President says shifting toward cleaner sources of energy will create jobs
SAUL LOEB / AFP/Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks on the economy and jobs at Savannah Technical College in Savannah, Georgia, Tuesday. Obama traveled to the area as a stop of the White House to Main Street Tour, where he visits local businesses and speaks about the economy.
updated 1:08 p.m. ET, Tues., March. 2, 2010
WASHINGTON - Consumers would collect on-the-spot rebates of $1,000 or more for buying insulation, water heaters or other equipment to make their homes burn energy more efficiently under a rebate program President Barack Obama is promoting.
Obama traveled to Savannah, Ga., on Tuesday to outline the Home Star program, which was left out of the jobs bill in December. Obama called for energy rebates in his State of the Union address, and officials hope the plan will be as popular as last year's Cash for Clunkers money-back program for autos.
Obama stopped at Savannah Technical College to visit students who are learning how to install insulation and other equipment.
"We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities — and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which support clean energy jobs," Obama said in January.
"These are the skills that will help our country produce and use energy," he said Tuesday in Savannah. "We have the potential to create millions of jobs in the sector."
He has said shifting the U.S. toward cleaner, renewable sources of energy and making homes — particularly older houses — more energy-efficient will help accomplish three goals: reducing America's dependence on foreign energy sources, creating much-needed jobs and saving consumers money on their utility bills.
The new program has two levels of rebates. Various vendors, ranging from small, independent contractors to national home improvement chains, would promote the rebates, give the money to consumers and then wait for reimbursement from the federal government.
Some details of the program, including how long it will run and its total cost, remain to be worked out with Congress, according to senior administration officials.
Obama said the steps to renew homes — such as installing new water heaters, insulation, windows, roofs and doors will have a price tag — but will create the energy the country needs and provide employment for construction workers and contractors.
"It's going to be politically difficult to do some of this, but it's right to plan for our future," Obama said in Savannah.
Cash for Clunkers was a $3 billion program that ran for about a month last year, from July 27 to Aug. 25.
Under the first level of energy rebates, to be called Silver Star, consumers would be eligible for rebates between $1,000 and $1,500 for a variety of home upgrades, including adding insulation, sealing leaky ducts and replacing water heaters, HVAC units, windows, roofing and doors. There would be a maximum rebate of $3,000 per home.
Under the second level, Gold Star, consumers who get home energy audits and then make changes designed to reduce energy costs by at least 20 percent would be eligible for a $3,000 rebate. Additional rebates would be available for savings above 20 percent.
"The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient — installing new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment — is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions," Obama said in December while visiting a Home Depot in Alexandria, Va.
Once the program is enacted, the administration expects millions of households will boost demand for insulation, water heaters and the like — the same way consumers pumped up car and truck sales last year by trading in their gas-guzzling autos with more fuel-efficient models.
Senate Democrats included an energy rebate program in their jobs agenda.
Comments
by William Crow March 5, 2010 6:37 AM PST
It should always be mentioned that energy conservation is the fastest and lowest priced method to get through an energy crunch. Using less appeases the eco-religious and, for those who are econ (economically) religious - all of us - simply saves money and provides for a less volatile future.
Like this Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by jaguar717 March 5, 2010 6:52 AM PST
Oh well that's good to hear, because all I've been hearing from the eco-frauds and control freak politicians are ways to artificially force existing energy prices through the rough, tax and fee us to death as a new cash cow, restrict ourselves to cramped, uncomfortable urban living conditions and primitive lifestyles, and massively subsidize failed ventures that cannot earn their way in the market because they cost a ton more while providing far less.
But I'm all ears for the economically feasible (and thus competitive and non-coercive) ways to trim costs.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by mike_ekim March 5, 2010 8:17 AM PST
Crow - on that note, the bad economy has caused people to cut back on energy usage. I work in the power industry, and many of our clients (utilities) are seeing less revenue due to lower demand.
Like this
by solitare_pax March 5, 2010 8:26 AM PST
@ jaguar717
If the government didn't regulate some things, we would all be enjoying polluted water, air and unsanitary food. If the government did not try new things, they would not make it to the consumer level - GPS location, the Internet and (thanks to Napoleon and the French government) canning - to name a few benefits to government spending.
The fuel costs that spiked last year - and remain high - is due to PRIVATE speculators artificially driving the cost of oil up to pocket profits themselves. Compared to European countries, the government taxes on fuel are pathetically small. If scientists are right, the costs may go up, as reserves of these fuels go down. We don't know if they will or won't - so perhaps the government should try a few things out first.
And as private citizens, we can save energy (and money) through our own careful decisions.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by zyxxy March 5, 2010 8:30 AM PST
You don't have to be cramped and uncomfortable. You don't have to be primitive. Those are all supply side myths.
You can make simple choices that make a huge difference. Have an energy audit on your home. Is your furnace more than ten years old? Is it oversized? Do you have an automatic set-back thermostat? Replace it. Furnaces are relatively cheap, the pay back time is short. Same with hot water. Any gas water heater that is near the end of its service life has a bunch of scale at the bottom that acts like an insulator to the burner. Replace it, and turn it down to 120 degrees. How is your caulking and weather stripping? Your attic insulation? How about your windows? You don't need new thermo-pane, there are refit kits for double hung sashes that get rid of the weights and really tighten up the window. Add storms over that and you are done. Put CFL in places where you can tolerate them. They aren't perfect, but I haven't met anybody that couldn't easily live with about half of them changed out. Target the ones that are on all the time first.
The next step up, when you are looking at a house to buy, avoid things like two story atriums and foyers. Those are beastly heat consumers. Same thing with two story family rooms. Ten foot ceilings are fine, but a room open to the gables is a major heat hog. I am not saying you cannot have that, if you really want it, but don't complain to me about your fuel bill if you do.
How about your car? A modern V6 makes as much torque and horsepower as a 1980s V8. Likewise, a modern four is as good as a 1980s V6. Do you really need 0 -> 60 in 4.5 seconds? Fine, but again, its your dollar at the pump.
We have made very small changes in our lifestyle, and done a number of small things to our house, and our energy bill over the last ten years is down at least 30% even with the price increases. I know this for a fact, because I track these things. We are on a budget plan to smooth out the billing cycle, and total gas + electric at our house is less than $200 per month averaged through the year. That's for a family of five. Are you paying more than that? With very little work, you won't have to.
Like this 10 people like this comment
by basirotin March 5, 2010 8:45 AM PST
The budged $400 millions is too small, we need to give at least the same amount of money what we spend on wars to get the real result.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by William Crow March 5, 2010 9:08 AM PST
Basirotin,
Its not the governments responsibility.
Like this 3 people like this comment
by William Crow March 5, 2010 9:14 AM PST
I wanted to say, too...I think we would all agree that its best to get to more renewable sources but that coal will continue to play a large roll in our lives for decades to come.
I have it on good authority that large power companies that generate power with coal are being prevented from retrofitting plants with more efficient turbines. So in the short run the eco-religious, those that believe that man generated carbon will cause the end of the world, are causing, more carbon, to be emitted per Kwh than would be if plants allowed to be updated.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by dmm March 5, 2010 10:41 AM PST
Here is the reasoning behind denying the retrofits:
We'll never phase out coal power plants if we continually allow them to retrofit. When a coal power plant is allowed to retrofit, it automatically gets a guaranteed extension on its lifetime. So there is the perverse result (in the short term) of utilities being denied retrofits of coal power plants (which would indeed improve their energy efficiency) in order to gain the good result (in the long term) of forcing the utility to build a different (presumably less polluting) type of power plant.
Of course, this will all backfire if those coal power plants don't get replaced as intended.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by Norm_Johnson March 5, 2010 11:51 PM PST
Interesting that 'dimm' doesn't understand that efficiency = less pollution.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by mister scoop March 5, 2010 9:47 AM PST
"As usual, the politicians and money people got lots of attention. But in my mind it's really the class geeks who should be the rock stars at an energy innovation conference."
The saying still holds true, "The A students work for the B students at the companies owned by the C students" (and are overly regulated and given tax exemptions by the D students).
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by Bytrat March 5, 2010 10:55 AM PST
Jaguar717: Tell me how much are you willing to pay for power if the nuclear industry was required to pay for a new power plant through it's own resources - NO government subsidies or loan guarentees? What about that coal fired power plant?
When you supply your own power through re-newables like solar, micro-hydro, wind, yes you pay for the complete equipment system but then other than routine maintenance, the savings are yours, not the power companies. What will power costs be in 10, or 15, or 20 years? The solar panels have a 20-25 year warrenty. And that is normally a guarentee that the panel will supply 80% of it's rated output - they last a lot longer than that.
What is wrong with that? This is all without reducing your life style - in actuality you are getting a better lifestyle. How - with a cleaner environment - cleaner air to breath, cleaner water.
Like this Reply to this comment
by Joe Real March 5, 2010 12:21 PM PST
The reality of Solar Panels is that even if they have 20-25 year warranty, or even 100 years for that matter, what is the warranty that the installers or the manufacturers would still be alive in 10 years? The warranties are useless in this fast paced industry where there is great turnover. I know that some Chinese solar PV will capitalize on 25 to 50 year warranty KNOWING that they won't be here that long after they raked in the profits and proceed elsewhere.
Like this 3 people like this comment
by Joe Real March 5, 2010 12:35 PM PST
As mentioned by other posters previous to this topic, I support the idea that if the Government has subsidized the company to do its research and refine its technology, that technology should become open-source for any US company to manufacture without paying patent royalties. If greed comes first and they would want grants and other free money while not sharing the technology, then support should stop. That is just one extreme measure.
Another alternative to open sourcing the US-subsidized technology is requiring the successful companies receiving grant money to pay back the grant money with interests to help fund future companies. This is on top of their taxes. The reality is that the most successful companies will try to stifle competition and won't support such sustainable scheme. Everyone wants the world like what Microsoft did. Of course, make sure the loop holes are closed such as disbanding the company that is in obligation and forming a new one that is free from such obligation. Such loophole can be closed if it would be the government to receive half the royalties from the technology patents. Many Universities are now doing that to be sustainable, they receive royalties on patents. As it is, with the current politicians, the ARPA-E is giving truly free money. This kind of government bleeding must stop.
Like this Reply to this comment 1 person likes this comment
by RoyHarvie March 5, 2010 3:20 PM PST
Is anybody pursuing LFTRs? This proven nuclear technology got sidelined 50 years ago because it couldn't be used to make bombs. It is safe, promises to be low cost, and can burn the waste produced by conventional LWRs. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
Like this Reply to this comment
by WineMaker5000 March 5, 2010 3:54 PM PST
Is the fuel sustainable and renewable? The worst thing about fission reactors is that they are no different than fossil fuels. They are finite resources.
Like this
by RoyHarvie March 5, 2010 4:59 PM PST
Sustainable, yes, renewable, no. Thorium is found everywhere in rock and can be refined. There is enough Thorium in waste piles (mine tailings, ash piles from coal plants etc.) to power the country for a hundred years. There is enough Thorium on the surface of the earth to power civilization for millions of years. The big advantage of LFTRs over conventional nuclear reactors is cheap available thorium and almost no radio-active waste (like 0.0001%) and this will decay in 399 years instead of 10,000 years. Because Thorium is everywhere, no country will have a monopoly on it.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by March 7, 2010 9:58 PM PST
anything, like LFTRs, just as long as we're not dependent on any country for energy source.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment