Obama’s Move On Solar Is Equivalent To A Year Without 80 Million Cars

[ProSense]

Obama’s Move On Solar Is Equivalent To A Year Without 80 Million Cars

By Emily Atkin

President Obama is expected to announce a series of executive actions and agreements on Friday morning that will advance solar power and energy efficiency in the United States, part of his pledge to tackle climate change without having to go through a gridlocked Congress...the initiatives will represent an 850-megawatt increase in solar power deployed, or enough to power 130,000 homes. They will also lead to more $2 billion in energy efficiency investments in Federal buildings, $26 billion in savings for businesses on energy bills, and a 380 million metric ton decrease in carbon pollution — the equivalent of taking about 80 million cars off the road for a year, the statement said.

Here are six key actions detailed in the announcement:

Commitments from 300 business leaders to increase solar power

<...>

Solar and efficiency boosts for low-income housing

The Federal Housing Administration will expand its Green Preservation Plus program, which encourages owners of affordable housing properties to invest in energy efficiency improvements. To do that, the agency’s program offers mortgage loans, with the specific condition that five percent of that loan be used to reduce energy and water consumption at the property. The investment not only increases efficiency, but winds up improving the operating income for the building owner, lowering utility costs for low-income tenants.

<...>

More college training programs for solar workers

<...>

Better streetlights in cities across the country

A program called the High Performance Outdoor Lighting Accelerator will also be announced today, which intends to increase high-efficiency lighting in outdoor spaces across the country. Under the program, the Department of Energy intends to replace more than 500,000 outdoor lighting poles in Detroit, West Palm Beach, and Little Rock, among other charter cities.

New energy conservation regulations for big appliances

<...>

A $2 billion investment in federal building efficiency

The President will also announce a goal to invest $2 billion for energy efficiency upgrades to federal buildings over the next three years. Combined with the $2 billion goal set in 2011, this means a total of $4 billion will given to federal contractors to make the upgrades to the buildings. The investments purport to be able to save billions in energy costs, promote energy independence, and, according to independent estimates, create tens of thousands of jobs in the construction sector.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/09/3436057/obama-solar-push/

Worth nothing:

Huge thermal plant opens as solar industry grows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024493290

U.S. Approves Two Huge Solar Projects On Public Lands In California
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024547836

DOE: U.S. Wind Energy Production and Manufacturing Reaches Record Highs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023420471

[randome]

1. Wow. Impressive numbers. I hope it's enough.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

3. Reverse Reagan - Solar Panels Return to WH Roof

Reverse Reagan - Solar Panels Return to WH Roof
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024929695

[Cha]

13. Reagan was such a tool.

thanks PS

[YOHABLO]

20. Reagan came along and struck down the Carter Admins initiative on solar energy. Go figure.

[albino65]

4. And yet in Ohio

Our bonehead governor and legislators answer with the following:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/05/ohio_senate_votes_to_halt_stat.html#cmpid=nwsltrhead

I might just live in the boneheadedest state in Amurica.

We also have John Q. and Billie Bob citizen marching around downtown Medina with an assault rifle and a shotgun slung over their backs to prove some point.

[the_working_poor]

40. Nope, try Oaklahoma where people who put up Solar cells are PENALIZED!

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-koch-brothers-and-solar-power-20140422-story.html

long short, the power companies get to penalize people who put up solar cells.

it's fucking insane!

Bad as bad gun legislation is... it's not destroying our ability to live on this planet!
live peaceably, yes, but not live at all!

gods we look like such idiots to the rest of the world... and i've been there so I know =[

[a kennedy]

48. Bout died over this one.......could not believe they passed this tax.....

talk about being owned by big companies..... ugh.

[ProSense]

5. EPA Is On A Winning Streak In Court Battles Over Clean Air

EPA Is On A Winning Streak In Court Battles Over Clean Air
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024930530

[okaawhatever]

15. I think he was waiting on the rulings to see how far he could go. nt

[pbmus]

6. Keystone === Dead Deal

[toby jo]

7. Excellent.

Keep it up, O, this is why we elected you.

[byronius]

8. I dig this.

[RainDog]

9. k&r n/t

[rug]

10. There are one billion cars on the road.

[ProSense]

11. There are

"There are one billion cars on the road."

...7 billion people in the world.

There are about 250 million cars on U.S. roads.

Are you implying that a policy that's equivalent to removing about 30 percent of the cars on U.S. roads isn't enough?

That's why strong fuel standards for all vehicles have been/are being put in place. Also, the OP is about solar. Cars were simply being used to correlate the effects.

[rug]

12. When it comes to carbon emission you can't credibly talk about national borders.

Yes, there are one billion cars on the road, at least in those countries where there are roads.

If true, eliminating the equivalent of 80,000,000 is good but no, it's not enough. Do you think .08% is enough?

[ProSense]

16. When

When it comes to carbon emission you can't credibly talk about national borders.

Yes, there are one billion cars on the road, at least in those countries where there are roads.

If true, eliminating the equivalent of 80,000,000 is good but no, it's not enough. Do you think .08% is enough?

...you talk about U.S. policy, it's about U.S. borders. Again, this is about the impact of ramping up solar production.

Yes, a policy that's equivalent to removing 8 percent of the world's cars from the road is significant. It demonstrates the impact moving toward clean energy can have on the environment. It's not the end of road, it's the path forward.

[rug]

17. That's .08% and the headline uses car equivalents.

And the solution is not national, it's global. But, if you're talking about U'S. policy, the Administration can directly link trade agreements to pollution standards. I hope it does a better job with that than with labor standards.

[ProSense]

18. Yes, 80 million is 8 percent of the world's cars

"That's .08% and the headline uses car equivalents."

Do you think writing it that way makes it less?

"And the solution is not national, it's global. But, if you're talking about U'S. policy, the Administration can directly link trade agreements to pollution standards. I hope it does a better job with that than with labor standards."

What the hell does that have to do with the OP, which is about U.S. policy?

[rug]

19. First, here's a blue link.

http://www.online-calculator.com/

Second, it's your bright-eyed headline.

Third, who the hell do you think negotiaes the trade agreements, including the TPP?

[ProSense]

21. Are you

offering a "calculator" because you doubt that 80 million is 8 percent of 1 billion?

Maybe you should try using it, and report back on the results.

"Third, who the hell do you think negotiaes the trade agreements, including the TPP?"

Again, what does that have to do with the OP? What does it have to do with ramping up U.S. solar production and installation?

[rug]

28. Math doesn't lie and bad math makes bad politics.

Since your OP is a paean to leadership, let's see how far it goes before jumping up and down in excitement.

[ProSense]

30. "Bad math" does lie, and it also doesn't make for good comments. LOL!

"Since your OP is a paean to leadership, let's see how far it goes before jumping up and down in excitement."

Why are you so upset by this OP?

[rug]

31. The OP doesn't upset me. It's a good, but small step.

What irks me is the urge to push it for more than what it is. And we both know a lot more can and should be done.

[ProSense]

32. "What irks me is the urge to push it for more than what it is."

Is that why you're insisting that 80 million is not 8 percent of 1 billion?

You want it appear to be less "than what it is"?

The OP is clear about "what it is."

[rug]

33. I doublechecked; it is 8%. Whether the program equals 80 million cars remains to be seen.

And you still haven't answered the question: Do you think more can and should be done?

[ProSense]

35. What

"And you still haven't answered the question: Do you think more can and should be done?"

...gave you the impression that I don't think "more can and should be done"?

As I said before, the correlation illustrates the impact moving toward clean energy can have on the environment. It's not the end of road, it's the path forward.

The initiatives in the OP are significant steps in the right direction.

[MADem]

42. Here's the bottom line--this is GOOD NEWS, and you appear intent on crapping on the thread.

Now, if that's not your intent, well, that IS how you're coming across.

Just saying....

I guess it wouldn't mattered if he ended world hunger, you wouldn't be satified until he ended dental cavities as well...?

That's the take I'm getting from you.

[rug]

43. You can take ir any way you want. Things are not good/bad.

Rosy eyed optimism makes shitty politics.

[MADem]

44. Yes, I sure can, and I've told you how I have taken it. You're crapping on the thread.

I have more than my sufficiency of cynicism, thanks; but--speaking of "shitty"--it's rather like taking a dump, there's a time and a place.

It's very useful to have an "appropriateness governor" to gauge when's the right time to crap, and when's the right time to just hold it.

You'd have done well to just resist the urge, IMO.

[rug]

46. Oh I think the thread will survive some nuance.

Your sensibilities are another story.

[MADem]

47. Well, what you're doing isn't nuance, unless you're "taking a big nuance" all over the thread. nt

[IDemo]

24. If 80,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 are correct figures

Then it's not 0.08%, but 8%. You need to multiply the fraction by 100 to get the percentage.

[rug]

29. I don't know about the 80,000,000 but here's the source for one billion.

http://wardsauto.com/ar/world_vehicle_population_110815

(I rechecked. You're right about the percentage. Mea culpa.)

[IDemo]

34. I'm not doubting the one billion figure

About a seventh of which are located in my neighbor's back lot.

Just that to get the percentage represented by the fraction 0.08 (8/100) you must multiply by 100. Example - 50 is obviously half of 100, and 50/100 = 0.5. Multiply that by 100 and you get fifty percent.

edit - didn't see your followup post.

[riqster]

37. Since the US does not control energy policy for the entire planet,

What else do we expect? American leadership by example has been pretty much the opposite of Obama's move here ( since Reagan) and this is a very big step in the right direction. Nice to see.

If we all GOTV and get engaged with Congress, we might be able to get more done over the next two years, too.

[Cha]

14. Doin' my part by not driving a car. :) Thanks Obama

[ProSense]

22. The math works.

[quadrature]

23. the well-travelled-path yields little.

this is the same crap from 40 years ago.


on the other hand,
if Obama really wants to change something,
there is currently a lot of progress being
made in the areas of....

batteries for electric cars and trucks.
conversion of biomass and methane
into transportation fuel.

[DireStrike]

25. Those things you mention all put carbon into the air.

Electric vehicles get their power from the grid, which comes from whatever is fed into the grid... which is mostly burning fossil fuels.

Conversion of things into fuel is just another way to burn more stuff. It also takes up land and resources previously used for agriculture, which has a lot of cascading effects.

There might be some minor increase in efficiency, but that will be eaten by growth in short order. The only way to decrease carbon output is to develop alternative energy generation, like solar.

[IDemo]

27. But EV's use less carbon energy per mile than equivalent sized internal combustion vehicles

And coal power as a percentage of the US grid has shrunk over the past decade.

[ProSense]

26. How can

"the well-travelled-path yields little. this is the same crap from 40 years ago. "

...that be when the solar industry just started ramping up in recent years?

[quadrature]

36. Solar PV. progress is painfully slow...

but there is still some progress.


with that said.
with free money from the gov't,
you can give the appearance of doing a lot...
Solyndra...
most of the money went into a fancy
office building for the executives.

I used to work at an airport.
there were busses everywhere.
a bus idles a lot.
Easy target for electrification.
Is Obama interested?
(would appear the answer is no.)

[MADem]

45. No, it doesn't. This is an example of the misapplication of a saying--what yields little is the

claim you are making.

Solar energy is a gift that keeps on giving, and thank you very much Mr. or Ms. Sun!

[ffr]

38. Best reason to vote straight Democratic ticket in 6 months

This is the progress we make without Republis help. Imagine how great our nation could do without any Republis on any level?

Vote 2014

Participate in fair elections.

Get others to vote.

End the stalemate.

NO
MORE
REPUBLIS

[pbmus]

39. So will you feel this way when Keystone is given thumbs up ...

[ffr]

41. Yes. Yes. Certainly. Absolutely.

Any questions?

I'll take 90% in the right direction and 10% in the wrong over 10% in the right direction or none and the rest in the wrong direction.

Plus, if we don't remove Repulis in November, the problem only gets worse.

Is that what you're striving for? Worse?