Is this a cool idea or what? Slash oil and coal subsidies and put $8 Billion into clean energy!?

"President Barack Obama proposed on Monday boosting funds for clean energy research and deployment in his 2012 budget by slashing subsidies for fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal."

"The budget would double the number of energy innovation hubs to six to bring scientists to work on topics like rare earth elements, energy storage and batteries and development of smart grid technologies designed to make electricity transmission efficient."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=obama-2012-budget-provides-8-billio

2011-02-14T17:55:29Z

Edit:

"The White House asked for $36 billion in federal loan guarantees to help finance the building of nuclear power plants, as it did last year. The loan program already has $18 billion in authority."

You see, he's put a bit of money in for nuclear, but its a major hassle to get one built.

I'm really 15 Jerry, sure if you say so. Why do you have a problem with that?

2011-02-14T18:00:44Z

@Al no doubt about it, but we have to keep pushing.

2011-02-14T18:12:57Z

@Jerry No companies have been trying for decades, they just can't get all the funding together. It takes a huge effort to get thru all the regulations and so much effort to put one together that the attemots die before they even get started.

That problem isn't there for renewables cause you don't have to be a huge company to do it. So it allows ever country and company a crack at it, thats why renewable energy is and will succeed.

2011-02-14T18:34:40Z

@Rio in the 60s, first of all they didn't have the technology and knowledge we have today. Also in the 60s they would have a very hard time to compete against cheap oil.

Now soak in some modern day news, renewable energy production in the US is at 10.5% of our energy. Nuclear is 11% of our energy. I didn't make that up. Do you still think renewables are getting no where? Plus the whole world is in on it and some produce a higher percentage of renewables than we do.

2011-02-14T18:53:19Z

Edit2:

"Globally, renewable energy made up 18 percent of the world’s electricity supply in 2009, according to the report, while 80 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity was added worldwide in 2009, including 31 GW of hydroelectric power and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity."

"The REN21 report states that more than 85 countries had renewable energy policy targets last year, a number that is up more than 50 percent from 2005."

“Favorable policies in more than 100 countries have played a critical role,” says Mohamed El-Ashry, chairman of REN21. “For the upward trend of renewable energy growth to continue, policy efforts now need to be taken to the next level and encourage a massive scale-up of technologies.”

"China was a key player in the renewable energy market in 2009, adding more green power capacity than any other country in the world. China added 37 gigawatts of renewable energy sources last year, bringing its total to 226 GW. The Chinese also produced a major portion of the renew

2011-02-15T02:16:24Z

Edit:

Solar has been getting more and more efficient and cheaper. Wind is free energy and wind farms are being put up all over the place. Energy directly from the atmosphere that has tooo much energy in it because of us. Not a thing wrong with that and they can be put anywhere, including your roofs/.

@d/dx You can find better ways of doing it than by using land or using food. Algae can be grown anyway and also absorbs CO2 in the process of growing. You can grow them on your roof tops.Convert landfill trash to energy. Convert human and animal waste to fuel. All is needed is ingenuity in doing it in a way that doesn't compete with the resources we need to survive.

Did you know GM is going to go Hybrid on all their vehicles? We have become much more energy efficient than a few decades ago cause our appliances and cars are so much more efficient. Just cause there's a downside to a technology right now does not mean that we cannot improve on it!

We are humans after all and we all have b

2011-02-15T02:23:18Z

@d/dx Wind and solar intermittent, so what, store the energy on the grid. Its not about relying on one energy source the way we did in the past. Its about using a combination of everything that makes sense, including geothermal and hydropower. Beggars can't be choosers.

2011-02-15T02:30:11Z

@d/dx sorry didn't read the rest of your paragraph. I agree but I really doubt nuclear is feasable anymore. It died for over 30 years for a reason, it takes way too much effort and money. We don't have the nuclear experts anymore they've all retired. I know, my father is one of them.

2011-02-15T16:00:14Z

@d/dx Wow! I'm impressed! Thanks for the great info. Your kind of expertise and innovation is definitely what we need more of. Great job!, Thanks!

d/dx+d/dy+d/dz2011-02-14T22:33:14Z

Favorite Answer

In a prior post,
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AokEBlTXlxSH754z1QjKg9_AFQx.;_ylv=3?qid=20110201110332AAEDeMm
I noted that the US could meet its transport energy needs through the production of biocrude. The key issue with this path is that 30% of the land US area would be needed for energy crops. After the biomass feedstock, the next largest cost in the process is hydrogen. I think that Obama is making a mistake reducing funding for hydrogen research. Although I doubt that hydrogen will ever be a viable transportation fuel, it is an important intermediate product for the synthesis of gasoline from biological feedstocks. Advances in producing hydrogen from renewable sources would have tremendous economic value and the research should be supported. Meanwhile, hydrogen can be produced from natural gas or via electrolysis. In an industrial sense, the main piece of the puzzle missing for a biocrude economy is industrial plant for the pyrolysis step. I hope that Obama's plan gives support for this step. Existing refineries can be used for making the finished product.

The second issue is electricity generation. The main issue for wind and solar is that they are intermittent. Either storage technologies need to improve or another technology such as nuclear is needed to handle the base load demand. I think that Obama is on the right track supporting both the construction of nuclear generating capacity and research into storage and transmission technologies.

Edit: I am well aware that using waste is a good source of energy. My name is on an industrial process patent to convert agricultural waste to biofuel and I have a significant shareholding in the corporation that owns the rights. The company can produce about 400,000 tonnes biofuel annually based on the process at very low cost from waste streams in MB, SK, ND, SD and MN. That is the low hanging fruit. Very profitable, but only a tiny fraction of total demand. Incremental capacity comes at a higher cost. The switchgrass example is scalable enough to meet all of the demand. Algae is another option. Estimates of the land area required are on the order of 30,000 km ^2 for ponds in the California desert. I have current algae experiments in progress. We get less sun in the north, so the yields are lower. However, we have abundant water and don't have the cost of excavating ponds. The switchgrass results are public domain. My algae results aren't.

Nuclear is not a strong option due to the shortage of expertise. $18 billion will build 3 plants and I think there are enough experts around to do that. 10 plants are probably out of the question. My lab is in an Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) facility, so I am well aware of the shortage of nuclear expertise. I did part of my PhD at AECL Chalk River, so I could go over to AECL if the terms were right.

31

Anonymous2011-02-15T03:46:25Z

There is no question that nuclear power has to be part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, solar and wind could play a large roll in a hydrogen economy. The use of solar and wind power to produce hydrogen is a way to solve the problem of the need to store power from these sources. A global power grid would also help. Solar farms in Saudi Arabia could then keep the lights on in the Americas at night. Solar farms in Mexico and Arizona could also keep the lights on in Europe.

21

Noah H2011-02-15T03:30:00Z

The sooner we move onto 21st century power generation the sooner we can break away from 19th century power generation. Instead of adding unneeded CO2 to our paper thin atmosphere we could begin to deal with this problem. The sooner we can get a real wind and solar industry up and running the sooner we can put a few million Americans to work putting together a brand new, mostly decentralized power infrastructure that uses FREE fuel instead of dirty and far more expensive coal. We have the work force...we have the industrial infrastructure...we have the money. All we need is leadership. Eisenhower gave us the National Defense Highway System. Maybe some republican could give us the a National Defense Power System. Take away a few bucks from coal and oil? Sure...they don't need it. Funnel the same money into wind and solar....you bet!

22

GABY2011-02-15T03:07:10Z

As long as it is Nuclear Energy, I am all for it. Solar and Wind not very reliable for 24/7 power needs. Solar and Wind are also not even close to being cost-effective in most areas.

I know - all the "Environmentalists", News media, and Solar / Wind companies say different. They are either liars, or misinformed. I will simply stand by the math and economics.

31

echo 12011-02-15T01:25:50Z

We need much more clean energy. I am not certain about the whole global warming argument, but for me, it is a national security argument. Would we care and get involved with those maniacs in the Middle East if we didn't need their oil? They could do what they want and it would not impact the US at all. Instead, we make these maniacs rich and get involved in a place we would not otherwise care about. Again, we need energy sufficiency in the US. Oh, subsidies stink for any reason. I am a free market guy.

30
Show more answers (4)

Related Questions

Should our UK government put a few billion into opening new coal mines ?Fossil fuel subsidies 12 times more than renewable energy subsidies - what's wrong with this picture?Are the teabaggers forcing Boehner into putting oil subsidies on the chopping block?Over the last two years $8 billion for oil subsidies, $100 billion for green subsidies....Did we get our due?Why do Republicans Oppose cutting $2 Billion in Big Oil tax subsidies despite their 50-130 Billion in profits?

Trending Questions

Do you worry about global chaos due to global warming and increased human population almost daily?17 answersCould a vehicle self-power itself using biomethane extracted from the air ?7 answersNorthern Hemisphere snow mass 500 GIGATONS above average! What happened to alarmist predictions saying snow will be a thing of the past?16 answersWill liberal academics and public school teachers give equal time to the movie Climate Hustle 2 in their classrooms?5 answersHow much can you afford or willing to pay to fight climate change.?18 answers