A bit of history – circa October 1995

While going through some files recently I came across several articles from my days in the Bill Clinton Administration, first as Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary and then as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for DOE’s Office of Utility Technologies (OUT). This Office had responsibility for developing the full range of renewable electric technologies as well as hydrogen and energy storage technologies. In reading these articles twenty years later I am struck by how my words were in many ways the same then as now. What has changed is the development status of the technologies, their costs, the extent of their deployment, and the enhanced understanding of global warming and its implications for climate change. I have selected two of these articles for republishing in this blog. The first, from 1995, is republished below to provide a bit of historical context for the changes that are occurring today in our energy systems. It was part of a newsletter set up to improve communications between the leadership and staff of OUT. The second, from 1997, will be published in my next blog post. In a subsequent blog post I will offer my thoughts on what Donald Trump’s election as U.S. President could mean for U.S. energy and environmental policies and programs.

………………………………………………………….

From the Desk of the ADAS:
Allan Hoffman
October 1995

”A vision helps us stick to our beliefs and keep going in the face of resistance, chaos, uncertainty and the
inevitable setbacks. ”

In thinking about what to say in this piece, I realized that much of what I say in speeches outside of the
Department is often not shared with my OUT colleagues. So, given this opportunity, let me share some of my
thoughts on the “vision thing” and related ideas that I often introduce in my presentations. Your comments
and reactions will be appreciated – whether by e-mail. memo, telephone or hallway conversation.

I sometimes begin my remarks by observing that it has been approximately one generation since the Oil Embargo of 1973, the point at which world attention began to focus intensively on energy issues. An often quoted rule-of-thumb is that it takes about a generation for new ideas to begin to penetrate the mainstream. This is the point we find ourselves at today for non-hydro renewable electric technologies. Considerable progress has occurred over the past two decades in improving technological performance and reducing associated energy costs of wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, biomass and geothermal energy systems – e.g., at least a five-fold decrease in the cost of PV electricity, and the availability of highly reliable wind turbines that can generate electricity at 5 cents per kilowatt-hour in moderate wind regimes. This has brought us to a point where, under certain conditions, renewable technologies can be the low cost option for generating power, presaging significant deployment of these technologies in developed as well as developing countries. In addition, increased deployment of renewables is being driven by concern for the environment (e.g., global climate change) and energy security, and the recognition that widespread use of renewables represents markets in the trillions of dollars. To put some numbers into the discussion, the World Bank has estimated that, over the next 30-40 years, developing countries alone will require 5,000,000 megawatts of new generating capacity. This compares with a total world capacity of about 3,000,000 megawatts today. At a capital cost of $1-2,000 per kilowatt, this corresponds to $5-10 trillion, exclusive of associated infrastructure costs. It is the size of these numbers that is generating increased interest in renewables by businesses and the in- vestment community. It is also the reason for the increasing global competition for renewable energy markets. In addition, and very importantly, the environmental implications of that much capacity using fossil fuels, even in the more benign form of natural gas, are severe. If we are to minimize adverse local and global environmental impacts from the inevitable powering up of developing nations, renewable or other forms of non-polluting and non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power systems must be widely used. In the minds of some nuclear power offers a solution, but the scale of nuclear power plants is often not consistent with the needs or financial condition of developing nations, and the social issues that come with the associated handling of plutonium and radioactive wastes need to be carefully considered by society before it embarks on this path.

Given these considerations the prospect that fossil fuel supplies will begin to diminish before the middle
of the next century, and the need to move to sustainable economic systems, I see no alternative to a gradual
but inevitable transition to a global energy system largely dependent on renewable energy. Previous energy
transitions, e.g., from wood to coal and coal to oil, have taken 50 to 100 years to occur, and I see no
difference in this case. I also believe that over this time period, hydrogen will emerge as an important energy
carrier to complement electricity, given its ability to be used in all end use sectors and its benign
environmental characteristics. In this vision, all renewables will be widely used: biomass for fuels and power
generation, geothermal in selected locations for power generation and direct heating, and wind, hydro,
photovoltaics and solar thermal (in its various flavors) for power generation. Particular applications will be
tailored to’particular local situations. Large amounts of renewable power generated in dedicated regions
(e.g., wind in the Midwest and solar in the Southwest) will be transmitted thousands of miles over high voltage
DC power lines to distant load centers. And, electricity and the services it provides will be available to almost
every one on the planet.

One final word: why is it important to have a vision? My answer is that at the beginning of a major transition, one that will surely be resisted by well-entrenched and powerful vested interests, there will be a certain amount of chaos, a large degree of uncertainty, and setbacks. In the words of the late author Barbara Tuchman, “In the midst of events there is no perspective.” This places a heightened responsibility on the OUT staff and others to keep up their efforts to continue improving the technologies and reducing their costs. A vision helps us stick to our beliefs and keep going in the face of the resistance, chaos, uncertainty and the inevitable setbacks.
Without vIsion, very few transformational events in human history would have occurred.

Book Review of ‘The U.S. Government and Renewable Energy: A Winding Road’

The first review of my new book has just been posted by Roy Hales, Editor of the e-journal EcoReport. I re-post it below.
……………………….
POLITICS, RENEWABLES
HOW AMERICA ADOPTS ENERGY POLICIES
OCTOBER 24, 2016 ROY L HALES

The ECOreport reviews Dr. Allan R. Hoffman’s new book, which explains how America adopts energy policies & calls for a National Energy Policy that transcends political ideologies.
By Roy L Hales

Thirty-seven years ago, the United States was poised on the edge of an energy revolution. The interdepartmental plan that Dr. Allan Hoffman presented President Jimmy Carter outlined how the nation could derive 20% of its’ power from renewables (principally wind & solar) by the year 2000. What could have happened, if Carter’s successors had pressed forward, is another of the great “ifs” of history. Hoffman answers another question in his book THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & RENEWABLE ENERGY: how America adopts energy policies.

How America Adopts Energy Policies

Cover of Allan R. Hoffman, The U.S. Government & Renewable Energy
America’s failure can be explained in terms of Presidents. None of the Republicans, from Reagan to Bush Jr, believed in renewable energy.1 Though many expected to see an increase in the budgets for renewable energy research and development under Bill Clinton, a Democrat, he had “lots of other fish to fry after 12 years of Republican control of the White House.”
“My hopes were more on actions related to energy in a second Clinton term. Of course my hopes were dashed when the President tried to put a price on carbon by raising gasoline prices by five cents a gallon and ran into a political firestorm. Unfortunately, he never tried again. Vice President Gore was also responsible for a serious setback when he insisted that all programs aimed at reducing global warming be so labelled in the FY1996 budget request, which many of us argued against strongly. Our fear was that with the Republicans winning both the House and Senate in the 1994 mid-term Congressional election (the so-called Gringrich Revolution), such a guide would make it easy for Republicans to cut clean energy budgets. However we were unsuccessful in the face of the Vice President’s insistence and the Republicans subsequently used the “guide” to cut the requested OUT Renewable Energy budget by 25%. This had serious consequences for the NREL, which at the time received 60% of its operating funds from the budget, and the NREL was forced to lay off 200 of its 800 staff. It was a devastating time for renewables, about which I still carry strong feelings,” writes Hoffman2
By the time of Barack Obama’s election, in 2008, Hoffman was beginning “my eighth decade of life” and considering retirement. However America finally had “a President who really seemed to ‘get it’ in a meaningful way.”

Under Five U.S. Presidents
Hoffman’s 134 page THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & RENEWABLE ENERGY contains a distillation of the events he witnessed while serving under five U.S. Presidents (Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, & Obama).
Much of what he writes does not have anything to do with politics. He explains how the various renewable energy sources work and the challenges that must be overcome before they could be adopted. Some of the personal anecdotes, like climbing a wind turbine “though I have a serious fear of heights,” are delightful.3 Hoffman’s predictions of “where we will be energy-wise in the next 30-40 years” may prove accurate.4
However the real value of this book is the insider’s perspective it gives on how America has adopted energy policies.
Need For A Clear U.S. Energy Policy
Drawing from his decades of experience, Hoffman calls for the adoption of a clear U.S. energy policy that transcends political ideologies:
“Energy policy is a complicated and controversial field, reflecting many different national, global and vested interests. Bringing renewables fully into the energy mainstream, which is only now beginning, will take time as history teaches, and the needs of developing and developed nations (e.g., in transportation) need to be addressed during the period in which the transition takes place. The critical need is to move through this transition as quickly as possible. Without clear national energy policies that recognize the need to move away from a fossil fuel-based energy system, and to a low carbon clean energy system as quickly as possible, this inevitable transition will be stretched out unnecessarily , with adverse environmental, job-creation, and other economic and national security impacts. It is also true that the revenue generated by putting a price on carbon can be used to reduce social inequalities introduced by such a tax, lower other taxes, and enable investments consistent with long-term national needs. In the United States, it also provides a means for cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, something we have not seen for decades. It is now more than time for U.S. leaders to take this critical step.”

Footnotes
1 Allan R. Hoffman, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT & RENEWABLE ENERGY, Pan Sanford Series on Renewable Energy, pp. 44, 101
2 Hoffman, pp 48-49
3 Hoffman, p 57
4 Hoffman, pp 127-131
5 Hoffman, p 134

Judaism and the Environment

This blog post is the text of a short presentation I made today to my Jewish community on the first day of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. It is the beginning of a period of deep self reflection, culminating ten days later in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

It is a tradition in my community that members are invited to speak on major holidays, briefly of course, on a topic of their own choosing that may have meaning for the community. This year I was invited to speak on Rosh Hashanah and chose the topic Judaism and the Environment. These brief words may help to put into context many of my earlier blog postings.

……………………………….

Judaism and the Environment

This brief talk is given in the spirit of midrash, often called ‘drash’, which is commonly defined as the process of interpretation by which the rabbis filled in “gaps” found in the Torah (the central reference of the religious Judaic tradition). In modern times Jewish communities have been called ‘communities of rabbis’ so while not a rabbi I feel free to comment.

My topic is Judaism and the environment. The bulk of my career has been devoted to developing clean energy technologies that reduce environmental stress and so the topic is one that is dear to my heart. Back in 2005 I was invited to present a talk on the topic ‘Why I do what I do’. An important part of my answer was ‘Tikkun Olam’, which had a mystical meaning in medieval times but in modern times is associated with the idea that Jews bear responsibility not only for their own moral, spiritual and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large.

Some people trace Jewish concern for the environment to the fundamental concept of Judaism that God created the universe and that only God has absolute ownership over Creation. This is a theocentric worldview, not an anthropocentric one that emphasizes, as stated in Genesis I, that humans exercise ‘dominion’ over the earth. Others point to the Deuteronic commandment ‘bal taschit’ that is an injunction against unnecessary destruction.

In the theocentric, God-focused, worldview the environmental implications are that humans must realize that they do not have unrestricted freedom to misuse Creation, as it does not belong to them. Everything we own, everything we use, even ourselves, ultimately belongs to God. We are to be stewards of the earth and the role of mankind is to enhance the world as ‘co-partners of God in the work of creation.”This implies that we must always consider our use of Creation with a view to the larger good in both time (i.e., responsibility to future generations) and space (i.e., others on this world). It also implies that we must think beyond our own species to that of all Creation. There is a midrash that builds on this concept of co-partnership:
“In the hour when the Holy one, blessed be He, created the first man,
He took him and let him pass before all the trees of the Garden of Eden
And said to him: “See my works, how fine and excellent they are!
Now all that I have created, for you have I created.
Think upon this and do not corrupt and desolate My World,
For if you corrupt it, there is no one to set it right after you.”

The anthropocentric view, the ‘dominance’ view in the rabbinic tradition, focuses on how mankind uses the fruits of Creation to meet its own needs. In 1967 Lynn White, in an oft-cited article, argued that the Judeo-Christian heritage arising from the ‘dominion’ commandment is responsible for the current ecological crisis. One response has been a Jewish and Christian environmental movement that was in many ways motivated by the revival of back-to-the-land values in the 1960s and ‘70s, augmented for Jews by interest in Zionist idealism.

The pioneers of environmentalism in the North American Jewish community were often deeply committed to vegetarianism. As with most things Jewish, a large part of Jewish environmental work has consisted of investing Jewish practice with ecological meaning through sermons, teachings, and books. In 1982, Rabbi Arthur Waskow, one of the first in this area of exploration often called Jewish Renewal, published ‘The Seasons of our Joy: A Modern Guide to the Jewish Holidays’ which explains the Jewish calendar in terms of changes in the earth. In that same year a first-ever Jewish Environmental Conference was held at Rutgers University. A year later Rabbi Waskow founded the Shalom Center, now a leading organization in presenting an ecological understanding of Judaism. This was followed in 1988 by the founding of Shomrei Adamah, Guardians of the Earth, the first national Jewish organization devoted to environmental issues. And finally, in 1993, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life was formed to bring the Jewish environmental movement into the mainstream. Further developments have taken place in succeeding years.

What is apparent is that environmental justice is a Jewish value, and together with the commandment of Tikkun Olam leads to an active Jewish involvement in protecting the earth’s inhabitants and its environment.

Energy Policies of the U.S. Presidential Candidates

When I was born Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was President of the United States. Since then I have lived through many presidential elections, but none as strange as the one currently underway in the United States. It is truly one for the history books, and many articles, books, and PhD theses will be written about it in years to come. It has been a nasty campaign so far, and is likely to get even nastier as we approach November 8th, Election Day. As a result, it is often hard to focus on policy issues that differentiate the two principal candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The level of invective is high, and issues of temperament and trustworthiness are often grabbing most of the attention. Nevertheless, energy policy is important and has had and will have a major impact on the U.S. economy, its environment, and its national security. Therefore, there has been increasing attention recently to the energy policies of the candidates – e.g., the search of their websites in July by an analyst for the American Council on Renewable Energy to measure their interest in renewable energy. As reported by Forbes in August: “The search produced 55 results on Hillary Clinton’s website – it jumped to 92 as she published more detailed plans – and only one on Donald Trump’s site.” In this blog post I will add to this effort by identifying and and comparing the energy policies of the two candidates based on their published positions and their public statements. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

image
Hillary Clinton

image
Donald Trump

I will approach this task by using questions prepared by Science Debates (sciencedebates.org), an organization that is “asking candidates to hold a debate exclusively about major issues in science, engineering, health and the environment.” They know that will not happen in 2016 (they also tried unsuccessfully in 2008 and 2012) but have put together a set of 20 questions that the candidates have answered in writing. I have selected two of the questions as the basis for my comparisons.

Question #1: “The Earth’s climate is changing and political discussion has become divided over both the science and the best response. What are your views on climate change, and how would your administration act on those views?”

Donald Trump’s response to Science Debates:

“There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”

The following statements are direct quotes from the Trump website (www.donaldtrump.com):

“Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.”

“Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

The following are public statements made by Donald Trump:

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (tweet, November 2012)

“Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax! (tweet, December 2013)

“We should be focused on clean and beautiful air – not expensive and business closing GLOBAL WARMING a total hoax!” (tweet, December 2013)

“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.” (tweet, January 2014)

“Maybe some climate change is man made, but not all.” (June 2015)

HIllary Clinton’s response to Science Debates:

“When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear. Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time and its impacts are already being felt at home and around the world. That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.

I will set three goals that we will achieve within ten years of taking office and which will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century:

Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
To get there, my administration will implement and build on the range of pollution and efficiency standards and clean energy tax incentives that have made the United States a global leader in the battle against climate change. These standards are also essential for protecting the health of our children, saving American households and businesses billions of dollars in energy costs, and creating thousands of good paying jobs.

These standards set the floor, not the ceiling. As Phresident, I will launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with those states, cities, and rural communities across the country that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency, giving them the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.”

The relevant climate change material on the Clinton website is similar to the above answer to Science Debates and so will not be reproduced here.

The following is a public statement by Hillary Clinton:

(What will you do about climate change?) “I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change, starting in 2009, when President Obama and I crashed a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up to the first international agreement to combat climate change that they’d ever joined.” (Q: Are you referring to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?) “When we met in Copenhagen in 2009 and, literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world. They told us they’d left for the airport; we found out they were having a secret meeting. We marched up, we broke in, we said, “Let’s sit down and talk about what we need to do.” And we did come up with the first international agreement that China has signed.” (Source: Democratic primary debate, October 2015)

Question #2: “Strategic management of the U.S. energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and as President, what will your energy strategy be?”

Donald Trump’s response to Science Debates:

“It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and more prosperous world.”

The following statements are direct quotes from the Trump website (they touch on both energy and global warming issues):

“Energy reform—
– Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
– Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
– Ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
– Make land in the Outer Continental Shelf available to produce oil and natural gas.
– Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
– Lift restrictions on American energy to increase:
– Economic output by $700 billion annually over the next 30 years,
– Wages by $30 billion annually over the next 7 years,
– GDP by more than $20 trillion over the next four decades, and
– Tax revenues by an additional $6 trillion over 40 years.”

The following are published statements or public comments by Donald Trump:

“There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy–so-called green energy–from renewable sources. That’s a big mistake. To begin with, the whole push for renewable energy is being driven by the wrong motivation, the mistaken belief that global climate change is being caused by carbon emissions. If you don’t buy that–and I don’t–then what we have is really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.” (Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, November 2015)

“The most popular source of green energy is solar as several decades after installing solar panels to get your money back. That’s not exactly what I would call a good investment. Even if that number is only half right, what kind of investment do you want to make that takes 20 years before you break even
(Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, November 2015)

“Right now, green energy is way behind the times. You look at the windmills that are destroying shorelines all over the world. Economically, they’re not good. It’s a very, very poor form of energy.” (March 2012)

“Among all the gifts that God gave to America was an abundant supply of natural energy. According to the Department of Energy, the natural gas reserves we have in the ground could supply our energy needs for centuries.
Researchers at Rice University in Houston, Texas, have estimated we might have two trillion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to last the next 285 years. Technology has changed so much in the last few years that a Goldman-Sachs study has estimated that by 2017 or 2019, we could overtake both Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer.
The oil is there for the taking; we just have to take it.
I’ve never understood why, with all of our own reserves, we’ve allowed this country to be held hostage by OPEC, the cartel of oil-producing countries, some of which are hostile to America.
(Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, November 2015)

“I’m very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. You know, it’s sort of interesting. If a plane goes down, people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash, people keep driving. There are problems in life. Not everything is so perfect. You have to look very carefully, though, at really taking care; having the best people in terms of safeguards for nuclear energy. But we do need nuclear energy, and we need a lot of it fast.
(Source: interview, Msrch 15, 2011)

Hillary Clinton’s response to Science Debates:

“The next decade is not only critical to meeting the climate challenge, but offers a tremendous opportunity to ensure America becomes a 21st century clean energy superpower. I reject the notion that we as a country are forced to choose between our economy, our environment, and our security. The truth is that with a smart energy policy we can advance all three simultaneously. I will set the following bold, national goals – and get to work on Day 1, implementing my plan to achieve them within ten years of taking office:

Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
My plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. This includes:

Defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launching a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families.
Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers.
Ensuring the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
Reforming leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cutting the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cutting methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalizing coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been. When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear. Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time and its impacts are already being felt at home and around the world. That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.

I will set three goals that we will achieve within ten years of taking office and which will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century:

Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
To get there, my administration will implement and build on the range of pollution and efficiency standards and clean energy tax incentives that have made the United States a global leader in the battle against climate change. These standards are also essential for protecting the health of our children, saving American households and businesses billions of dollars in energy costs, and creating thousands of good paying jobs.

These standards set the floor, not the ceiling. As President, I will launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with those states, cities, and rural communities across the country that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency, giving them the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.”

The relevant statements on the Clinton website are essentially a restatement of her answer to Science Debates and so will not be reproduced here.

The following are public statements by Hillary Clinton:

“We need to implement the president’s executive actions and quickly move to make a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. That is the way we will keep the lights on while we are transitioning to a clean energy future.” (Source: 2016 PBS Democratic primary debate, March 2016)

(Re fracking) “#1, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it. #2, I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it, #3, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.” (Source: Democratic primary debate in Flint, Michigan, March 2016)

“We do have enough money in LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) to help consumers pay their bills. We should have a crash program on weatherization to help to drive those bills down. We need to do more to investigate, and we might even have to look at the strategic petroleum reserve, which the Bush administration has been filling up beyond any expectation of need for the short term. We also have to have a serious move toward energy efficiency and conservation. We need to get people to be more conscious to do it for themselves. (Source: Democratic primary debate at Drexel University, October 2007)

(Q.Would you rule out expanding nuclear power?) “No, but it would not be one of the options that I favor, unless, number one, the cost can get down for the construction and operation; number two, that we have a viable solution for the nuclear waste. I voted against Yucca Mountain. I’ve spoken out against Yucca Mountain. I think that recently the discovery–there’s an earthquake fault going under the proposed site at Yucca Mountain–certainly validates my opposition. So there are a lot of very difficult questions. But we’re going to have to look at the entire energy profile, in order to determine how we’re going to move away from our dependence upon carbon-based fuels. And I will look at everything, but there are some tough questions you’d have to answer with respect to nuclear.”
(Source: Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College, September 2007)

In the above compilation I have tried to let the candidates speak for themselves. It is clear that there are major policy differences between the two candidates with respect to our energy future and our response to global warming and climate change. Based on what I have said previously in this blog I am clearly not neutral in this debate. I strongly support Secretary Clinton’s vision of a clean energy future that moves us quickly away from dependence on fossil fuels and towards an energy system increasingly dependent on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Donald Trump’s vision is very different. The American people have a clear choice to make in the upcoming election on these and other issues.

Solar Energy Facts

The attached article was first published in the e-journal CleanTechnica. It was authored by Zachary Shahan who serves as CleanTechnica’s director and chief editor. In accord with Zach’s request, I am reprinting here the basic facts in the article to give them increased visibility. The purpose of the article is discussed in its second paragraph. The charts referred to in the article’s title can be found in the original article on the CleanTechnica website.

The facts attest to the reality that an energy revolution is underway, as the world transitions from an energy system largely dependent on fossil and nuclear energy to one increasingly dependent on renewable energy, and one in which solar energy is playing an increasingly important role.
………………………………………………

10 Solar Energy Facts & Charts You (& Everyone) Should Know
August 17th, 2016 by Zachary Shahan

I sometimes forget that not everyone has the time to read all 9,190 solar energy articles we’ve published here on CleanTechnica — or even 10% of them, or 1% of them. Okay, who am I kidding — most people haven’t read a single solar energy article published on CleanTechnica.

Our goal isn’t just to be a cheerleader for the people who have gone solar and who have switched to electric cars, and it isn’t just to help keep industry insiders informed. Our goal is to help society help itself by inspiring more people to switch to cleantech. Part of that is sharing useful information that most people aren’t aware of about solar costs & incentives. Part of that is trying to persuade people to cut the death toll. Part of that is covering new solar tech that may interest you. Part of that is debunking media and fossil/utility misinformation.

It hit me after writing that last piece, though, that there are really a handful of solar energy facts that few people know but that I think should be common knowledge in a healthy, democratic, free-market society. That’s how I got to writing this article.

You can do your part on this point, of course, by 1) sharing these more widely than you share the typical article, and 2) throwing additional facts and charts into the comments. (Also, yes, I will update the figures in this article as they change or as more up-to-date figures become available — so check in again from time to time.)

1. The price of a solar panel in 1975 was ~227 times higher than it is today — $101.5/watt versus $0.447/watt.

solar price drop installations

2. The price of a solar panel today is ~30% what it was in 2010 — $0.447/watt versus $1.50/watt. That’s a 70% discount!

solar panel price drop

3. The lowest wholesale solar price bid from a solar project developer (unsubsidized) is 2.91¢/kWh. That’s cheaper than what new natural gas, coal, or nuclear power can provide practically anywhere in the world.

Lazard-Solar-Wind-Prices-LCOE-3

4. Even excluding that record-low bid, and not taking into account the large social costs of coal and natural gas electricity, utility-scale solar power is cheaper than new coal, nuclear, natural gas peaking, and IGCC power plants. It is comparable to combined cycle natural gas power plants, but again, that is without taking into account the social costs of pollution from extracting and burning natural gas.

5. 99% of new electricity generation capacity added in the US in Q1 2016 came from renewable energy sources, 64% from solar. (Findings from my report, linked above, were confirmed by GTM Research & SEIA.)

US Renewable Energy Capacity – Q1 2016

6. The average installed cost of a residential rooftop solar power system in the US was $3.21/Wdc in Q1 2016.

solar power installed prices

7. The country leading annual solar power installations is now China, with the US at #3.

solar-growth

8. Overall, solar power capacity grew >10x over from 2009 to 2015, and >100x over from 2002 to 2015.

9. US solar energy industry added more jobs in 2015 than the US oil & gas extraction & pipeline industries added combined, and grew 12x faster than the US economy as a whole.

US Solar Jobs Greater Than Oil + Gas Extraction & Pipeline Sectors Combined

10. Solar energy potential dwarfs the potential from every other energy resource on the planet. (Note that, in the following chart, the energy potential for renewables is annual energy potential, whereas the energy potential from non-renewables is for total known reserves.)

solar energy potential
“2009 Estimate of finite and renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt-years). Total recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources. Yearly potential is shown for the renewables.” (Perez & Perez, 2015)