In his remarks about the stimulus package he’s preparing to submit to Congress as soon as he assumes office, President-Elect Obama said the following about one of his objectives:
To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.
“Doubling the production of alternative energy” sounds like a lot. What would that really represent?
I’m not going to make the obvious criticisms of his diction and it’s a little tough to tell from the speech what he really means. However, let’s put things into perspective. Let’s assume that he means that he intends to double the amount of electrical power we produce from sources other than coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear. Here’s the breakdown of our power generation for the last year:
Source: Electric Power Monthly
Just 3.3% of our current electrical energy generation comes from alternative sources.
Said another way, if we increased our power generation using those sources by that amount every three years over the period of the next twenty years and assuming we generate no more energy in twenty years than we generate now, we’d be generating roughly one quarter of our electrical energy from sources other than hydrocarbons, nuclear, and hydroelectric. That’s actually a pretty strong assumption. Although the total amount of energy generated from alternative sources has risen, the proportion of our electrical power that we generate from alternative source has actually fallen over the last ten years.
Subsidizing alternative means of generating electrical power by definition means that there’d be a deadweight loss associated with the activity. That means there’d be fewer jobs created, less investment, etc. than there would otherwise have been.
Now that may very well be a worthwhile trade-off. I just think it’s iimportant to understand the trade-offs when we’re making our plans.
My opinion? Dream no small dreams. At the proposed rate of increase we won’t be a great deal closer to energy independence (which, as I’ve noted, is something I consider a phantasm) than we are now.
As to whether the rest of Mr. Obama’s plan makes any sense we’ll just have to wait. The devil is in the details.
Yes, the Devil’s in the details. I continue to believe that our energy policy discussions are mired in competing goals: a preference for cheap, domestic, clean energy that is a source of employment and helps our balance of trade. Only Santa Claus can give that kind of gift.
I’d much prefer if Obama could figure out how to subsidize the use of electrical appliances, machines, and so forth instead of oil- or gas-driven ones, then go for a major pro-nuclear policy. At least with nuclear power plants, they already represent a major part of US electricity production, are relatively clean compared to the alternative coal plants (although they do require a decent amount of water for cooling and power-generation purposes), and aren’t reliant on not-yet-discovered technological innovations.
Here in Chicago 80%+ of our energy already comes from nuclear. I’m afraid that renders me somewhat less sympathetic with the parts of the country that haven’t upgraded their power generation.
One thing that bears mentioning is that, if you concern is greenhouse gasses, hydroelectric is no solution. The methane formation in the buildup behind a dam is as bad or worse than a coal-fired plant.