From his op-ed in today’s Washington Post:
More energy from the sun hits Earth in one hour than all the energy consumed on our planet in an entire year.
In those terms, it is absurd that our federal government spends tens of billions of dollars annually subsidizing the oil industry, which pulls diminishing resources from underground, while the industry focused above ground on wind, solar and other renewable energies is derided in Washington.
Federal support for development of new energy sources is lower today than at any other point in U.S. history, and our government is forcing the clean-energy sector into a competitive disadvantage. To bring true competition to the energy market, ensure our national security and create jobs here rather than in China or elsewhere, we must level the playing field for renewable energies. In this presidential primary, Americans need to hear where the candidates stand on this critical issue.
Don’t get me wrong — we should not demonize fossil fuels. For more than 200 years, the United States has rightly invested in developing new sources of energy. From the land grants for timber and coal in the 1800s to the tax expenditures for oil and gas in the early 20th century to the investment in developing nuclear energy, support for energy innovation has always helped drive America’s growth.
Of course, The disgraced governator is an expert on creating jobs through solar energy. Here he is, in fact, at the groundbreaking of the new Solyndra plant in Northern California!
The rest of his op-ed here.
Clearly, the Last Action Hero has not listened to Robert Bryce's explanation of energy density.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was afraid he'd be baack.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Federal support for development of new energy sources is lower today than at any other point in U.S. history..."
Really!? There is less federal support of alternative energy today than there was during the war of 1812? 1792? 1859? Can I see some documentation backing up this statement?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes. Fact check, please. Starting with Carter, seems like every universtity had its own energy showcase using federal grants. And W was whole-heartedly supporting every form of energy including hydrogen. But now Obama has shut down government support of "new sources" (while promoting fossil fuels wherever he can)? The Governator must have himself a medical marijuna permit and must really be abusing it now that he has a lot of time off.
C'mon, man!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd bet that there is more energy released in a single earthquake than we consume in a year as well .... or there is more energy in ocean waves than we consume in a year ... just like all of that solar energy we are missing out on, the real world issue is that we can't harness that energy ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDorsaiGuy,
You're close. We can't harness that energy at a competitive cost. If and when fossil fuel supplies actually start reaching a point of demonstrable depletion, market forces will drive up the cost to the consumer. As that happens, renewable energies, whose prices presumably will not increase, can begin to compete.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am very much a supporter of solar energy.
1) Sunlight hits the earth and causes evaporation - which in turn leads to rain and snow in the mountains - water falling through raceways drives turbines - which generate electricity. Solar energy!
2) Sunlight falls upon the earth. Plants grow through photo synthesis. Plants die and rot in swamp areas. the seas rise. the seas fall. heat and pressure convert the rotted plant matter into oil and/or coal. (sometimes called hydroCARBONS) the oil is trapped in salt domes or sedimentary rock we find and extract 10 to 15%. Then find new extraction methods and get closer to 40%. Solar energy.
Guess what except for geothermal and nuclear ALL our energy sources so far are SOLAR!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's a liberal Democrat, always was, always will be.
Those subsidies amount to nothing more than the same kind of depreciation that every business in the country gets. They aren't targeted to the oil industry.
Its not like he's talking about ethanol, which has massive subsidies, protective tariffs and a mandate for its use. Those, I'm sure, he's in favor of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStep 1a: Eliminate the federal corporate income tax.
Step 1b: Eliminate the federal corporate gravy train, i.e. subsidies.
There, Governor, now it's completely fair. Renewables can compete head-to-head with carbon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get itchy when artsy types discuss science. Yes, there is an enormous amount of energy that strikes the earth from the sun. But what is NEVER discussed is the efficiency of translating the light energy into electrical energy. A very good, very expensive solar cell can achieve 3 or 4 percent.
I say, let's spend a lot of money to harness geokinetic energy. Once the basic research is done, all we need is to find the place with the most geokinetic energy sources. Hmmmmmm Where can that be?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn the mind of a liberal, any tax rate that is less than 100%, is a subsidy.
These so called subsidies are the equivalent of depreciation allowances which all companies use.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks, Mike. I was afraid nobody would point out the obvious.
I wish the federal government would consider an increase to individual subsidies to the surfboard industry. By which, of course, I mean not taking so much more from me in taxes that I cannot afford to buy another surfboard for the family!
How simple minded. One has to imagine the federal government somehow "earned" that money to begin with. (Something a flat tax without deductions and exemptions would make it more difficult to disguise, BTW.)
Wouldn't it be nice if somebody speaking for industry, oil or any other for that matter, espoused no longer providing the federal government with subsidies to run its disastrous power grabs on the productive earnings of its citizens?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse