Well, maybe “backs” is too strong a word. Let’s just say that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not openly critical of the Obama administration’s hard look at the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would bring oil from the tar sands in northern Alberta across the border and deep into the United States.

Chu, who has been an ardent and vocal supporter of electric cars, advanced batteries and other more sustainable modes of transportation that will ween us off fossil fuels, recently called the Obama administration’s backing of the controversial pipeline a “tradeoff,” delicately addressing the topic in an interview with energyNOW! (see video below).

“Well, I think it’s one of those decisions where… you’re going to have to trade off a reliable supply,” Secreatary Chu said. Noting that while the companies working to extract oil from the tar sands have made important strides in cleaning up their operations, Chu said, “it’s not perfect, but it’s a trade-off.”

The proposed project, which has come under sharp fire from environmentalists, is not under the regulatory purview of the Energy Department. Instead, the project is awaiting final word from the State Department, which has the decision-making authority on the international pipeline. The State Department has already given the project a positive environmental impact statement and is now in the midst of a 90-day period to review whether the pipeline is in the nation’s best interest.

So what will Secretary Chu do as his colleague Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes the lead in this important energy decision?

He says he’s sticking with his bread and butter by focusing on batteries for electric vehicles, biofuels, energy efficiency.

Article by Timothy Hurst, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Tar Sands Pipeline Passes Key Hurdle as Protests Continue
• Bill McKibben: Get Angry at Corruption in Congress
• The U.S. Has a Responsibility at This Point in History
• Colombian Farmers Sue BP Over Long-Term Effects of Oil Pipeline
• Massive New Russian Gas Pipeline to Europe Now in Operation

On June 12, U.S. House Republicans failed to revoke the lighting efficiency restrictions mandated by the 2007 law, The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or HR 6. This law would phase out incandescent bulbs, and is one that Republicans themselves sponsored.

Republicans did, however, pass legislation that removes the funding needed to enforce the 2007 law. This backpedaling, now taking place in the 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Act (which passed the House on July 15), underlines the fact that the Republican path to emasculation is through the pocket, and without benefit of anesthetic.

But is it really a victory? In the Land of the (not-so-much) Free, and the Home of the Brave (if you have money, anyway), it may be. And there is little doubt that some of the much-maligned Republicans are actually trying to do a good thing for a change; making light bulb legislation a symbol of all that is wrong with modern government – overreaching, insensitive, and essentially impractical.

Steven Chu, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, disagrees. As he has been quick to remind, the 2007 act does not actually ban incandescent bulbs. That is, halogen incandescent bulbs will still be available, albeit at possibly unaffordable prices (who says Republicans are the only ones failing to grasp America’s current financial reality?).

Still, I’m inclined to think that Dr. Chu (a physicist and Nobel Prize winner with a pedigree from both Berkeley and Stanford) does know what’s best for me. And you. And the 311,777,805 other Americans alive on July 16, all of whom want to keep living and breathing in spite of the nation’s overwhelming carbon footprint of 6.633 million metric tons in 2009, which was a good year.

As American Thinker (unintentionally) points out, transitions – whether from whale oil to kerosene or coal to solar – require someone at the helm who is willing to look (somewhat) like a hard ass. Dr. Chu, a well-educated man who takes the long view of life on this planet, would be my first choice for that ass – pardon me, Dr. Chu, but the term is actually a compliment.

The Republican argument – that phaseout of the incandescent means a house full of mercury-laden compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) whose accidental demise requires a cleanup crew from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – is not only shirty, it’s whinging (thanks, Brits). Especially since most of us never do anything that’s good for ourselves, or the planet, unless and until forced to by ill health or imminent death.

I don’t know about you, but the planet is pretty sick right now. Record temps all across the Southern U.S., another Dust Bowl brewing in the Oklahoma-Four Corners area, and a pattern of record rainfall and storms from the Grain Belt to the eastern ridge of the Rockies that are too early to damage the corn and wheat crops. Maybe.

Article by Jeanne Roberts, appearing courtesy Celsias.

Related posts:

• Incandescent Bulbs (Not Yet) As Efficient As Compact Fluorescent Light
• Light Bulb Manufacturers Unhappy With Republican Intervention
• Small, Portable Solar Light
• Green Gift Ideas: Battery-Free Bike Light
• Debunking Energy Myths

A quarter-century after President Ronald Reagan dismantled the solar panels placed on the White House roof by his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, the Obama administration has announced that it will install solar energy panels and a solar water heater atop the White House. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu made the announcement, saying in a statement, “As we move toward a clean-energy economy, the White House will lead by example… This project reflects President Obama’s strong commitment to U.S. leadership in solar energy and the jobs it will create at home.”

His announcement comes a month after activist Bill McKibben led a caravan from Maine to Washington carrying one of the Carter-era solar panels and urging Obama to reinstall it. “The White House did the right thing, and for the right reasons,” McKibben said in a statement. “They listened to the scientists and engineers who told them this is the path to the future.” The new panels, which will be installed this spring, will heat water and provide a small amount of electricity to the White House residence.

Related posts:

• Fox News Tries to Link Obama to Carter via White House Solar Panels
• White House To Host Clean Energy Manufacturing Forum
• Van Jones Answers Questions on Green Jobs & Energy Efficiency
• White House Backs $5 Billion Clean Energy Tax Credit
• Three Strikes! Why Cap-and-Trade is Dead for 2009

What two countries lead the world in energy consumption, energy production and greenhouse gas emissions? The United States and China. Can our two countries work together to help lead the world in a transition to clean energy? A recent announcement by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is an important step in that direction.

Yesterday, Secretary Chu announced that the University of Michigan and West Virginia University will each lead consortia under the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center. The two consortia will receive $25 million in total funding from the U.S. Department of Energy for this work. These amounts will be matched by the grantees, for a total of $50 million in U.S. funding. The Chinese side will contribute an additional $50 million, for a total of $100 million for this innovative project.

What can we accomplish with this program? First, advances in clean vehicles (the focus of the University of Michigan program). Our two countries are the world’s largest auto markets and largest consumers of petroleum – what we do makes a difference. Second, advances in clean coal, including carbon capture and storage (the focus at West Virginia University). Both the U.S. and China have abundant coal resources – but neither country can afford to burn coal in the 21st century using 20th century technologies.

This announcement is just a start. In the months ahead, the Department of Energy will announce funding for an energy-efficient buildings program under the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, and the Chinese government will announce entities participating on the Chinese side. (Under this program, each country funds its own participants – U.S. funds pay for U.S. institutions and individuals only.)

Two generations ago, citizens of the United States and China were not able to visit the other country. Today we have a vibrant and dynamic U.S.-China relationship in which people from all parts of government and society interact on a daily basis. While the United States and China have differences on important issues, we have a common interest in a clean energy future. Working together, we can accomplish more than acting alone.

Article by David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Energy.

Related posts:

• Clean Energy: U.S. and China Establish Extensive Cooperation
• U.S.-China Green Tech Summit — A Conference Not to be Missed
• First Solar Strikes a Global Deal
• Solar Power as Common Ground for U.S. and China?
• Top Ten United States and China Collaborations in Cleantech

The U.S. Department of Energy will pump $151 million into 37 innovative energy-related research projects through a new federal agency modeled after the Defense Department program that helped commercialize microchips and the Internet.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or Arpa-e, created in 2007 to support innovative and often-experimental projects, selected the first round of grant recipients from 3,600 proposals.

While many of the ideas may never lead to practical breakthroughs, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said some could have a “transformative impact.”

Among the first grant recipients are University of Minnesota researchers attempting to develop an organism that uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide to sugars and diesel fuel; a Massachusetts Institute of Technology team developing an all-liquid metal battery that could better manage the output from intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar; and a United Technologies effort to capture carbon emissions from power plant stacks using enzymes.

The agency — which will target research projects by small business, universities, and corporations — will be led by Arun Majumdar, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

Related posts:

• Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy: Fueling Innovation
• A Shining Star of Bipartisan Cleantech Support
• Three Wind Power Ideas That Might Actually Fly
• A New Energy Future for Our Country and Our Armed Forces
• Republicans Show Their True Colors on Energy and the Environment

I don’t have a TV, and while I’m generally pretty happy with the state of affairs, I definitely miss the Daily Show… thanks to Hulu, I now don’t have to.

If you missed Jon Stewart’s take on the progress of Waxman-Markey here is a recommended Friday afternoon break.  Stick through and you’ll get to catch up with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who doesn’t do a bad job spinning a joke for Nobel Laureate.

Enjoy.

PS: If you are really hurting for things to do in the office… the segment immediately following Secretary Chu … also deals with greenhouse gasses… kind of.

Related posts:

• Stewart Brand Raising Eyebrows in Supporting Nuclear Power
• Going Electric at the Paris Motor Show
• Energy Secretary Chu Reluctantly Backs Keystone XL Pipeline
• Clean Energy Spending Urged for ‘Post-Partisan’ Climate Policy
• LA Auto Show Crowns 2011 Green Car of the Year

While coal-fueled power plants are directly responsible for roughly one-third of our CO2 emissions, the DOE indicates that coal is expected to dominate our domestic power generation at least for the next 25 years.  Globally, the increased demand for coal-fueled electricity will translate into a 57% rise in related CO2 emissions by 2030 according to the IEA.

One technology that attempts to solve the CO2 emissions crisis is carbon capture and storage, or CCS. Generally speaking, CCS captures the CO2 emissions from coal power plants and other industrial sites and injects the CO2 into underground porous rock formations in hopes of permanent sequestration.

Both the coal industry and the Obama administration endorse CCS.  Obama supported $3.5 billion for CCS of the $787 billion Stimulus Package and has made CCS a cornerstone of renewable energy policy.

“To prevent the worst effects of climate change, we must accelerate our efforts to capture and store carbon in a safe and cost-effective way. This funding will both create jobs now and help position the United States to lead the world in CCS technologies, which will be in increasing demand in the years ahead,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu a few weeks ago.

Of course, the coal industry has a vested interest in promoting “clean” energy solutions that provide for continued use of and dependence on coal. But is CCS an optimal cleantech solution?

It’s expensive – conventional coal-fired plants are not configured to support the CCS solution. No CCS plants currently exist on a large commercial scale.  Plants that would readily support CCS by converting coal into gaseous form to allow capture of the CO2 emissions before gas is burned are very costly.

The CCS process is energy intensive itself – adding upwards of a 30% energy penalty to the production of electric power.  Thus, CCS perversely compounds the carbon problem it is intended to correct.

Further, questions remain as to the permanence and safety of sequestration.  Though generally not regarded as a toxic substance (apart from climate change impacts), CO2 if released into groundwater or the atmosphere can have harmful if not deadly effects. Most CCS experts agree that up to 20 demonstrations to test the technology would be required to ensure that safety concerns are addressed adequately, adding to the expense and delay of CCS commercial deployment.

CCS may be creating more jobs, but is this the best way to deal with coal’s effect on climate change?  What is the opportunity cost of CCS?  By pursuing CCS and our continued reliance on coal, are we making an investment that would better be made on technologies that themselves are clean?

[photo: flickr/davipt]

Related posts:

• Carbon Sequestration – Balancing Property Rights and the Public Good
• Proposed Rules Shed Light on Future of CO2 Sequestration
• Clean Tech can chase coal ash runoff
• Why Carbon Capture and Sequestration Won’t Stop Climate Change
• Europe Calls for $73 Billion in Energy Research