How appropriate it was to hear Sam Bodman, the Energy Secretary under the Bush administration, make the following statement last week in regards to Obama's plan to double our output of renewable energy in three years....
"I think it's going to be extremely difficult to get there in three years. I'm not saying you can't do it. It depends on how much money you spend. We have spent a lot of money, but could you spend even more and can you throw more (government) money at it? You could. I don't think it's wise myself, because I think we're spending about at the rate which makes sense."
Well certainly we should listen to what Bodman thinks is wise and what is not. After all, while he attempts to interfere with progress by making such statements, our entire energy infrastructure is crumbling, our natural gas supplies continue to dwindle, we don't have nearly enough engineers and skilled labor to expand nuclear development the way they claim we can, and our decision-makers (until very recently) have been under the false assumption that we have 250 years worth of coal reserves. That's what happens when you allow lobbyists to present you with data and dictate your policies.
So excuse me if I think Bodman should keep his mouth shut at this point, and let the new administration at least attempt to make some progress here.
Listen: Certainly no one should expect such a massive transition to be easy or cheap, but to downplay it from the start (the way Bodman did) represents nothing more than a defeatist attitude, likely based on the former Energy Secretary's lack of desire to effectively begin the process of transitioning our energy infrastructure to one that is cleaner and more sustainable.
Of course, just this past Friday, International Energy Agency Executive Director, Nobuo Tanaka told Reuters that while Obama's plan is very ambitious, it is also attainable. According to Tanaka, mobilizing the private sector to invest is a key issue, and a framework or incentives is very important.
We couldn't agree more. And given the reality of our fossil fuel depletion, there is little doubt that the new administration - complete with its loyal renewable energy supporters on both sides of the aisle - will now move forward with a framework and incentives to spark large-scale renewable energy development.
Of course, as investors, we also need to remember that this is a global transition. And while the naysayers will continue to pound their fists to thinning crowds, we will focus on the data that proves renewable energy integration - on a global scale - is not only happening...but will continue to happen at a rapid pace.
The most recent data, by the way, comes from the offshore wind sector.
Offshore Opportunities
According to GlobalData, only four countries accounted for a share of total offshore wind power in 2000. These were Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, and Sweden. As of 2008, however, twelve countries have installed offshore wind farms, moving the industry from 35 MW in 2000 to 1,484 MW in 2008.
Over the next two years, the world's offshore wind power installed capacity is expected to reach more than 6,400 MW. This will account for more than eight percent of the total wind power capacity additions in 2009 and 2010.
So which countries are going to take the lead this year? And more importantly, which companies will be developing these offshore giants?
The UK, which was the largest contributor in 2008 (in terms of cumulative offshore wind power capacity), has nine new projects expected to reach completion by 2010. With a cumulative installed capacity of 1396 MW, the developers include...
Airtricity Holdings
Warwick Energy
Eclipse Energy UK
Dong Energy
EDF Energy
SLP Energy
E.ON UK.
Denmark, which ranked second largest in 2008 has two projects expected to reach completion by 2010. With a combined installed capacity of 359 MW, these projects will be developed by Dong Energy and Sund & Baelt Holdings.
Germany, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Estonia, Poland, China and Spain also have new projects expected to reach completion in 2010. And the U.S. has two as well. Combined, these two projects are expected to deliver an installed capacity of 462 MW. The projects are being developed by Bluewater Wind and Winergy Power.
For more data that supports our bullish outlook for offshore wind, as well as all other viable renewable energy resources, click here.
To a new way of life, and a new generation of wealth...
Jeff
Subscribe to
groups. And they have had considerable success. Perhaps that was, in part, the basis for Mr. Boeman's concerns. But perhaps our new President's charisma will carry the day.
TKA
Encourage development with tax moratoriums, NOT with funds. let the market place decide the winning product by the profitability of the product without any subsidies.
Wind and other alt energy lack the HVDC required to get the power from where it's produced to where it's needed. That infrastructure will take years.
So Sam is right, money well spent makes sense, just throwing money at the problem is folly.
To make effective investment decisions you need to know the technology, not just what the analysts are told.
Mike
And get off the ethanol kick.
Tell me again who the Democrats were that didn't want off shore wind generators to ruin their "pristine view" of their water front properties. Or the tree huggers that don't want nuclear power or off shore drilling or developement of another oil field of less than 2000 acres in Alaska. Let's put the whole story out, not selected bits and pieces to support a one sided view
I find a lot of the comments here are just emotionally based arguments. To me, the government is required for all these large national undertakings to transform America. They must set the overall objectives for such programs, the sense of urgency and basically the money. Whether their goals are somewhat optimistic or not is a matter of intelligent debate hopefully with a full a set of facts as possible.
Sam's comments about the Bush administration pushing as hard as is reasonable is certainly a matter of opinion. I am a Canadian, and our view in general, is that nothing his administration did was very intelligent or smart, and most of his decisions were "seat of the pants" style government. That will not solve the serious long term problems we face. That requires serious leadership with a vision, whether we agree with all of the parts of the vision or not.
Obama to Canadians, and I am quite certain to most of the rest of the world, is breath of fresh air and change which we are all looking forward to. I personally find it odd that Americans fail to see their president as the rest of the world sees him. Perhaps you are too close to the action, and the need for your own personal change represents a significant threat to yourself, as you see yourself.
Oh, well, there are always some people who have to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming.