Let’s talk about a new report that came out from the Pew Charitable Trusts Environment Group called “ Who is winning the clean energy race?:Growth, Competition and opportunity in the world’s largest economies” This report is for the G-20 countries.
http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/cleanenergyeconomy/pr_24mar2010.html
Here is the link to the Pew’s web page were you can read the summary of the report and you can link to the PDF of the report, it is only 44 pages and a very easy read and it breaks down each counties clean energy profile in some detail. Over all a great report, but I would expect nothing less from the researchers at the Pew Charitable Trust.
The underlying data for this report was compiled for the Pew Environment Group by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the world’s leading provider of news, data and analysis on clean energy and carbon market finance and investment. Always remember that Bloomberg calls themselves that, it is not an endorsement by me, but the underlining data looks sound. Now this report was on just the G-20 nations.
This is from the Executive Summary of the report.
Within the G-20, our research finds that domestic policy decisions impact the competitive positions of
Member countries. Those nations—such as China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain—with
Strong, national policies aimed at reducing global warming pollution and incentivizing the use of renewable
Energy is establishing stronger competitive positions in the clean energy economy. Nations seeking to
Compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate the array of policy
Mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. China, for example, has set
Ambitious targets for wind, biomass and solar energy and, for the first time, took the top spot within the
G-20 and globally for overall clean energy finance and investment in 2009. The United States slipped to
Second place.
There are reasons to be concerned about America’s competitive position in the clean energy marketplace.
Relative to the size of its economy, the United States’ clean energy finance and investments lag behind
Many of its G-20 partners. For example, in relative terms, Spain invested five times more than the United
States last year, and China, Brazil and the United Kingdom invested three times more. In all, 10 G-20
Members devoted a greater percentage of gross domestic products to clean energy than the United States
In 2009. Finally, the Unites States is on the verge of losing its leadership position in installed renewable
Energy capacity, with China surging in the last several years to a virtual tie.
The U.S. policy framework for reducing global warming pollution and promoting renewable energy
Remains uncertain, with comprehensive legislation stalled in Congress. On the other hand, America’s
Entrepreneurial traditions and strengths in innovation—especially its leadership in venture capital
Investing—is considerable, giving it the potential to recoup leadership and market share in the future.
Policy, investment and business experts alike have noted that the clean energy economy is emerging as
One of the great global economic and environmental opportunities of the 21st century. Local, state and
National leaders in the United States and around the world increasingly recognize that safe, reliable, clean
Energy—solar, wind, bioenergy and energy efficiency—can be harnessed to create jobs and businesses,
Reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, enhance national security and reduce global warming
Pollution.
Nations seeking to compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate
The array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. This is
Especially true for policymakers in the United States, which is at risk of falling further behind its G-20
Competitors in the coming years unless it adopts a strong national policy framework to spur more robust
Clean energy investment.
The United States needs to increase their clean energy investment and increase it now. Pew found that from 2005 to 2009 overall investment grew by 230 % and in 2009 $162 Billion was invested globally.
The US does head the list of Renewable Energy capacity at:
1. United States 53.3 Giga-watts
2. China 52.5 Giga-watts
3. Germany 36.2 Giga-watts
4. Spain 22.4 Giga-watts
5. India 16.5 Giga-watts
6. Japan 12.9 Giga-watts
7. Rest of EU-27 12.3 Giga-watts
8. Italy 9.8 Giga-watts
9. France 9.4 Giga-watts
10. Brazil 9.1 Giga-watts
But in the top ten of five year growth the US falls to 8th
1. South Korea 249% increase
2. China 79% increase
3. Australia 40% increase
4. France 31% increase
5. India 31% increase
6. UK 30% increase
7. Turkey 30% increase
8. USA 24% increase
9. Canada 18% increase
10. Rest of EU 17% increase
Bloomberg reports that investment will rise 25 percent in 2010 because of ongoing priorities for energy security, global warming pollution reduction and job creation; this will increase the global investment from $162 billion to about $200 billion.
China is emerging as the world’s clean energy powerhouse. For the first time, China took the top spot for overall clean energy finance and investment in 2009, pushing the United States into second place. Having built a strong manufacturing base and export markets, China is working now to meet domestic demand by installing substantial new clean energy-generating capacity to meet ambitious renewable energy targets. The United States clean energy investment fell 40 percent, compared with the previous year. Further declines were avoided through long-term extension of federal production and investment tax credits and initial funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act(Stimulus bill) ,which helped to shore up investments in the latter half of 2009. Despite this influx of investment, there are reasons to be concerns about the U.S. competitive position in the clean energy marketplace.
In dollars China invested 34.6 billion in 2009 with the United States invested only 18.6 billion, China invested almost double the US. In five year growth Turkey is at the head of that list with an increase of 178%, China is increasing investment by 148%, while the United States is only increasing by 103%. Even though overall clean energy finance and investment in the United States more than doubled, its growth rate lagged behind most of the G-20. In addition, the policy framework in the US for reducing global warming pollution and increasing renewable energy remains uncertain, with comprehensive legislation stalled in Congress.
Strong domestic policies like feed-in tariffs, National renewable and energy efficiency standards, carbon reduction targets and/or financial incentives for production, have shifted the competitive positions of the G-20 , with the countries at have set ambitious targets moving faster and with more purpose towards a cleaner energy future, and putting them in the leadership role in the clean energy sector.
Nations seeking to compete effectively for the clean energy jobs and manufacturing could mimic the array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to simulate clean energy investment. The United States is a case in point. With a mixed policy framework (no carbon policy and a patchwork of state renewable energy standards) the US has a comparatively week clean energy economy. The US should be looking to the policies that China and most of the EU nations have already put in place as a base line for our targets.
In the Pew report if you look at the overall renewable energy sectors we have Solar heat/Photo , Wind , Biomass ,Geothermal ,Marine and Small/Large Hydro. Overall the largest renewable energy being used in the world is Wind and second would be Solar. The National ranking of renewable energy used by a percentage of overall usage is:
Spain currently gets 30.10% of its energy from Renewable the second leading country is Germany at 29% of its energy from renewable, just to show how far we are behind them the US gets only 4% of our energy from renewable and China also gets 4 % of their energy from renewable. China has already set new goal that by 2020 they will get 40% of their energy from renewable sources. The US has not yet set a national goal but most States have one, Minnesota has a goal of 20% by 2025. That goal is not what I would call ambitious. Minnesota has the ability to get all of its energy from renewable types of energy, if we really wanted to have a real goal how about 30 % by 2020, just think of the jobs a goal like that would create. Building windmills and solar panels, installing units, maintaining those units, writing grants requests, drawing up site plans, and those jobs cannot be out-sourced.
Now let’s compare the clean energy profiles of the US and China.
Total Investment: China $34.6 Billion USA $18.6 Billion
5-year growth rate: China 147.7 % USA 102.7 %
Total Capacity: China 52.5 Giga-watts USA 53.4 Giga-watts
5-year growth rate: China 78.9% USA 24.3%
Current Wind Sector: China 12,200 MW USA 31,900 MW
Current Solar Sector: China 140 MW USA 0
Current Biomass sector: China 2,880 MW USA 0
2020 Targets Wind: China 30,000 MW USA No Target
2020 Targets Solar: China 1,800 MW USA No Target
2020 Targets biomass: China 30,000 MW USA No Target
This does not look go for the US when you look at the numbers and the Targets, so let’s look at the National clean energy policies. China has Renewable energy standards, clean energy tax incentives, auto efficiency standards, feed-in tariffs and green bonds. The US has clean energy tax incentives, auto efficiency standards and Government procurement. Once again the US is getting left behind because we cannot get leadership in Washington to take these issues seriously.
So we now know that the US is falling behind the world community so what type of bills do we currently have going thru the House and Senate right now to get us back in a leadership position.
Well both bills H.R.2454 and S.1733 are weak and fall way short of just the basic goals that the rest of the world has set.
First the House bill H.R.2454 or the Waxman-Markley bill has set the following goals
20% of our electric energy from renewable energy by 2020
Reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 this is compared to 2005 levels. According to the world organization 350.org in 2005 at the NOAA Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii the atmospheric CO2 level was 372ppm.Since 2005 that level has gone up from 372ppm to 392.61ppm, which is an average yearly increase of 4.12ppm. So even if we get to within 805 of our 2005 numbers like the bills in Congress set as goals it is still above the 350ppm that the rest of the world is shooting for and also is years too late.
Also in the House bill is this amount of investment.
190 billion total investment over the next 15 years
90 billion to (new) investments by 2025
60 billion for carbon capture and sequestration
20 billion for electric and other advanced tech vehicles
20 billion for basic scientific research & development
First 190 billion is not enough, we will spend that this year times 3 on military spending if we are going to say we are taking this seriously we need to be spending 300 to 400 billion because China has pledged to invest over 1 trillion on Clean energy over the next 10 years, I personal don’t think they will spend that much but they will spend at least half that.
My biggest pet-peeve is Clean Coal Tech, there is no such thing, and yes we can capture some carbon as it comes out of the smoke stack, but we have yet to prove scientifically that it is possible to store it using sequestration and/or how long it would stay sequestered. This is what the energy companies do every time we try to get them to change they come up with a great new idea, like going from gas to hydrogen, that may be possible but it will take decades before we find out if or how we can do it plus it will be so expensive that it will need government help. Instead they don’t look at the basic steps to move forward, (i.e.) going from gas to hybrids then onto electric.
20 billion is not enough for Car tech, that is where we should be investing a lot of our money,30 to 60 billion, and don’t just give it to the big auto makers, give it to companies like Tesla or Smart companies that have proven that they can work outside the box and come up with working ideas. Big business in this country at one time if asked to do something hard, like go to the moon in ten years, would say yes we can do that, and then they would go out and do it in fewer years 8 to make the point. Business now says we can’t do that it will cost too much money; we would have to change our whole business model. This type of thinking is why the US government under Bill Clinton gave the big three auto makers 250 billion dollars in the 90’s to develop electric cars and we got basic modals that were very expensive and then they worked very hard to kill the program and then we get hybrid cars from japan,they knew how to take just the next logical step forward. How much money did we give Japan for hybrid vehicles 0 dollars.
Now onto the Senate Bill,S.1733
This bill is almost the same as the house bill, but since it has not been put together fully yet has no real numbers in it, but it once again falls very short of what I call the basic goals we need to meet. This is from the Summary of the bill.
“A new congressional approach to achieving energy solutions. This bill departs from previous initiatives by taking a more comprehensive approach to the fundamental problems we face today. The President has directed new funds for the task of addressing energy and climate, and this bill’s provisions support the President’s goals. Our efforts center around four urgent priorities: putting America back in control of our energy future, reasserting economic leadership and competitiveness, protecting our families from pollution, and ensuring our national security.”
The senate puts more money into Clean Coal and also adds money for Nuclear. I like the house bill leaves what I consider the best first step of wind and solar on the low end of funding. It also takes the weak and expected course of not telling companies what they need to do but I quote” Turning clean energy into an American economic advantage by taking bold steps to encourage companies to embrace clean energy technology” When in our history has a company done anything that they were encouraged to do if it would cost them money. Did the NHSTA encourage Auto companies to put seat belts in there cars, no they mandated it, and that’s the approach we need to take now.
What should we be spending our money on, now this is only my opinion but we should be spending our money on Wind and Solar, we have plants in this country right now that we could be ramping up to build the turbines and PV panels that we need ,these would be America jobs and it would put people back to work lowering the unemployment numbers, next we also need to upgrade our out of date electric grid, we need an “CC Corp” to build this important infrastructure, how many times do we have to loss electric serves just because it rained or snowed hard, this is 2010, why do we have above ground lines at all. We should be investing in companies that have shown that they have the “Can do” work ethic and then hold they to deadlines to get work done. Electric and long range Hybrid vehicles are what we should be working towards and then we should be working on our next step, be it Hydrogen or something else.
We need to stop subsidizing to the old fossil fuel companies this means Oil, Gas and Coal. We will never move onto new forms of energy as long as these old forms remain artificially cheap. Nuclear is out totally in my opinion, it is just too expensive and we do not have the mines in this country to produce enough Nuclear fuel to support the industry, also there is a massive safety issue with storage and transportation . we also need more efficiency standards as well as people need to understand their own energy usage. Go around your house and unplug things you don’t need on, make sure you replace your light bulbs, get a Kill-o-watt unit, it will save you money and help reduce our power usage.
Lesson:
Among other very important reforms, Congress must stop big banks from ripping off consumers by charging credit card interest rates of 35 percent or more. That is why I will offer an amendment to stop usury in America and place a reasonable cap on what lenders may charge credit card customers, similar to the limit already in place and working well for credit unions.
