President Obama calls for Electric Vehicles and Clean Energy in his State of the Union Address

During his State of the Union address, President Obama set a new goal: by 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. The President is looking for innovations and investment in renewables, clean coal, nuclear and natural gas. Check out this segment of his address (transcript below) and take a look at the live chat Planet Forward participated in during the speech.

Transcript:

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves.

And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. (Applause.)

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. (Applause.) I don’t know if — I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. (Laughter.) So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. (Applause.)

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen. (Applause.)

Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America’s success. But if we want to win the future — if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas — then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.”

1. 
   On January 28th, 2011 at 3:16 pm Peter Maier Said:

   Normally after you identify a problem and look for solutions, you first determine if a proposed solution will solve the problem and when you have several solutions you establish a chart (compendium) of such solutions to assign priorities and their cost. The problem with establishing financial damages is that some are tangible but when dealing with public health and damage to our environment, most are intangible and enormous, therefore often conveniently ignored.

   Our present governmental policies trying to address the problems caused by our present use of energy, causing such damages, clearly also is influenced by interest holders, pushing their own agendas and causing confusion with the general public.

   In order to inform the public properly and not waste more time and public money, the Obama Administration should first establish a compendium, in which all the damages and benefits are objectively established and evaluated, damages mostly related to public health and impacts on the earth’s biosphere. When all that objective data is available, yielding priorities, I am sure the public will stand behind the Administration to support any research and development to achieve the best solution.

   Throwing money at any suggestion without proper evaluation only will waste more time and public funds, without achieving a solution. Our present production, transportation and use of electricity, although very convenient, it also is a huge waste of energy contained in the natural resources we use. Probably only 10 to 15 % of the energy content of natural resource used, will be used by the equipment to perform their tasks, the rest is wasted. To be clear, I am comparing the energy content of a natural resource with the actual work performed by a piece of equipment.

2. 
   On January 28th, 2011 at 3:26 pm Carrie Winans Said:

   Hey Peter,
   Thanks for your input! This is all really interesting. I think it’s always difficult to transition from a state that has been the norm for so long into a new era without wasting some money along the way. I agree that the public would most likely be behind the administration in supporting research and better solutions.

   Please let us know if you think of any other solutions!

3. 
   On January 28th, 2011 at 6:25 pm Peter Maier Said:

   Carrie,
   For me personally this is a no-brainer. For millions of years life on earth was sustained by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, whereby the hydrogen is used with carbon dioxide to create organic matter and oxygen released. Not to overgrow the earth with organic matter, life was created that used this organic matter as an energy source, while releasing its hydrogen, which then in turn, in order not to kill such life, is neutralized by oxygen, a process called biochemical oxidation. Men developed another way to use the energy from organic matter by burning it or chemical oxidation, where in stead of using oxygen to form water, it mostly is used to form carbon dioxide, bad for public health and bad for the biosphere.

   I know people will say that a hydrogen energy economy will be expensive, but nobody will argue that it is not good for the public’s health and the earth’s biosphere. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is presently expensive, but so was the oil when it was only used for oil lamps to replace candles.

   If the Obama Administration would set a course towards a hydrogen based power economy, it will not only generate a lot of research and development, among it trying to imitate nature’s method ‘photosynthesis’, but open a new energy boom, thereby creating jobs in many market sectors and America again would lead the world.