The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Wind & Solar Incentives Stripped From Energy Bill
sustainablog.org — The Senate version of the energy bill that passed last week includes great things, like boosting vehicles ’ average fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon, increasing the use of biofuels & updating efficiency standards for federal buildings. But the glaring gaps include the absence of renewable energy incentives.
Bukowsky- 737 diggs
- digg it
- dre2, on 12/18/2007, -3/+26they're still paying off the oil companies and halliburton
- thcobbs, on 12/18/2007, -8/+2Actually, they are requiring renewable energy production in the requirements for energy production companies. I think there is something like a requirement of up to 20% of the power come from renewable sources in the next decade or so. There are several coal-fired plants that are looking for ways to sequester carbon that is released from their stacks.
Don't be such a dick and swallow the line that its all about oil. The market moves slowly to new ideas, but a government may as well be molasses... in January. But it IS occurring.- nihilite, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7I disagree - solar power shows incredible promise to completely revolutionize our energy supply. The problem is it is TOO cheap - noone (with exception of polysilicon and power system manufacturers) can figure out how to make money off of it. The richest companies in the world will lose their profitability. You cannot tell me that these companies (chevron, bp, exxon-mobil, etc) are not influencing the govt especially when our president describes himself as an old-school oil man.
these "biofuels" requirements are incredibly soft and do not require the kind of meaningful changes that would have an impact in our energy policy.
biodiesel is great and i hope it is adopted, but solar is the real game changer- B1663r, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Biofuels ARE solar power just so you know. Also when you figure your house uses something like 3k to 6k watts peak for electric compared to the 50k-100k watts you use driving down the highway at 80mph, I would say the biggest need is still in vehicle fuel sources. At some point though it has to be rectified with physics, and no matter how you try and make an engine more efficient it still costs 50k-100k watts to drive down the highway at 80mph in a chassis that can protect you if you crash...
- B1663r, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2The digg down is funny. Americans have a real hard time accepting that the problem is the cars themselves and no amount of engineering is going to change the fact that is costs 50k to 100k watts to drive down the highway. For example, you can heat and power a typical house (in Michigan none the less) from the biofuels you can grow on a 3 acre lot (it takes more land ~9 acres if you want to to be sustainable). The plants growing on your land is your solar system. Sure PV cells are more dense than that, but with current collection and storage techniques, it would cost substantially more money (say half a million dollars+ vs the 50k ten acres in rural michigan costs) to heat and power your house (in michigan) with pv solar. Biofuels are the very cheapest way to do it for now. And that is before you factor in maintenance... Remember continuous cycling of deep cycle batteries wears them out, and in a place like Michigan you are gonna need to charge and drain constantly, so now you need to maintain your batteries...
- B1663r, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Biofuels ARE solar power just so you know. Also when you figure your house uses something like 3k to 6k watts peak for electric compared to the 50k-100k watts you use driving down the highway at 80mph, I would say the biggest need is still in vehicle fuel sources. At some point though it has to be rectified with physics, and no matter how you try and make an engine more efficient it still costs 50k-100k watts to drive down the highway at 80mph in a chassis that can protect you if you crash...
- jaxcs, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0I think a better reason for not supporting solar power is needed. Solar power in Germany is rather mature with the gov paying it's citizens to put power back into the grid. This entire technology sector is mature and with support could reach even higher levels. Stripping support from solar and wind means that even the energy companies won't look in these sectors for renewable energy. The question not asked is therefore why the lack of support for a proven technology?
- nihilite, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7I disagree - solar power shows incredible promise to completely revolutionize our energy supply. The problem is it is TOO cheap - noone (with exception of polysilicon and power system manufacturers) can figure out how to make money off of it. The richest companies in the world will lose their profitability. You cannot tell me that these companies (chevron, bp, exxon-mobil, etc) are not influencing the govt especially when our president describes himself as an old-school oil man.
- wvdavis, on 12/18/2007, -0/+9You're right, the fact that we still subsidize big oil is shameful. Yet every time there is a holiday... there goes the gas prices and every time the oil companies post their quarterly profits, they are record breaking.
ExxonMobil continues to pay off the Washington power brokers: http://digg.com/environment/Check_out_the_Greenpea ...
http://digg.com/environment/How_did_Big_Oil_contir ...
You nailed it! - wishninja, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1we need to end all the subsidies! Maybe renewable energy would have a chance if the government would stop playing favorites.
- thcobbs, on 12/18/2007, -8/+2Actually, they are requiring renewable energy production in the requirements for energy production companies. I think there is something like a requirement of up to 20% of the power come from renewable sources in the next decade or so. There are several coal-fired plants that are looking for ways to sequester carbon that is released from their stacks.
- davidryal, on 12/18/2007, -0/+24seriously, who questions at this point that these industries need the same kinds of incentives that created every major industry in the US to date? do people think the internet was developed for free?
- wingnut21, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Not free, but it was created by government research for defense purposes. Unfortunately the government has no sense of urgency when it comes to ecological forethought.
- wvdavis, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2And because it was created by the government for defense purposes... we paid three times as much for it than what it should have cost.
- justjoehere, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1That's not true. Al Gore invented for free, for all of mankind. He should have won another Nobel Prize for his truthful invention.
- wvdavis, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2And because it was created by the government for defense purposes... we paid three times as much for it than what it should have cost.
- wingnut21, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Not free, but it was created by government research for defense purposes. Unfortunately the government has no sense of urgency when it comes to ecological forethought.
- reeder, on 12/18/2007, -2/+14I love it! Why think ahead when you can focus on the past!! Amazing how these companies think they can hold off the inevitable tide of technology and change, and only for short term gains!
As sure a sign of the death of American dominance as any I have seen. - BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -12/+11let the market decide, not congress.
- digghasnoethics, on 12/18/2007, -4/+4Ahhh, the plaintive cry of the lesser spotted polluter.
Of course the market has done *SO* well in the past safeguarding the environment - and indeed anything with a time horizon beyond two yearst. They are obviously the best place to take the long term view of any question.
Its not just a way that you can duck the required changes in your crumbling society - perish the thought.- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -7/+3gay.
what, are you a philosophy grad student?
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -7/+3gay.
- juststeve, on 12/18/2007, -3/+2ummm....let the market pay to protect our subsidy of the oil industry too, right?
national security = cheap mideast oil = must meddle there
check the flow of wealth over the last 2-3 generations and tell me how the Bush clan has been good for America.
[weeps]- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4dumb, nancy wants to tax oil, not subsidize.
cheap oil? how much do you pay, where can i get some at your price?
but hey, big corn is green, so they get the subsidies.
all for the children.
as for your last point, ya, look at it - everyone is getting wealthier.- kreneskyp, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1we just want the tax REBATE removed for the oil companies. they are making billions, they didn't need the tax break. fledgling renewable energy however does need warrant tax cuts.
he was being sarcastic about the cheap oil. we had cheap oil and then we messed it up by invading iraq.- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3ya, oozing w/ sarcasm
so now enviros are happy w/ expensive oil
which way do you fools want it?
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3ya, oozing w/ sarcasm
- kreneskyp, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1we just want the tax REBATE removed for the oil companies. they are making billions, they didn't need the tax break. fledgling renewable energy however does need warrant tax cuts.
- BigBlueCarbon, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4dumb, nancy wants to tax oil, not subsidize.
- kreneskyp, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Congress already meddled by giving tax cuts to big oil. We all know oil prices are an issue. why in the hell would you give oil a tax break and take it away from renewable fuels?
- digghasnoethics, on 12/18/2007, -4/+4Ahhh, the plaintive cry of the lesser spotted polluter.
- ekso, on 12/18/2007, -0/+17Regardless of Global Warming, this is quite stupid. Already the USA is lagging way behind on renewable energy research.
- Bukowsky, on 12/18/2007, -0/+12i hate to admit it, but you're right. The US needs to do more when it comes to renewable research.
- StudsTurkel, on 12/18/2007, -8/+4"The US needs to do more when it comes to renewable research."
So, go do more, no one is stopping you. Or do you need the gov't to hold your hand?- wvdavis, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7Sure, the government has been holding the oil company's hand.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/georgewbush/ig/ ...
- wvdavis, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7Sure, the government has been holding the oil company's hand.
- StudsTurkel, on 12/18/2007, -8/+4"The US needs to do more when it comes to renewable research."
- Bukowsky, on 12/18/2007, -0/+12i hate to admit it, but you're right. The US needs to do more when it comes to renewable research.
- brentinkc, on 12/18/2007, -5/+8What they fail to realize is that by the time these mileage restrictions become effective, we're going to be out of oil. Completely out. I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but petroleum is only going to be a viable energy source for about twenty more years (Google Hubbert Peak Oil). Once gas is $8 a gallon, you can bet private companies aren't going to be able to spend money fast enough on alternative energy research.
- heartcoldfusion, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Gimme a break. The only reason alternative fuels aren't used now is because they're more expensive than gas. If gas rises above a certain point, people will start using alternative fuels simply because it's more economical. The technology is there, it's just more expensive than what we currently use.
- digghasnoethics, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2A little less *****, a little more research.
No 'alternative' scales fast enough Mr coldfusion - they all take after your name. - Gazoo2001, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Gas prices don't rise in a vacuum, as it were....when gas prices go up, the cost of the alternatives will also go up because they are energy-intensive as well (at least initially).
- digghasnoethics, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2A little less *****, a little more research.
- blast_flame, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5That's a tad sensationalist. We have more then twenty years worth of oil left especially once you take oil shale and oil sands into account. There is also a process known as coal liquification, if we started using that the lifespan of our oil reserves would increase dramatically. We obviously will in time need to shift but is is stupid to cry doom and gloom from the roof tops.
- digghasnoethics, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2Google "Export Land Model"
and while you're at it do some research on the limits of tar sands and the implausibility of get oil from dirty shales. - magus_melchior, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1Consider that replacing one finite fuel with another (notorious for being dirty, for that matter) doesn't sound that appealing, and is just as short-sighted as our current policy of "let's worry about it when we are really up against the wall". Consider that squeezing oil from oil shale/sands ain't free or cheap, and neither is coal liquification-- and both essentially put off the inevitable for later generations to handle. I don't think it's at all sensationalist, I think it's more progressive than what you're comfortable with.
- blast_flame, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2I never said it was desirable, just that western civilization is not about to collapse. We need to keep using our brains and not panic.
- digghasnoethics, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2Google "Export Land Model"
- kcfreels, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4Forgetting the enormous deep water reserves found in the last two years? I'd say we have a bit more that 20 years. I don't say this to trash renewable energy, just to point out that brentinkc has gone a bit "chicken little."
- brentinkc, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Have you read the Hubbert report?
- cybrguy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1We have plenty, especially if you take our huge coal reserves and crack it into liquid/gas fuels. Then the oil shale and sands add billions of barrels on top of that. We will sooner burn off the ozone than actually *run out* The problem is that we should be moving in a direction that is more economicly friendly long term. If we developed electric cars as much as gasoline cars, we may be able to make short-mid range travel cost 1/3 of the present cost.
- Izult, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1out of oil? Try they can't make the profit on renewable energy that they can on oil.
- Gazoo2001, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Your points are all well taken, but I think brentinkc is basically correct though he chose his words poorly when he said "out of oil." As we slide down the descending side of Hubbert's peak, it means we're past the point of maximum extraction; there's still oil left, but we'll never be able to extract as much per day (or per year, whatever) as we did at the peak. This happened in the U.S. after our oil production peaked in the early 70s; massive exploration was undertaken (I think like 3x as many wells as before) but we never reached our domestic peak production again. This will happen with the world, too, if it has not already.
Hitting the peak will have massive effects on the world's economy. Current gas prices aren't affecting us too much yet in the U.S. because we can afford to pay more, but poorer countries are being priced out. Eventually the U.S. middle class will be priced out as well. I think it's important to understand that when oil prices get very high, that affects more than just the price at the pump...all energy intensive processes become more expensive (including renewables research). Yes, I know that not much oil is used to make electricity, but when oil is very expensive you shift away from it where possible and use other energy sources, increasing their usage rates.
A great web site for info on this is www.theoildrum.com
- heartcoldfusion, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Gimme a break. The only reason alternative fuels aren't used now is because they're more expensive than gas. If gas rises above a certain point, people will start using alternative fuels simply because it's more economical. The technology is there, it's just more expensive than what we currently use.
- HarrisonBergero, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5And yet another enviro willfully fails to understand how congress works. As has been reported at length, the TAX section of the energy bill has been stripped out of the energy bill. This is because the Republicans did not like the cuts in oil oriented tax incentives that were included in both the House and Senate versions and they had enough votes to scuttle the entire energy bill. As has again be reported many times, the tax provisions will be included in a once-a-year, like clockwork, "tax extenders" bill which the Congresses tax writing committees always pass before the end of January. Now, it likely won't include the cuts in oil benefits that many want, or as many new renewable credits as many want, but all of the existing and some of the new solar, wind, etc. tax credits will be renewed for another year. There was never any question that they wouldn't be.
- Gazoo2001, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0As I understand it, though, one of the reasons the renewable energy industry wanted the incentives approved was to have more certainty that they would be there in years to come...they are very wary of making big investment/capital bets if the incentives can suddenly evaporate at the end of a year due to political whim. I've heard this comment from a few people who work in the solar PV industry.
- tehmark, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Stupid Stupid Stupid!
- ladalang, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2They first have to use up all the non renewable sources and get top dollar from us until its gone That gives the non renewable energy owners a chance to inject themselves in renewable sources and gain control of that market as well.
- manicallday, on 12/18/2007, -4/+2The will of the people has spoken. We don't want renewable energy. We want coal and lots of it please.
- manicallday, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1God I was joking.
- nixfu, on 12/18/2007, -6/+5Ah Democrats showing their true colors... NOTHING is more important than keeping taxes in washington so they can spend them on their socialist programs, and pork projects to keep getting elected and sucking off the big teet of washington... all they care about is taking money from those that make it and giving it to those that vote for them and state dependent on them... NOTHING else matter to Democrats...not even the environment.
- chuckDontSurf, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4You forgot to work the word 'fatcats' into your rant.
- cybrguy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Its times like these when we all wish we could be a supreme dictator for a day to fire the government, and establish a new one that "doesn't suck"
- krnldmp, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1Well tough. The federal government fouls up again. Interest in alternative energy is fueled by business and residence owners anyway. Nobody gives a cold heap about "energy companies". Look to and work for state level support, or just band together and sort out a community project to reduce initial cost.
- jetsetsc, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Kind of a moot point since there's no way Bush will sign it. It's all political theater until there's a new president.
- toothpot, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1One vote short and look who didn't vote. What kind of fool would believe McCain is a leader?
- sremick, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1While I agree this is important, this has been duped to the front page several times now.
Dupes are bad, even if I like the article. - HonestAbe, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3Solar and wind are hype.
A vote for renewables is a vote for coal. - cybrguy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Really, most of that bill should be tossed. 90% of those tax credits are wasted. INCLUDING the solar and wind ones. The government all but pays for the solar farms in my area, but they don't even make enough electricity to pay for themselves, let along make a profit, and we are losing hundreds of acres of usable land thanks to them. We didn't even need the energy, we have a FRIGGIN DAM right here. And a nuclear power plant.
How does the money equasion work?
Something like this
big corp pays for windmill farm - 105 million
big corp pockets profit from windmills- 40 million over 10 years
big corp pockets tax breaks ammounting to 95 million in savings over 10 years
big corps pays for mill maintenance for 10 years- 20 million
windmill farm depreciation over 10 years- 35 million
End result
Taxpayers pay 135 million for 40 million worth of electricity.
Corporation earns 10 million
corporation gains an asset which they can sell for 70 million (which they will sell the instant tax breaks go away.) And whos to say the land doesn't appreciate over that time.
Giving tax credits to make something which is un-economical into something economical is bad for the economy, People assume we need wind and solar, we don't, we have nuclear.- cybrguy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I had a typo in there, I meant wind farms in my area not solar. I don't know the numbers for a solar farm.
Oh, and If you dig me down, at least give me an arguement.- magus_melchior, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 12A, just along the corridor.
- cybrguy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1LOL at least someone got the reference.
- magus_melchior, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 12A, just along the corridor.
- cybrguy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1I had a typo in there, I meant wind farms in my area not solar. I don't know the numbers for a solar farm.
- SilverBlade2k, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Big Oil strikes again!
I hope those payoffs are worth it now, they are going to need the extra money later when oil becomes expensive even for the rich. - Thex1138, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1probably because there;s no reason to invade sovereign nations over renewable energy...have to stay at home and make your own [sic]
- LeeSoong, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Solar, Wind, Wave, Hydro, etc. is the way to go - why burn anything when your whole planet is constantly bathed in energy every day and every night?
- hammerattack, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Your DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED congress at work folks. They fought energy reform for six straight years killing every effort by the President to promote plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and higher energy efficiency standards. They're still at it, knowing full well that they've only got to hold out for one month and one year to make themselves look like the party of the earth when they force harsh new standards on industry that do more to punish success than reward pro-environmental efforts.
- fiestycrumbler, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1someones got a daddy money
- CNeovitch, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0Mel Martinez (Florida Republican Senator), you republican Ass, ***** voting my children's and grand-children's lives away.....
- lolo2007, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Solar, Wind, Wave, Hydro, etc. is the way to go - why burn anything when your whole planet is constantly bathed in energy every day and every night?
http://download.paramegsoft.com/
http://www.paramegsoft.com/forum/ - mallorcahp, on 10/18/2008, -0/+0Why not make your own solar energy and power your own home???
http://earth4energy.yi.org/
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is