why other countries kick our butt on clean energy: A primer http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:53:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Graham http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-83537 Graham Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:33:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-83537 The south of the USA (Texas, New Mexico) has major potential for high usage of solar energy. Obama should seriously look into more ways of making use of natural resources. The south of the USA (Texas, New Mexico) has major potential for high usage of solar energy. Obama should seriously look into more ways of making use of natural resources.

]]> By: Ed http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-79791 Ed Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:00:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-79791 Tilman, you are spot on. I'm Dutch and especially ashamed of my countries environmental trackrecord since Balkenende took office. We are technology leaders (for instance a team from Delft university has won the Solar challenge 4 times in a row) but we have a set of politicians in place that agree on the problem (and state so regulary) but promote coal burning power plants (4 of them in fact) as a solution (using CSS as a greenwashing agent, while in fact the first CSS experiment run by Shell just tanked due to local opposition). I live near the border and when I cycle to Germany I'm envyous of the achievements, massive numbers of rotors dotting the farmscape, harming no on (except the odd migratory bird), solar collectors and solar panels on rooftops are found in almost every street. Just a little courage from German politicians and when you see Balkenende and Merkel are basically from the same confescional party (CDA/CDU) then it makes you wonder. Should green thinking Dutch ask political asylum in Germany :-) ? Greetings, Ed Kuipers Tilman, you are spot on. I’m Dutch and especially ashamed of my countries environmental trackrecord since Balkenende took office. We are technology leaders (for instance a team from Delft university has won the Solar challenge 4 times in a row) but we have a set of politicians in place that agree on the problem (and state so regulary) but promote coal burning power plants (4 of them in fact) as a solution (using CSS as a greenwashing agent, while in fact the first CSS experiment run by Shell just tanked due to local opposition).

I live near the border and when I cycle to Germany I’m envyous of the achievements, massive numbers of rotors dotting the farmscape, harming no on (except the odd migratory bird), solar collectors and solar panels on rooftops are found in almost every street. Just a little courage from German politicians and when you see Balkenende and Merkel are basically from the same confescional party (CDA/CDU) then it makes you wonder. Should green thinking Dutch ask political asylum in Germany :-) ?

Greetings, Ed Kuipers

]]> By: Tilman http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-45917 Tilman Mon, 04 May 2009 22:19:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-45917 One big mistake: When citing Germanys or Spains success, you always refer to portfoliot standards. That's not correct. The driving machine behind most of the success of renewable energy in Europe is the feed-in-tariff. It's a lot more efficient in driving investment than portfolio standards, and it's also more democratic. Go study it - if you implement it in America, installation rates will explode. One big mistake:
When citing Germanys or Spains success, you always refer to portfoliot standards. That’s not correct. The driving machine behind most of the success of renewable energy in Europe is the feed-in-tariff. It’s a lot more efficient in driving investment than portfolio standards, and it’s also more democratic. Go study it – if you implement it in America, installation rates will explode.

]]> By: Wilmot McCutchen http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-41219 Wilmot McCutchen Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:33:10 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-41219 DOE must take some blame here. Black hole money pits like hot fusion, supercolliders, string theory, CO2 sequestration, NextGen, etc. are absorbing all available research funding. National labs are not doing enough applied science in the clean tech area. For clean tech, a legacy of the Bush DOE is a Dec. 18, 2008, commitment for $80 billion in unfunded contracts with 16 favored contractors, which will starve any clean tech innovation for many years. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/news/news_detail.html?news_id=12150 The US has no shortage of well-funded pure science, but very little funding for mission-driven applied science and engineering. That is especially true for clean tech challenges. Other countries are more focused on making things that work. Applied science is considered inferior to pure science, and the academic caste system and its appurtenant grant system stands in the way of technological progress. DOE must take some blame here. Black hole money pits like hot fusion, supercolliders, string theory, CO2 sequestration, NextGen, etc. are absorbing all available research funding. National labs are not doing enough applied science in the clean tech area.

For clean tech, a legacy of the Bush DOE is a Dec. 18, 2008, commitment for $80 billion in unfunded contracts with 16 favored contractors, which will starve any clean tech innovation for many years. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ femp/ news/ news_detail.html?news_id=12150

The US has no shortage of well-funded pure science, but very little funding for mission-driven applied science and engineering. That is especially true for clean tech challenges. Other countries are more focused on making things that work. Applied science is considered inferior to pure science, and the academic caste system and its appurtenant grant system stands in the way of technological progress.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-41134 Robert Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:05:51 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-41134 Cait - yeah - we're rubbish. Yesterdays budget introduced a £2000 subsidy for scrapping your 10 year old car and buying a new one. No restrictions about what car you buy, so you can trade in your clapped out Polo and buy a new Range Rover. No consideration of the embedded energy in its manufacture. This idea was first floated as green, then later became a desparate bid to save the car industry. Cait – yeah – we’re rubbish. Yesterdays budget introduced a £2000 subsidy for scrapping your 10 year old car and buying a new one. No restrictions about what car you buy, so you can trade in your clapped out Polo and buy a new Range Rover. No consideration of the embedded energy in its manufacture. This idea was first floated as green, then later became a desparate bid to save the car industry.

]]> By: Cait http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-41126 Cait Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:40:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-41126 Interesting how much the British govt at home likes to talk up its green credentials... and yet we're nowhere in those graphs (and it's not just a question of size - look at Denmark). The big difference *I would imagine* is that Denmark, and several areas of northern Europe (I note that Sweden is in the wind list... and Ireland - it's so embarrassing, seriously) have a strong taxation system and have strong govt intervention in to its capitalist economy ie: they don't sit around waiting for the 'market' to resolve everything because you know, surely if there's customer demand then voila, it'll all just happen, won't it? To use a colloquialism: my ass it will. Interesting how much the British govt at home likes to talk up its green credentials… and yet we’re nowhere in those graphs (and it’s not just a question of size – look at Denmark).

The big difference *I would imagine* is that Denmark, and several areas of northern Europe (I note that Sweden is in the wind list… and Ireland – it’s so embarrassing, seriously) have a strong taxation system and have strong govt intervention in to its capitalist economy ie: they don’t sit around waiting for the ‘market’ to resolve everything because you know, surely if there’s customer demand then voila, it’ll all just happen, won’t it?

To use a colloquialism: my ass it will.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-40809 Robert Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:37:40 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-40809 You all seem to be ducking the real question. Adding some % of clean energy into the mix does nothing about overall CO2 emissions. The debate has to start by defining the problem (i.e. how to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels), not having a commercial battle with China as to who can build wind turbine factories faster. You all seem to be ducking the real question. Adding some % of clean energy into the mix does nothing about overall CO2 emissions. The debate has to start by defining the problem (i.e. how to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels), not having a commercial battle with China as to who can build wind turbine factories faster.

]]> By: Cyril R. http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-40801 Cyril R. Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:29:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-40801 Here's another important one: The USA energy policy has historically kept low cost energy at the top of the priority list. Even if it meant less clean energy, and indeed importing large amounts of it. Even from unstable regions. Who cared, as long as it was cheap. This has important implications for the way Americans use energy: that is, most use lots of it, making it difficult for new energy sources to take over because of sheer scale of consumption. Also, the low cost strategy has resulted in stagnation in new technologies that are almost always more expensive at the beginning of the learning curve, but require deployment to get learning by doing and learning by interacting. But now, there is a new trend. Americans tend to want it all: cheap, clean, reliable, AND made in the US of A. Well that turns out to be a conflicting list of priorities in most cases, especially the cheap part since new techs are expensive almost without exception. Fortunately, the new administration realizes there's no free lunch, and major investment is necessary. What we need now is a carbon constraint, tax or trading, which doesn't actually cost much when revenue is recycled in a progressive manner. Alongside that, as noted already, a large increase in promising RD&D is needed to complement the strategy. If we do these things, that naive wish list may actually come true after all. Here’s another important one:

The USA energy policy has historically kept low cost energy at the top of the priority list. Even if it meant less clean energy, and indeed importing large amounts of it. Even from unstable regions. Who cared, as long as it was cheap. This has important implications for the way Americans use energy: that is, most use lots of it, making it difficult for new energy sources to take over because of sheer scale of consumption. Also, the low cost strategy has resulted in stagnation in new technologies that are almost always more expensive at the beginning of the learning curve, but require deployment to get learning by doing and learning by interacting.

But now, there is a new trend. Americans tend to want it all: cheap, clean, reliable, AND made in the US of A. Well that turns out to be a conflicting list of priorities in most cases, especially the cheap part since new techs are expensive almost without exception. Fortunately, the new administration realizes there’s no free lunch, and major investment is necessary. What we need now is a carbon constraint, tax or trading, which doesn’t actually cost much when revenue is recycled in a progressive manner. Alongside that, as noted already, a large increase in promising RD&D is needed to complement the strategy.

If we do these things, that naive wish list may actually come true after all.

]]> By: Jeffrey Michel http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-40720 Jeffrey Michel Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:06:29 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-40720 The contention that there is "no reason why the United States shouldn’t lead the world in renewable energy" is contradicted by a number of circumstances. Americans are comparatively mobile, with over 40 million citizens statistically changing their address every year. Many people won’t buy a solar installation if they are not sure of reconnecting it under the same contract terms in another part of the country, because these investments do not appropriately raise the selling price of a home. Yet every utility company employs a different set of regulations. Tax credits are useful only to people with a high tax liability to begin with. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, so federal measures have not been enacted for reducing CO2 emissions from power generation. Finally, electricity from conventional sources costs only a fraction of what it does in Europe. Germany introduced national feed-in tariffs for renewable energies in the year 2000 to overcome these impediments. Their contribution to grid power has since risen from 5 percent (mostly hydroelectric generation installed decades ago) to over 15 percent. The renewables industry employs over a quarter of a million people. Anyone interested in background information on Germany's energy transition may want to review the following two presentations: http://www.energyconversation.org/?q=node/87 The contention that there is “no reason why the United States shouldn’t lead the world in renewable energy” is contradicted by a number of circumstances. Americans are comparatively mobile, with over 40 million citizens statistically changing their address every year. Many people won’t buy a solar installation if they are not sure of reconnecting it under the same contract terms in another part of the country, because these investments do not appropriately raise the selling price of a home. Yet every utility company employs a different set of regulations. Tax credits are useful only to people with a high tax liability to begin with. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, so federal measures have not been enacted for reducing CO2 emissions from power generation. Finally, electricity from conventional sources costs only a fraction of what it does in Europe. Germany introduced national feed-in tariffs for renewable energies in the year 2000 to overcome these impediments. Their contribution to grid power has since risen from 5 percent (mostly hydroelectric generation installed decades ago) to over 15 percent. The renewables industry employs over a quarter of a million people. Anyone interested in background information on Germany’s energy transition may want to review the following two presentations:

http://www.energyconversation.org/?q=node/87

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/21/primer-solar-pv-wind-us-china-europe/#comment-40716 Robert Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:56:26 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=5813#comment-40716 Is this about "saving the planet" or waving the US flag? China may be investing billions but there are no signs that CO2 emissions are going anywhere but up - and fast. It is already the world's #1 polluter and is continuing a double digit CO2 growth path: http://photos.mongabay.com/07/co2_country_area_2030-max.jpg http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html China demonstrates the point that it is not enough to invest in clean energy, or even to set a goal based on the % clean energy in the total mix. To reduce CO2 you have to actually decide to emit less CO2. And that means digging up less coal each year than the year before. Pouring billions of tonnes of cement into wind turbine foundations while ALSO building 2 new coal fired power stations a week may satisfy China's commercial aims but is a disaster environmentally. Is this about “saving the planet” or waving the US flag? China may be investing billions but there are no signs that CO2 emissions are going anywhere but up – and fast. It is already the world’s #1 polluter and is continuing a double digit CO2 growth path:

http://photos.mongabay.com/ 07/ co2_country_area_2030-max.jpg

http://www.pbl.nl/ en/ dossiers/ Climatechange/ moreinfo/ Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html

China demonstrates the point that it is not enough to invest in clean energy, or even to set a goal based on the % clean energy in the total mix. To reduce CO2 you have to actually decide to emit less CO2. And that means digging up less coal each year than the year before.

Pouring billions of tonnes of cement into wind turbine foundations while ALSO building 2 new coal fired power stations a week may satisfy China’s commercial aims but is a disaster environmentally.

]]>