Longtime green tech writer Michael Kanellos isn't crazy about Barack Obama's plan to get 80 percent of American energy from clean sources by 2035. That's because Obama included natural gas in the mix with nuclear, coal with carbon capture, and the renewables as "clean." Gas, at best, is cleaner than coal, at least from carbon dioxide perspective, and that's good. But the low construction costs of natural gas plants makes it difficult for nuclear or renewables to compete with them.
It's not that Kanellos is anti-gas, but he doesn't see the wisdom in including an industry and technology that is *already* mature in with a handful of still-fledgling competitors.
Kanellos' argument makes sense to me, particularly when the long-term price of gas is likely to fluctuate. A huge push to gas means locking ourselves into the same fossil fuel price cycles that send shockwaves through the economy. But for months, the Washington consensus has been that gas would be a big winner in the near future because of climate worries. It's part of a whole packet of ideas about energy that nearly everyone I hear here seems to carry with them.
Here's the key snippet from Kanellos' essay:
The problem of including gas in a clean energy standard is that it is already mature. Natural gas already provides 21 percent of U.S. electricity right now and the figure will rise to 40 percent by 2035 according to consulting and construction giant Black & Veatch... Capital costs for combined cycle plants are also comparatively inexpensive, hovering in the low $1,000 per kilowatt range.
That's all good. We will need that energy to keep the country moving. Renewables can't be built in time to displace it all and it beats burning coal. Unfortunately, by including gas in a clean energy standard opens up the possibility that it will absorb the lion's share of research grants, loan guarantees and other dollars coming out of Washington under clean energy mandates. Discounts on desert land for wind and solar farms could easily be matched by discount royalties on gas projects.
In other words, the President could end fossil fuel subsidies, but funnel the money into clean technologies like fossil fuel.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.