Wrestling the energy boogieman has become a perennial rite of passage for U.S. presidents, dating at least as far back as Nixon.

Fittingly, President Obama today was at Georgetown University, where he outlined a broad initiative to cut oil imports, boost domestic production of oil and gas, and increase the use of cellulosic ethanol and natural gas to power vehicles.

With gas prices topping $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, like southern California, and the summer driving season not that far off, the president’s comments couldn’t come a moment too soon.

“In an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody,” the Obama said in what the White House billed as a significant energy address.

“Workers, farmers, truck drivers, restaurant owners. Businesses see rising prices at the pump hurt their bottom line. Families feel pinched when they fill up their tank. … That’s why we need to make ourselves more secure and control our energy future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio.”

How does the Administration propose we get there? The White House this morning released a fact sheet on America’s energy security. Here’s a broad, non-exhaustive list of the Prez’s proposed actions:

• Identify underdeveloped domestic resources, such as unused oil and gas leases.
• Promote the use of alternative fuels — like biofuels and natural gas — in the transportation sector.
• Setting new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks
• Phasing in a new federal fleet of vehicles (some 600,000) comprising alternative-fuel vehicles, like hybrids and electric vehicles

Notably, the fact sheet hints again at the possibility of a national clean energy standard (CES), which would be of particular interest to those who like solar power, wind and other sources of clean electricity. We’ve seen a similar national standard discussed before. It’s not clear whether Obama’s CES — which envisions generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity with resources like nuclear power, natural gas, clean coal, solar and wind — will get any traction this legislative session. Here’s to hoping it does.

Developing…

Photo cred: Brian A. Sayrs.

a

Already, we’re seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

I’m all for reinventing ourselves. I’m also all for creating American jobs and the promise of renewable energy. But it’s hard to ignore the elephant in the room — namely, that most residential solar energy systems installed today don’t use solar shingles.

Why? The solar shingles available on the market today aren’t nearly as efficient as polysilicon-based solar panels like the ones shown in this picture. This means you need to install solar shingles on a much bigger area to get a decent amount of electricity out of your system. Because many homes have limited roof space, the natural choice is to install a higher-efficiency solar panel that generates more power per square foot. As it stands today, solar shingles don’t fit that description.

To be sure, this doesn’t mean that solar shingles are never a good option. Nor does it mean that solar shingle technology won’t improve. Indeed, efficiency rates of solar shingles are already increasing — thanks, I’m sure, to the hard work of people like Robert and Gary Allen. All we’re saying is: don’t get too excited about solar shingles… at least not yet. When you get a free solar home energy evaluation, chances are the solar installer will recommend installing a higher-efficiency panel that maximizes your roof’s potential.

a

At 10,000 pages, it’s not exactly light reading. So, in an effort to save you some time, we’ve whittled down the plan — officially called the Draft Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement — to highlight the most important details.

To begin with, the draft identifies 24 area in six states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah — that are best suited for large-scale solar energy projects. According to Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey, the areas were chosen because (1) there is ample land to accommodate large-scale solar plants, and (2) there’s the opportunity to build such plants while doing minimal environmental damage, such as uprooting entire species or draining water resources. If you remember, concern over the safety of local fauna was a major point of debate throughout the approval process of the Blythe Solar Project in California.

Another aspect of the plan will make life easier for solar project developers by expediting the project application process. Past experience indicates that currently the process is slow and unduly cumbersome. The Washington Post reports, for instance, there are solar project applications pending approval that date back to the George W. Bush Administration. And even though the U.S. Department of Interior has approved eight utility-scale solar projects in the past three months, there are over 100 applications still in in the queue.

The government’s plan to is to produce another 24,000 MW of electricity over the next two decades. During that time, the feds also plan to open up two million acres of land outside of the designated zones for more solar development.

Now the plan is open to public comments for the next 90 days — and will likely have to go through a bit of editing before gaining final approval. We’ll keep you up to speed on its progress.

If you want a three-minute crash course on the draft, check it out here.

a

Now, however, it seems the administration has warmed to the idea, today announcing a plan to install a small solar energy system atop the White House. The move reverses the decision by the Reagan Administration in 1986 to take down the solar water heater installed by Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.

Speaking at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 2010 GreenGov Symposium, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley did’t indicate which solar installation company would do the job. Aptly enough, however, it was revealed that American made solar technologies would feature prominently.

Obama will become the third U.S. President to install solar energy at the White House. As previously mentioned, President Carter installed a $30,000 solar water heater for the West Wing offices in the late 1970′s. Then, most recently, President George W. Bush installed a solar energy system that powers a maintenance building.

A number of variables related to the pending White House solar installation remain unknown. According to the Huffington Post, administration officials estimate the system will include anywhere from 25 to 75 panels and will generate 19,700 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year. That would save a typical American household $2,300 on electricity bills each year — a hefty sum. Relative to the White House’s electricity consumption, however, these savings are likely to be modest. Nevertheless, kudos to the White House for putting it’s money where it’s mouth is by putting solar on it!

a

One of the companies is Abengoa Solar, which will use federal backing of $1.45 billion to build a 250-megawatt (MW) solar concentrating plant in Arizona that, when completed in 2013, will be one of the world’s largest solar concentrating plants, according to Industrial Fuels and Power. The other is Abound Solar, a Colorado-based solar thin-film company that will use the opportunity to build two manufacturing plants. One of the plants will be in Colorado, the other in Indiana.

President Obama conceded during his announcement that the country may never recover some of the jobs lost during the most recent recession. But he emphasized that these solar project will help make new ones in the renewable energy sector. Construction of the Arizona plant is scheduled to begin this year will immediately 1,600 construction jobs. All told, the projects are projected to create 2,000 construction jobs and an additional 1,500 permanent jobs, according to Examiner.

a

While Americans celebrated Thanksgiving this past Thursday, the State Council of China announced that the country plans to reduce the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 – 45% in 2020 from 2005 levels. This came a day after President Obama pledged the United States to an emissions cut in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. And so the pre-Copenhagen negotiations dance has begun.

Experts are divided on China’s announcement. Some argue that it is a huge step in the right direction, while others believe it is too weak and will not significantly alter China’s projected emissions trajectory.

What is interesting about the two is the difference in language. The U.S. has identified an overall emissions cut, whereas China has pledged a reduction in carbon intensity per unit of GDP. So how do they differ? An emissions cut is an overall future cap on the total GHG emissions, regardless of economic growth. Carbon intensity, on the other hand, is used to tie the amount of emitted GHG directly to economic output. By identifying carbon intensity as the means to emission reductions, China is standing by the belief that economic development will come first and that emissions should be “curbed” instead of “capped.” For more details, this Q&A released by Reuters does an excellent job explaining China’s choice of carbon intensity.

According to the New York Times, some believe that carbon intensity goals are a complete distraction from overall emission reductions. John Watson, who chaired a National Academy of Sciences committee that examined energy futures and air pollution in urban China and the United States, argued that

You can have carbon emissions increase substantially, but carbon intensity still goes down. The real key for global warming is the absolute number, not that relative number.

And one thing that neither country has detailed is exactly how this will affect the global economy, which is still unstable after the Wall Street meltdown of 2008. China, and other rapidly developing nations, have argued that if a cleaner path of development is to be pursued, then the industrialized world must be ready to provide both technology and financial assistance. China has suggested a figure that would translate to a price tag of more than $140 billion for the U.S. alone.

The good news is the two countries that most needed to announce some form of emission reductions have started the dialogue before delegates meet in Copenhagen next week. Without the leadership of the U.S. and China, other countries are less likely to follow. We’ll be sure to keep our eye on the climate negotiations and how this situation develops, as the renewable energy industry is poised to seriously benefit from a carbon-conscious world.

a

This Monday, I posted a piece on the importance of leadership from China and the United States at Copenhagen and the need for both countries to make emission reduction pledges. Without the initiative of these two powerhouses, the rest of the world is unlikely to follow. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has argued for emission cuts of 80 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels. At this point, it is unclear if Obama’s proposed cuts from 2005 levels are on par with the IPCC’s suggested target.

As a firm believer in the precautionary principle and the great potential of a growing renewable energy economy, it is my hope that Obama’s presence in Denmark will encourage the U.S. Congress to sign into law policies that support the long-term sustainability of our country–and inspire the rest of the world to follow.

a

In the section dedicated to climate change, President Obama declared that,

“As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, there can be no solution to this challenge without the efforts of both China and the United States.”

With the international climate change negotiations set to begin in Copenhagen in less than a month, leadership and a stronger level of cooperation from the two countries is needed to achieve a substantive outcome on carbon emissions. In fact, Obama declared that both China and the U.S. want Copenhagen to result in “an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect.” This week, we’ll take a look at the details of the U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy. Check in next week for a more detailed analysis on why some of these steps are important and what might be missing from the equation.

The joint press release detailed the outcomes of the talks as follows:

(1) Copenhagen Should Not Be a Wasted Opportunity. Dedicated to working together against climate change, the two parties believe that “an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.”

(2)  Scaling Renewable Energy is a Priority. The newly-adopted “U.S.-China Energy Effiiciency Action Plan” will help the two countries “work together to achieve cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in industry, buildings and consumer products through technical cooperation, demonstration and policy exchanges…the two Presidents underscored the enormous opportunities to create jobs and enhance economic growth through energy savings.” In addition, the countries launched the U.S. China Renewable Energy Partnership, with the goal of achieving rapid and wide-scale deployment of renewable energy technologies and a modern electric power grid through design and policy cooperation.

(3)  Creation of a U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center. Coming in at a cost of $150 million over five years, the two countries will evenly split the cost and construct one Center in each country. With the hopes of encouraging joint research and development on clean energy technologies, the Center’s priority areas of focus will be energy efficiency in buildings, clean coal, and clean (electric and other fuel) vehicles.

(a) Energy Efficiency. With the speed at which Chinese cities are growing, and that fact that U.S. buildings account for 40 percent of energy use, it is imperative that building construction and remodeling in both countries be done with energy efficiency as a top priority.

(b) Clean Coal. The U.S. and China have a heavy interest in improving coal efficiency as both nations rely on coal as the biggest source for electric base-load power. The two countries “agreed to promote cooperation on large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) demonstration projects and to begin work immediately on the development, deployment, diffusion, and transfer of CCS technology. The two sides welcomed recent agreements between Chinese and U.S. companies, universities, and research institutions to cooperate on CCS and more efficient coal technologies.

(c)  Launch of a U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative. And with a rising car culture in China and a need to revamp automobile infrastructure in the U.S., both countries have a concrete interest in developing a clean vehicle industry. With the goal of bringing millions of electric vehicles to both countries, the program calls for “joint demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, along with work to develop common technical standards to facilitate rapid scale-up of the industry.”

a

The policy is the first of its kind to be passed by a state in order to advance the progress of updating our electrical grid. The bill requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to outline a specific smart grid deployment plan by July 2010. In addition, all electric utilities with more than 100,000 customers must submit a smart grid strategy plan by July 1, 2011. Wanting to help California meet its aggressive renewable energy targets, State Senator Alex Padilla (D- San Fernando Valley) sponsored the bill with the hopes of implementing an advanced and digitalized electrical grid to deliver cleaner power in a more efficient and reliable way.

With SB 17 in place, a 21st century grid could be realized in California within the next five to ten years, allowing for a fundamental change in the way we think about, and use, electricity. It would also help jump start a new energy economy, creating green technologies and green collar jobs.

Strong renewable energy mandates, clean tech financing from Silicon Valley, and utilities ahead of the game with smart grid initiatives (like SCE) position California as a leader with regard to deploying smart grid technologies. For more information on the bill and what it requires of those operating in California’s electricity sector, you can view a copy here.

a

As reported by Bloomberg,

“The current system is outdated and dilapidated,” Carol Browner, the White House’s top energy adviser, said in a conference call with reporters late yesterday. Today’s grants “will give us a transformational impact on how electricity is generated, delivered and consumed,” she said.

For more news and info on smart grid developments, check out posts from our very own Sandra Kreis.

a