Trump Hates Renewable Energy - But His War Has Pushed Much Of The World Toward It

The following is part of a post by economist Paul Krugman:

On Wednesday the Interior Department announced that it would pay the energy developer Invenergy $765 million not to develop three offshore wind farms. This is the third such payment by the Trump administration to undo offshore wind projects that have been years in the planning. Trump has so far committed $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to killing renewable energy projects. The administration has also tried to stop offshore wind farms already under development — moves that have been blocked by the courts — while the Pentagon has been refusing to grant routine permits for onshore wind projects.

Yes, $2.5 billion to destroy already-approved, cost-effective clean energy projects while Americans are suffering from soaring electricity prices thanks to data centers and high gasoline prices.

Yet here’s the irony: Donald Trump’s disastrous Iran war has delivered a huge boost for renewable energy around the world — except in the U.S.. Trump has so far done more to shift the global economy away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy than any other single individual in history.

Why do Trump and his gang hate green energy so much? The roots of their hatred range from the power of fossil fuel interests, to Trump’s petulant whine that wind turbines ruined the view from his Scottish golf course, to a general sense among right-wingers that clean energy threatens their masculinity.

What’s best for Americans has nothing to do with it. Thus, Trump lackeys justifying their hostility to renewables consistently make arguments even they must know are stupid. Consider, for example, an exchange last month between Doug Burgum, secretary of the interior, and Rep. Jared Huffman of Nevada:

Burgum: All of these projects you’re describing in Nevada have one thing in common—when the sun goes down, they produce zero electricity.

Huffman: Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter in the record this amazing new technology that apparently the secretary is unaware of: It’s a battery.

California — which would be the world’s 4^th largest economy if it were a country — gets more than half of its electricity from renewables. It is rapidly becoming a state largely powered by the sun during daylight hours and powered by batteries during the night.

Burgum’s suggestion that solar is an unproven or unreliable technology is completely at odds with reality.

Nor is California the only economy that now makes substantial use of renewable energy. Burgum’s home state of North Dakota gets more than a third of its electricity from wind power (don’t tell Trump). In South Dakota wind supplies 57 percent of the electricity. And renewables generate a large share of electricity in many countries, including most big European economies. (France is the outlier, not because it relies on fossil fuels, but because it has large nuclear capacity.) Spain, for example, now relies heavily on a solar-plus-batteries system similar to that in California.

And when Trump went to war with Iran, nations that had already shifted toward renewable energy were very glad they had made the move.

To the extent that there’s a competition for the future of electricity generation, it’s between renewable energy and natural gas. Whatever Trump may want to believe, burning coal — even ignoring the environmental damage — is a costly, obsolete technology, which nobody wants to invest in. But new gas-turbine power facilities are still being built (although many places are, like California, rapidly shifting away from natural gas). Trump officials envision a world largely powered by US liquefied natural gas (LNG).

However, countries that relied heavily on natural gas were hit hard by Trump’s gratuitous war with Iran. LNG supplies from the Persian Gulf were blocked and couldn’t be fully replaced by U.S. exports because shipping capacity was limited. Countries that had invested heavily in renewables, like Spain, were largely unscathed. A report from the think tank Ember found that since the war began Spanish electricity prices — unlike prices in some other European countries — were essentially decoupled from the soaring price of natural gas.

Assuming that the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened after Trump’s abject surrender to the Iranian regime, natural gas prices should subside. Yet the world has learned a hard lesson about the riskiness of relying on fossil fuels for electricity generation.

And let’s be clear about the nature of that lesson. It’s not the fact that much of the world’s supply of hydrocarbons comes from a politically volatile region: We’ve known that all too well since the 1970s. What’s new is the recognition of American weakness and unreliability.

In this new era of drone warfare America cannot guarantee reliable access to imported fossil fuels through critical sea lanes. And is America itself a reliable supplier? Can nations that allow themselves to be dependent on U.S. gas and oil be sure that Trump or a future Trump-like president won’t weaponize that dependence, cutting off or threatening to cut off supplies in some future dispute? The obvious answer is no.

The whole world now knows that relying on imported fossil fuels is a major economic and security risk. By contrast, the sun will shine and the wind blow whatever may be happening overseas. Renewables were already rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Now it’s clear that they are also far safer.

Thus Donald Trump has in practice become the world’s green energy champion. 

Most Want Renewable Energy (And To Keep Fossil Fuels)

The charts above are from a survey by the Pew Research Center -- done between May 30th and June 4th of a nationwide sample of 10,329 adults, with a 1.5 point margin of error. 

Renewable Energy Production Exceeding All Expectations

[The large Barren Ridge solar panel array near Mojave, California. (Photo by George Rose/Getty Images)]

Here's a bit of good news from ARS Technica:

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released numbers on US electricity generationfor the first quarter of 2017, and renewable energy numbers are coming in big.

According to the EIA, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal power accounted for 10.68 percent of total electricity generation in the first quarter of 2017. If you include electricity from conventional hydroelectric plants, renewables made up nearly a fifth of total electricity generation—as much as 19.35 percent.

The striking part about that number is that the EIA, a statistical department within the Department of Energy, couldn’t foresee how dramatically renewables’ share of the electricity mix would increase just five years ago. In 2012, the administration predicted (PDF, page 87) that electricity generation from renewable sources would increase “from 10 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2035.” Even by 2015, the administration predicted (PDF, page ES-6) that “The renewable share of total generation grows from 13 percent in 2013 to 18 percent in 2040.”

Non-profit organization Sun Day Campaign said in a statement that, if the EIA were to extend its 2012 renewable growth forecast further out into the future, “renewables would not be expected to reach 19.35 percent until roughly the year 2057.”

The renewable energy numbers for the first quarter of 2017 include about 4.786 TWh of residential and small-scale solar electricity, as well as 9.2 TWh of utility-grade solar electricity. In the previous year's first quarter, utility-grade solar generated only 6.67 TWh of electricity, meaning utility-grade solar electricity generation increased 38.5 percent year over year.

The EIA’s projections didn’t foresee the explosion of solar installations caused by compelling federal tax incentives combined with plummeting photovoltaic costs. Instead, five years ago, economists were predicting that “most of the growth in renewable electricity generation comes from wind and biomass facilities.”

Wind certainly contributed a major proportion of renewable energy in the first three months of 2017 (67.64 TWh), but biomass faltered, with wood and wood-derived fuels losing 1.2 percent of the total electricity generation year over year. “Other biomass” lost 2.3 percent of the share it had in 2016.

For the entire year, the renewable energy portion of total electricity generation won’t track exactly with the first quarter of the year. Solar might increase as the days get longer and sunnier, while hydro could fall behind if any reservoirs experience droughts. Depending on where you are in the country, wind can become more variable in the summer.

About 15% Of Texas Energy Is Now Supplied By Wind

(This chart shows the 2016 energy sources in Texas.)

Although coal and natural gas still provide most of the electricity for homes and businesses in Texas, wind energy is growing fast. In 2016, it has provided nearly 15% of all energy. The following article is by Katherine Tweed at Green Tech Media.

First, some definitions:

Megawatt -- unit of power equal to 1 million watts.

Gigawatt -- init of power equal to 1 billion watts.

1 Megawatt will provide enough energy to supply the needs of 400 to 900 homes (depending on the time of year and location of those homes).

Tweed writes:

Texas grid operator ERCOT announced a new record for wind on Monday. For the first time, wind provided more than 15,000 megawatts of electricity to the state on a single day. 

The record wind on Sunday supplied an average of 41 percent of electricity throughout the day. But it was not an all-time record for wind in Texas. On one day in March, wind supplied more than 48 percent of load during one hour.

It is not the hour-by-hour records that are impressive, however.

Texas is already the clear leader in wind power in the U.S., and that lead is widening. Texas has more than 18,000 megawatts installed and another 5,000 megawatts under construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Wind power made up an average of 11.7 percent of electricity in 2015 in Texas, a figure that will be at least 14.7 in 2016, according to ERCOT.

The final tally of wind power’s contribution to the Texas electric grid will likely be slightly higher, as the wind blows harder in winter and therefore wind power contributions to the power mix usually go up.

Of course, the growing share of wind is still half the amount of coal in Texas and about one-third of natural gas generation.

Coal and natural gas may dominate in Texas, but the investment the state has made in transmission and improving renewable energy forecasts could allow for even more wind and solar in the future.

The wind power in Texas is coming from across the state, including the Texas Panhandle, the west and the south. Texas’ success with wind power is largely due to its Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, which were identified mostly in West Texas and the state's Panhandle region. A key to the project was about $7 billion in transmission lines to carry the wind power where it is needed.

With wind power flowing across the state, solar power is now starting to catch on to take advantage of the transmission lines. In 2015, ERCOT did not even list solar as a fuel source on its annual demand and energy report.

In 2016, the figures are still very small -- but they're growing. ERCOT reports about 685 megawatts of solar will be on-line in Texas in 2016, up from less than 300 in 2015. For the first time, solar energy received its own designation as a fuel type in ERCOT’s annual demand and energy report.

Large-scale solar could grow quickly in Texas, but will not even come close to wind. By 2020, ERCOT expects 2.5 gigawatts of solar on its system, compared to more than 28 gigawatts of wind.

The Green Energy Revolution Is Already Happening

(Graphic is by Dylan Petrohilos at Think Progress.)

With their control of Congress, the Republicans have done their best to keep this nation from going to clean and renewable energy sources. They have long been in the back pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal, and have done their best to make sure America continues to depend mainly on fossil fuels (and global warming be damned).

But in spite of the worst efforts of the congressional Republicans, a green energy revolution is happening in the United States. It would happen faster without GOP obstruction efforts, but they have been unable to stop it.

Here is how Samantha Page at Think Progress describes the growing energy revolution:

The energy mix in the U.S. is changing — and two separate events this week point to how we’re getting more green energy and less of the dirty stuff. 

To start, there are now more than a million solar installations across the United States, including on nearly 950,000 homes and small businesses. This is a big deal. Right now, U.S. solar is generating the amount of electricity used by the entire state of Pennsylvania. And that contribution is only growing: By the end of 2016, there will be twice as much solar as there was in 2014. 

The solar boom has been driven largely by individuals and companies (we’re looking at you, Apple and Google) who want to use clean, renewable energy. They are getting the message that solar is better for the planet — but it’s also proven to be a savvy investment. Through policies that pay customers back for the electricity they put on the grid, paired with an investment tax credit designed to help level the playing field, many Americans have seen significant returns on their investment in solar.

“The first big barrier for solar was that it was really much more expensive,” Adam Browning, executive director of Vote Solar, a California-based advocacy group, told reporters on a call Wednesday. But through incentives and market-based policies, the economic landscape has changed, he said. “The whole premise here is that through scale you bring down cost, and that’s exactly what has happened.” 

Solar still makes up a tiny fraction — just over 1 percent — of the electricity used in the United States, but last year, for the first time ever, it was the largest source of new generation. 

Where we get our power, then, is changing. It has to. 

The electricity sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, responsible for a third of the country’s emissions, according to the EPA. This is due largely to our reliance on coal-fired power plants — but that, too, is changing.

This week saw the announced retirement of coal-fired generators at two power plants in Illinois, which brings the tally of closed (or closing) coal generation to 100 gigawatts worth since 2010, according to the Sierra Club, which has focused on limiting and now reducing coal use since 2002.

Reducing coal use is critical to meeting the country’s emissions goals, including the ones outlined by the Clean Power Plan and international commitments under the Paris agreement, Bruce Nilles, senior director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, told ThinkProgress. “Getting coal replaced with clean energy is the lion’s share of how we get there,” Nilles said. 

And the transition to clean energy doesn’t just mean less greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction in coal use for just the first 100 GW is also going to prevent 100,792 asthma attacks, 9,420 heart attacks, and 6,097 premature deaths each year, the Sierra Club calculates.

Historically, coal has been a big part of the United States’ electricity generation. In 2011, it dropped below 40 percent of generation for the first time since 1978. In 2015, coal was only 33 percent of generation. 

“Solar, three years ago, was barely registering at all,” Nilles said. “Wind was beginning to get taken seriously.” Now, both of those industries are much more established. Earlier this month, Berkshire Hathaway-owned MidAmerican Energy announced it is adding another 2 GW of wind power to its portfolio — without raising electricity rates. The company has a stated goal of 100 percent renewable energy. Iowa has embraced wind power, getting 31 percent of its electricity from the prairie winds. 

Iowa has no coal, natural gas, or oil, Nilles explained. “They have a situation for decades where they have been shipping money out of state,” he said. “The vast majority of people are asking: Why aren’t we doing more of this?”

Solar Power Generation Has Doubled For 7 Straight Years

(The image above is by S-kei and was found at Wikipedia.)

The fossil fuel producers, and the power plants generating electricity from those fossil fuels, have to be hating this. Solar power is still in its infancy in this country, but it is growing fast -- and with the price of solar panels dropping each year, that growth is likely to continue unabated. Consider this short article by Zack Colman in the Washington Examiner.

The amount of U.S. electricity generated from solar power is slated to more than double for the seventh consecutive year.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said that solar has provided 7.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity through June, enough to power about 685,000 homes per year. Aided by a mishmash of federal and state incentives, coupled with plummeting solar panel prices, installations are increasing all over the country — generation this year is more than double the 3.5 million megawatt-hours over the same period last year.

While solar's slice of the U.S. electricity pie is still small — it accounted for just 0.2 percent of total generation in 2013 — the electric utility industry is viewing it as a disruptive force. That's because once residents turn to solar, utility revenues take a hit because they lose a customer.

Some utilities and conservative groups have taken to fighting one of the most pervasive incentives, which is known as net metering. The mechanism allows solar customers to sell excess power back into the grid while remaining connected to it for backup purposes.

Opponents say net metering passes the cost of maintaining the electric grid for solar customers onto non-solar customers.

But its backers say utilities receive benefits because solar suppresses electricity demand during periods of high use, helping utilities avoid running costly "peaker" plants used to head off supply shortages.

A Breakthrough In The Solar Generation Of Energy

The following post is from the staff at Science Alert. I thought it was important enough to repost it here for my readers.

A solar thermal test plant in Newcastle, Australia, has generated “supercritical” steam at a pressure of 23.5 mpa (3400 psi) and 570°C (1,058°F). 

CSIRO is claiming it as a world record, and it’s a HUGE step for solar thermal energy.

"It's like breaking the sound barrier; this step change proves solar has the potential to compete with the peak performance capabilities of fossil fuel sources," Dr Alex Wonhas, CSIRO’s Energy Director, told Colin Jeffrey for Gizmag.

The Energy Centre uses a field of more than 600 mirrors (known as heliostats) which are all directed at two towers housing solar receivers and turbines, Gizmag reports.

This supercritical steam is used to drive the world’s most advanced power plant turbines, but previously it’s only been possible to produce it by burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.

"Instead of relying on burning fossil fuels to produce supercritical steam, this breakthrough demonstrates that the power plants of the future could instead be using the free, zero emission energy of the sun to achieve the same result,” Dr Wonhas explained.

Currently, commercial solar thermal or concentrating solar power power plants only operate a “subcritical” levels, using less pressurised steam. This means that they’ve never been able to match the output or efficiency of the world’s best fossil fuel power plants - until now.

The commercial development of this technology is still a fair way off, but this is an important first step towards a more sustainable future.

Nuclear Weapons Plant Going "Green"

The picture above (from the website nukewatch.org) is of Pantex -- the plant where all United States nuclear weapons are assembled (and out-dated nukes are dismantled). The plant is in the Texas Panhandle, just a few miles from Amarillo.

For years now, this huge nuclear weapons plant has sucked up a significant portion of the electrical energy produced in this area. It looks like that is going to change soon. Acting on instructions from the White House for government agencies to develop homegrown energy and cut carbon pollution, the Pantex plant will break ground for a huge new wind farm in just a few days.

The wind farm will save the plant (and the federal government) about $2.8 million dollars each year in energy costs -- and that money will be used to pay for the construction (which means it won't add to the budget deficit or the national debt). It will cover about 1500 acres, and will produce  about 47 million kilowatt hours of energy each year (enough energy to supply the needs of about 3,500 homes). It will also reduce the amount of CO2 emissions by more than 35,000 metric tons each year (the equivalent of removing 7,200 cars from service).

I'm still not thrilled to have a nuclear weapons assembly plant near the city where I live, but if it has to be there, I'm at least glad they are making an effort to be a good neighbor -- by producing their own energy from a renewable and clean resource, and by lowering the pollution their energy use is responsible for. Pantex is going green -- and that's a good thing.

Germans Push Clean Energy - Reduce CO2

Here in the United States we use far more than our share of the world's energy, and we continue to use the dirty carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels to make most of that energy. Only a tiny part of the energy we produce comes from clean and renewable energy sources (like wind, tides, solar, etc.). We continue to buy into the argument that either those sources are too expensive to develop or they are unable to provide a significant part of our needs. I think the real truth is that the oil, gas, and coal companies have bought too many of our politicians.

While the United States continues to make excuses, Germany has bit the bullet and invested heavily in the new renewable energy technologies, and it is already paying off big for them. Here is part of the the German energy story, as reported in The Guardian:

Germany has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions significantly in recent years as it has pushed forward a renewable agenda leading Europe into an age of wind and solar power. 

In the past year, the country's CO2 emissions fell by 2.4% compared with 2010, according to figures released by Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA). The decrease, say experts, has largely come through a push towards renewable energy that has accelerated since the country began its move away from nuclear power. 

In the first six months of 2012, the amount of electricity produced using renewable energy rose from 20% to 25%, bringing the country closer to its targets of 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. 

"We are on a good track in regard to the increase in the share of renewables," said Brigitte Knopf, deputy head of research at the sustainable solutions project at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Pik). "This is a story of success, though some challenges are still ahead."

There are still problems, but the Germans are forging ahead to reach their goal, instead of whinging that it can't be done. If they can do this without hurting their industry or curtailing electric use by consumers, why can't the United States do the same?

Tidal Energy Is Finally A Reality In The U.S.

The chart above shows the amount of the world's energy that is generated by renewable energy sources. Note that since 1980, the amount of energy from renewable sources has more than doubled. But this still represents only a small fraction of total energy generated. Here in the United States, less than 9% of our energy is currently generated using renewable sources.

The largest amount of energy from renewable sources has traditionally been hydroelectric (in blue on the graph) -- and that is still the case. No other renewable source even comes close. Since the late 1980's biomass energy (in yellow) has been growing, and since the late 1990's wind energy (in green) has also assumed a larger share and still growing share of energy production. The fourth source with statistically significant production of energy is geothermal (in red). There is one more energy group (barely visible in pink at the upper right-hand part of the graph). It is composed of solar/wave/tidal energy production.

We have all heard about the promise of solar energy. Currently, there is much research being done on it -- trying to develop cost-effective solar panels to generate energy. But one source of energy production that most Americans haven't heard much about is tidal energy -- and it may be the most reliable of the renewable energy sources. Rivers can dry up, the sun can be hidden by clouds, and the wind doesn't blow 365 days a year (even in the windiest areas). But the tides are always present and moving, and that tidal movement can be tapped to produce energy.

Until recently in the western hemisphere, this has just been theory. But it is now a reality. On September 13th, electricity began flowing from a ocean turbine powered by the tides. The feat was accomplished by the Ocean Renewable Power Company in the state of Maine. So far, there is only a single turbine and the amount of electricity is just a trickle -- about 180 kilowatts (or enough energy to power about 25 to 30 homes). But the company is to install more turbines, and has contracted with the Main Public Utilities Commission to produce 5 megawatts (a megawatt is 1000 kilowatts).

This is just a small beginning, but it is one with a lot of potential in this country (a country with thousands of miles of coastline). Tidal energy is unlikely to become the nation's dominant source of renewable energy, but it could one day produce a significant chunk of the nation's energy. If you'd like to read more about Maine's accomplishment, you can go to the blog Thurman's Soapbox.

Energy Use In The United States

In 2010, the United States used about 97.7 quadrillion Btu of energy -- an increase of 2.7 quadrillion Btu over the previous year. And there is no doubt the energy use in this country is still growing. The U.S. has always used more than its share of energy. The entire world used about 500 quadrillion Btu of energy in 2010 (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration). That means that this country used about 19.54% of the world's energy (or about 1 out of every 5 Btu), even though it only has 4.5% of the world's population.

That is a problem. It is going to be very hard to continue hogging this much of the world's energy, with the rest of the world's countries modernizing (and requiring more energy themselves each year). But it is not the only problem. The other problem rests in where we get that energy we use. Renewable energy sources make up about 8.2% of usage, and nuclear energy makes up about 8.6%. That means the fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) still provide 83.2% of all the energy used in the United States.

Some people seem to think that the supply of oil is endless, and all we have to do is increase drilling and that will solve all our problems. That is both a short-sighted and ridiculous view. Most energy experts realize that the point of "peak oil" is fast approaching (if we have not already reached it). "Peak oil" is the point at which production starts to drop, no matter how much drilling is done. Like it or not, all of the fossil fuels exist in a finite quantity -- which means they will all run out eventually.

The most plentiful of the fossil fuels, especially in this country, is coal. It has been said that we have hundreds of years of coal. But coal will also run out eventually -- and coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. We hear about "clean coal" these days, but that is just propaganda put out by the coal producers. There is no such thing as clean coal -- and probably never will be. Increasing (or even just maintaining) the usage of coal energy will do nothing except hasten global climate change (an impending disaster regardless of what Republican politicians say).

The hard truth is that the United States needs to change its energy ways -- and it needs to do it pretty fast. We need to cut our use of fossil fuels drastically (all of them), increase the percentage of renewable energy used, and vastly increase the efficiency with which we use available energy. This can be done, but it will require some political will, and it will require Americans to change.

We must invest more money in renewable energy, and do it now. And we must increase the efficiency of our transportation and homes. There must be more public transportation. And vehicles must be made much more efficient. One of the biggest wasters of energy in the U.S. is in the kind of homes we build. They are incredibly inefficient and waste large amounts of energy. The technology already exists to make more efficient homes. We are just not using it, and that must change.

Americans have a decision to make. Are we more interested in a few more years of comfort and resistance to change, or are we going to pass on a better world to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren? There's not a lot of time. What will we choose?

Obama Supports Wind Energy, Not Romney

Here in Texas, we have a burgeoning wind energy program (especially in West Texas and the Panhandle). Many wind farms have already been constructed, and once the transmission lines (currently under construction) have been completed, many more will be built. In fact, Texas currently leads the nation in the amount of wind energy produced. This has already provided new jobs, and new sources of income for farmers and ranchers -- and the future promises much more of both jobs and new income.

Much of this growth in wind energy has been spurred by the wind energy tax credits -- credits that President Obama wants to continue. But Willard Mitt Romney has a different view. He wants to eliminate the wind energy tax credits -- which could devastate the fledgling wind energy industry. Instead, he wants to continue the billions of dollars in government subsidies for the oil industry (which is recording record profits, and no longer needs those subsidies).

This week, President Obama spoke about this issue in Iowa. While he was speaking to Iowans, those of us in Texas (and other wind energy states) should pay attention, because he is talking about our future -- a vision of the future not shared by Romney. Here is what the president had to say:

“Over the past four years, we’ve doubled the amount of electricity America can generate from wind—from 25 gigawatts to 50 gigawatts. And to put that in perspective, that’s like building 12 new Hoover Dams that are powering homes all across the country. We doubled the amount of electricity we generate from solar energy, too. And combined, these energy sources are enough power to make sure that 13 million homes have reliable power and support the paychecks that help more than 100,000 Americans provide for their families.

“That’s not imaginary. That is real. And that’s what’s at stake in November. Thirty-seven thousand American jobs are on the line if the wind energy tax credit is allowed to expire like my opponent thinks they should. And unlike Gov. Romney, I want to stop giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that have rarely been more profitable so that we can keep investing in homegrown energy sources like wind that have never been more promising. That’s part of the choice in this election.”

Blaming Obama After Doing The Same Thing

(The caricature above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Willard Mitt Romney (aka Wall Street Willie) has been repeatedly blaming President Obama for the failure of the solar-energy company Solyndra after they received federal funds to help them in research, development, and marketing of their renewable energy products. He calls it an example of "crony capitalism", even though no investigation has been able to find any wrongdoing in the Solyndra affair.

Romney is right about two things -- that Solyndra did get some federal funds, and that the company did go bankrupt. But he seems to have forgotten that, while governor of Massachusetts, he also handed out some government funds (state money) to some renewable energy companies for the same purpose -- for research and development and to create green jobs. And at least two of the companies that received the state money (also solar energy companies) have now gone bankrupt (just like Solyndra).

Does that make Romney guilty of the same economic sin he is accusing President Obama of? Not at all. In fact, both men did the right thing. We can't develop renewable energies without development money, and since not enough development money is coming from the private sector then government must step in to help out. That just makes sense.

Unfortunately, when investments are made in various companies trying to develop new technologies, some of those companies are going to fail. That is just the nature of a free market economy. But there will also be some successes, and those successes will bring us closer to moving to renewable energy (and away from fossil fuels) -- cleaning the environment and creating green jobs.

There may be areas in which Romney can legitimately criticize the president, but this is not one of them (especially since he has done the same thing). And to do so just makes him a hypocrite.

Public Disagrees With GOP On Energy Policy

The above graphic was composed from the results of a new Yale University Project on Climate Change Communication survey. The survey shows that on most issues concerning energy and the environment the Republican Party is out of step with what the American public supports.

About 79% of Americans would like to see more funding for research on renewable energy, 76% would like to see tax rebates for efficient cars & solar panels, 75% want CO2 regulated as a pollutant, 63% would require utilities to produce 20% clean energy, 65% want the U.S. to sign an international treaty to cut emissions, and 58% are against building more nuclear plants. Those positions are all in opposition to Republican energy policy.

The survey also showed that only 17% of the public has bought into the Republican lie that protecting the environment hurts economic growth and causes unemployment. A full 58% of the public knows that protecting the environment actually improves economic growth and creates new jobs. The Republicans may not want corporate polluters to clean up their act, but the American people do.

But the survey also showed there are a couple of areas where the Republican propaganda seems to be working. One is in expanding drilling in the Gulf of Mexico -- which 62% of the public would support. Too many people believe that the high price of gasoline is connected to the amount of drilling done in the Gulf -- which is not true at all. More education is needed to convince the public of the truth -- that the high gas prices are due to Wall Street oil speculators and Big Oil companies reducing the amount of gas refined.

The Big Oil companies (especially BP) have also been very successful in covering up the serious and continuing environmental damage to the Gulf by drilling and oil spills (eyeless shrimp, fish with numerous large lesions, etc.). The sad part is that the environmental damage will most likely stretch far into the future.

The second area where the public seems to be misguided is on the huge subsidies given to the oil companies by the government. About 54% of the public says they are against eliminating all energy subsidies. Considering the giant oil and gas companies and energy producers are making record profits, those subsidies are no longer needed (especially when federal deficits are so large).

Perhaps the following facts can change some impressions about the "poor" oil companies. Chevron made about $6.5 billion in profits in just the first three months of 2012 (that's $71 million in profit every single day -- after all expenses have been subtracted). ExxonMobil did even better by posting a first quarter profit of $9.45 billion (about $104 million in profit for every single day). Here are some other facts about these companies:

EXXONMOBIL

13 percent: The tax rate Exxon paid last year, lower than the average American family.

60 percent of its first quarter earnings, or $5.7 billion, on buying back stock. Became world’s largest dividend payer by increasing dividends 21 percent.

$1,091,000: Political contributions sent to federal politicians for the 2012 election cycle, making it the largest oil and gas spender.

91% of these contributions went to Republicans.

More than $52,000,000: Lobbying for the first three years of the Obama presidency, 50 percent more than in the Bush Administration.

$34.9 million: Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson’s salary for 2011, a 20 percent raise.

$52,300: Political contributions from Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson in the 2012 cycle, alone.

CHEVRON

Chevron paid a 19 percent effective federal tax rate in 2011, after making $26.9 billion profit.

Spent 19.2 percent of its Q1 profits buying back stocks ($1.25 billion), which enriches the largest shareholders.

Production dropped by nearly 5 percent, from 2.76 million barrels per day in Q1 FY 2011 to 2.63 million barrels in 2012.

Chevron CEO John Watson received $25 million compensation last year, a raise of 52 percent. Chevron’s Vice President received a 75 percent increase to $7.8 million.

Chevron is sitting on even more cash reserves, $18.9 billion, up from$15.9 billion in January.

Has spent more than $500,000 on federal political contributions in the 2012 election cycle. 87 percent of these contributions went to Republicans.

Has spent $3.24 million on lobbying in the first few months of 2012, after spending $9.51 million lobbying in 2011. Some of the Chevron PAC’s major recipients for 2012 include House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) ($5,000), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) ($5,000), Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) ($5,000), Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) ($7,500), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) ($5,000).