I think that the next time you see our president, maybe you should tell him that Waxman-Markey is for the birds, and he should turn his in Environmental Department into an Energy Department. By the way, I dont have anything against Dr Chu staying.

Have a look at the lucrative FIT program for renewables that Ontario now has through their Green Energy Act legislation. Solar generation for example is being subsidized the most, with FITs an order of magnitude higher than the going tariffs for large central plants on the grid. The lucrative tariffs being offered are creating a mini-boom in the renewable energy sector here in Ontario, including attracting companies from worldwide to set up new generation businesses here.

Fred is continually saying nuclear is America's only future energy solution based on lowest cost. But one thing I have learned as an engineer in another industry - cost is not the only factor in what makes a product or service successful, especially new ones. How it is marketed and government intervention both play critically key roles. The result is GM Cadillacs still sell in spite of the availability of Volkswagon Golfs to the public.

I personally believe a mixture of lots of renewables along with numerous large central generators will be necessary, and those that can afford and want the Cadillacs should be given the choice to pay for them. But this flies in the face of traditional regulation where all customers must pay the same energy rates. Until this changes, heavy FIT subsidization by government intervention is the only way new Cadillacs will be successfully developed and commercialized on a large scale.

Actually, now that I think about it, the most important thing is not to allow a reduction in nuclear capacity.

Seems to me the primary objective of power production should be to provide reasonably priced and reasonably clean energy, thereby enabling folks to spend more of their own money as they see fit. Government intervention to pick the “winners and losers” is inherently counterproductive and invariably fraught with unintended consequences inflicted upon the long suffering taxpayer.

I usually do not have overwhelming faith in governments picking "winners and losers", or fixing state governments on the verge of bankruptcy. In the case of renewable energy sources however, I doubt anyone else besides government has deep enough pockets to do it.

The US federal government is COUNTING ON whole new industries to emerge from the Obama stimulus program targeting renewable energy sources. I agree it's a huge gamble with taxpayers’ money, but pray it had better work because the new industries they are counting on are far more strategic to the future of America than you can imagine. Here's why....

The following editorial is a trade magazine article just published in my industry, located in Tam Hunt's backyard. It is very sobering, so I suggest you take a good stiff drink after reading it. If nothing else it may make you realize just how important the Obama stimulus program and Tam's work is to the future of America because the future industries America desperately needs are not going to appear out of thin air.

Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs? By Adrian Slywotzky Electronic Components Magazine (Ecnmag.com) – August 31, 2009 here is your link

http://www.ecnmag.com/blog-innovation-needed-083109.aspx

I agree with Mr. Hunt that the reglatory function of the government is to lead in the major spearheaded efforts. Goals that were set for RPS are too far from being realized. The incentives given today are not significant enough to promote the renewables investments' by relatively wise decision making committments. We are not traveling with minor path alteration for our energy; on the contrary, we are revolutionizing both technical and behavioral process with which we need to build a whole new highway into the future. Undoubtedlty, we need a balanced approach and phased over several years but eventually we can break from total oil habits. Whether you believe in the global warming pheonomenon, or ridding the nation from oil czars, energy production and consumption should be rational and environmentally responsive on many fronts. Consumers and government should be made accountable and free from over dependence on oil, if we are to continue the benefits of mother earth for many generations to come.

What happened in California in 2000 - 2001 had much more to do I think with a failed deregulation experiment, and corrupt businesses like Enron manipulating prices. Today is much different with subsidies co-existing with stringent regulation of electricity prices still in place.

Of course if you believe these technologies have no hope of ever competing on the same scale with existing power generation plants, then obviously the idea of subsidies is a monumental waste of public moneys. But I think they have a decent chance as do many other business and engineering people involved in alternative energy development. Our governments are expecting that the more penetration it enjoys commercially as it grows, the more its profits will be re-invested back into R&D to refine these technologies even further, cost reduction included from economies of scale. And the grand prize of success will be a spinning off significant new industrial activity and plenty of new jobs created, especially if the US can export any newer better technologies to other markets in other countries.

First I doubt whether the current recession’s timing gave those buying the turbines installed in 2009 time to change their minds, so I would withhold the kudos for that reason.

How big of a hooray does 4,000 mega of wind capacity deserve? Well if we give these new turbines a 25% capacity factor then a back-of- the-envelope calc tells us this amounts to about 0.2% of US supply. Now as long wind supplies very low percentages of our electricity our base load capacity is covered. But as wind capacity increases so must base load capacity and the picture changes dramatically.

What I do believe is that eventually ALL energy will be produced by some form of solar generation. Is that 20 years off or 100? What will be the difference? What are the best steps in the interrim?

Please explain how that is going to happen. Your math implies that the new renewables would be HALF the current cost of power when they usually cost 5 to 10 times MORE.

Seems to me the only economic benefit would accure to the owners of the renewables and that the ratepayers would be screwed and the state's economy further burdened with yet more expensive electric bills.

Sorry, but this is yet more unicorns and pixie dust from our legislators.

I'd rather see customers pay a price for electricity that reflects current costs rather than historical cost. The current ratemaking paradigm steers customers to poor economic choices, which regulators attempt to rectify by imposing public benefit charges in order to subsidize demand response, renewable energy and a whole host of other programs. Pricing electricity closer to current cost would induce customers to consider conservation, demand management, storage and other cost- and resource-saving measures.

Moreover, Mr. Tam's enthusiasm for accelerated development of renewable energy assumes we can install intermittent generation resources on either side of the meter just like we turn lights on and off. Its not quite that simple. Our industry is in the midst of figuring out how to reliable and cost-effectively accommodate large amounts of production that is less predictable as to its output and less controllable. While there's been progress, customers won't tolerate service interruptions caused by undue haste.

Governments are "forcing" renewable energy on the energy industry and the public for a variety of onerous problems, not simply to convince the public renewable energy is beneficial. Most of the public already perceives they are beneficial, so it begs the question why isn't the public already buying it much more.

Our governments are not blind, and neither are consumers who try to buy renewable sources of energy outside of the grid. The math quickly reveals renewable energy sources cost more than conventional large central generating plants. The real problem in my humble opinion is that keeping a lid on grid energy prices through regulation is perceived by all as a necessary vice that must be kept in place, and as long as prices for electricity from the grid reflect the lower costs of large central plants, renewable energy sources don't have a hope commercially to make large penetration into the grid without subsidies.

Governments are counting on costs of renewable sources to come down with economies of scale, but until they achieve it governments are admitting it will cost the public purse and consumers more to get renewables entrenched on the same scale as the conventional large central generators.

All of the studies say conservation is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions, but at present prices, consumers have little incentive to conserve and manufacturers have little incentive to design energy efficient appliances because electricity is relatively cheap (at least in the US). If the marginal price of electricity reflected the marginal cost of new resources, we might see more effort on the part of manufacturers to build efficient devices and more effort on the part of consumers to buy and use them. Unless, of course, classical economic theory just doesn't apply here.

Otherwise, all of the talk by politicians (the governors of Maryland and Pennsylvania, for example) about the need for energy efficiency is just hot air.

I also think Mr. Tam is far too optimistic about the grid's ability to reliably absorb large amounts of intermittent renewable generation in a short period of time at reasonable cost. It can be done quickly, it can be done reliably, and it can be done cheaply - just pick any two. Meeting all three objectives at once is not realistic.

For those adrift in a life boat conservation is surely the best course. It just might mean holding out long enough to be rescued. But whence do us not in a life boat expect rescue?

Or, perhaps we are looking at “Peak Standard of living” and forever guided downward by increasing conservation?

The tough reality is politicians everywhere want widespread increased conservation and effiiciency throughout the public in parallel with the grid absorbing large amounts of intermittent renewable generation. They will rig the subsidies, and put new rules of commerce in place for energy efficiencies on everything to get them. They've already started, among the first to be banned from sale were incandescent light bulbs.

In essence Don you are right - both increased renewable generation and much more conservation will cost everyone much more, and result in a downward spiral in our standard of living unless we can turn our economy around to take back the wealth and economic dominance America once commanded in the world. I doubt the latter will happen though.