25 X 25. What's in YOUR Wallet?
A widely touted goal of the environmental movement: increasing American's percentage of renewable energy use to 25 percent by 2025. According to a report by the RAND corporation, meeting the so-called "25 by 25" goal without significant consumer cost will require "major technological developments." Green Car Congress reports that 9.5 percent of electricity and 1.6 percent of motor vehicle fuel currently comes from renewable energy sources. The RAND report identifies biomass and wind energy as the two greatest opportunities for meeting the 25 by 25 goal. But it also points out that both require significant improvement to make a low-cost impact on renewable energy usage. For motor vehicles in particular, biomass-based (non-foodstock) "second-gen" biofuels must become significantly cheaper and more prevalent. Reducing renewable fuel goals to 10 or 15 percent by 2025 would also disproportionately reduce consumer expenses. Then again, the higher the cost to consumers, the more competitive renewable fuels become. The preceeding was brought to you by the Energy Future Coalition of UAW Boss Ron Gettelfinger's "Marshall Plan" fame. Over to you, taxpayers.
Comments
Join the conversation
YourNameHere: Most of the class 8 fleet in North America is governed between 62-68mph. This has been creeping down. The company I used to work for (Con-Way) turned down the tractors to 62mph late last year. Allowing long combination vehicles on the entire Interstate system could dramatically increase the efficiency of the freight system.
Here in the Netherlands we have some big windmill parks (and, NO, I don't mean classic windmills by that), in particular, there will be a big park off the North Sea coast that is under construction right now. Costs are way higher compared to the traditional energy sources and IMO, it remains to be seen if that is really offset by environmental considerations. Also, I should note that in essense we are a socialist country, seeing as though even the political party that is considered right wing by most of the people has a program that would be considered decideldly 'left' by the US democrats. Obviously, this facilitates money-burning projects while waiting lists in hospitals rise and rise due to 'lack of funds' despite of 52% income taxes etc.
>The Dems will make sure it’s not domestic oil Not to harp on this, but what is the big deal about 'domestic' oil? Can the US make enough oil to meet a significant portion of its needs for the next 50-60 years? (That is the only middle term worth discussing)