Telthorst.net

U.S. Power Generation Sources (2007)

President Barrack Obama, as part of his proposed budget, has decided to slash funding to clean hydrogen fuel by 60% or 100 million.¹ This is a substantial blow to those seeking clean alternative fuels, as hydrogen is one of the most promising, clean alternatives to gasoline powered vehicles.  Stephen Power of the Wall Street Journal writes:

Because hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and using it to power cars would be so clean, proponents have often described it as the Holy Grail of alternative fuels.

However, Obama has decided to pursue energy sources, “with more immediate promise,” though one wonders what energy sources would have more promise. If the Obama administration wants to pursue battery powered vehicles, two serious problems present themselves. First there are currently no existing battery technologies that would allow for vehicles with a practical range.  One might say, “That’s why he is funding battery research.”  However, when looking for breakthroughs, its essential not to bet on one technology, instead we should be concurrently researching a variety of new technologies, in the hopes that one of them will present a viable alternative.  Secondly, if millions of Americans start using plug-in cars, there will need to be an increased supply of electricity to charge these vehicles; which prompts one to look at where our electricity comes from.

Most of the electricity in the United States, over 48%, comes from Coal powered plants.  Natural gas accounts for 22%. Unfortunately, the United States has not begun construction on any new nuclear power plants since 1977, and greenhouse gas free Nuclear power provides only 19% of our energy. Renewable energy accounts for only 2.5% of our energy generation. Hydroelectric power supplies 6% of the electricity in the United States, but is on the decline, as more dams are being demolished than built.  In fact, since 1996, the annual hydroelectric power generation in the United States has dropped by nearly one million megawatthours.² What this all means is that if we do use plug-in automobiles, 50% of the power that charges their batteries will come from coal power, and over 70% will come from fossil fuels.

President Obama has stated that “We will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”  However, Hydroelectic power is not included in Obama’s definition of renewables, because extreme-environmentalists have lobbied effectively against building the dams required to build hydroelectic power plants.  This means that even “doubling renewables” will only result in a 2.5% increase in our electricity generation from these clean sources.  Certainly, we need to start somewhere, but this will fail to meet our future energy needs, and is not a significant replacement for our reliance on coal power.

So while President Obama’s decision to fund electric cars seems like an environmentally friendly endeavour, it could very well result in more coal being burned, more greenhouse gases being emitted, and more heavy metals being pumped into the air we breathe.

1. http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/07/running-on-empty-obama-budget-cuts-funding-for-hydrogen-car/ [↩]
2. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html [↩]

I’m a fan of alternative energy, but as a recent WSJ Article, “Let’s Get Real About Renewable Energy” points out, even if we double our renewable energy output, and double it again, we’ll still be highly dependent on fossil fuels. In his address to congress President Barrack Obama stated that, “We will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.” First off, if Obama includes Hydroelectric power as renewable, doubling it would mean our energy from renewables would be up to 20%, however, more damns are being destroyed than built, so doubling our hydroelectric power is not going to happen. If Obama does not count hydroelectic power, doubling our renewable energy, which currently only accounts for 2.5% of our energy supply, would only mean that 5% of our energy will come from renewable energy sources. We need to start somewhere, but his energy plan, or lack thereof, has problems.

President Obama has stated his intention to implement a “cap on carbon pollution.” Over 48% of America’s energy comes from coal, 22% comes from natural gas, 2% comes from petroleum, and 19% comes from a combination of nuclear power, hydropower, and lastly, wind and solar power. Coal and oil provide 70% of of our nation’s power supply, and would also be most effected by the cap on carbon pollution. ¹

We do need to start somewhere, and doubling our supply of renewable energy is a fine goal. However, President Obama has also stated that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” In other words President Obama is going to create an artificial crisis to accelerate the development of alternative energy.

Is this a good plan? With a depressed economy, and rising unemployment, is this the best time to intentionally make electricity expensive? There must be a way in which we can develop alternatives to fossil fuels in stages, and transition to clean sources of energy smoothly to avoid causing “electricity rates to skyrocket.” To use one of President Obama’s favorite analogies, this is a situation in which need to utilize a scalpel instead of a hatchet to slash at 70% of our energy supply.

1. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html#_ftn6 [↩]