The article attached below appeared today (January 24, 2017) in the Washington Post. It is an important article and was written by Todd Stern, who served as a senior negotiator on climate change issues during the Obama Administration. I bring it to your attention because it addresses the economic implications for the U.S. of addressing or not addressing climate change issues in a meaningful way. It recognizes that the global energy system is evolving from its heavy dependence on fossil fuels to a system increasingly dependent on renewable energy technologies. The market for these technologies is already large and growing rapidly, and the U.S. has an opportunity via its innovation and manufacturing skills to be a major player in that market. This has significant implications for U.S. economic growth and job creation. If the Trump Administration slows down our efforts to move away from a fossil fuel powered economy and toward a clean energy economy focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy, our country will pay an unfortunate price economically, environmentally, and in terms of our global leadership position. One can only hope that the new U.S. Administration will be open to acknowledging this stark reality.

……………………………………………….

Trump can make the deal of the century on climate
By Todd Stern January 24, 2017
Todd Stern, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School, was U.S. special envoy for climate change from 2009 to 2016.

As President Trump takes the reins of power, anxiety and uncertainty are the order of the day for those concerned about the threat of climate change. Trump has ranged from disbelieving (climate change is a Chinese “hoax”) to dismissive (we should “cancel” the 2015 Paris agreement) to open (“I’m looking at it very closely. . . . I have an open mind to it”) on the issue.
The truth is that the climate challenge Trump faces is large and the stakes are high, but he has been dealt a very good hand if he is willing to play it.
The challenge is that achieving the climate goals endorsed by all the countries in Paris — especially holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels — will take a concerted commitment centered on rapidly transitioning from a high- to a very-low-carbon global energy system. A global economy that currently runs more than 80 percent on fossil fuels will have to cut that habit dramatically by 2050 and eliminate or capture all carbon emissions by the 2060s or 2070s.
Nor can the Paris goals be shrugged off as an excess of zeal that we can comfortably revise upward. With average temperature having risen by only 0.9 degrees Celsius so far, we already see rapidly accumulating evidence of rising sea levels, stressed water supplies and “100-year” events such as extreme droughts, floods and storms. As these and other effects worsen, we will face risks to health, safety, economic well-being and national security that we have never tolerated in any other context. If you doubt this, just consult the published views of the Pentagon, the intelligence community and any number of major corporations, not to mention the leading lights of the U.S. and global scientific establishment.
The good news, though, is that while meeting the challenge of transitioning to clean energy is formidable, it is also doable as a matter of innovation, policy and financing. We know what we need to do, and we can do it — if the political will is there.
Which brings us back to Trump and those good cards he has been dealt. First, he has the Paris agreement itself. Climate change is a global problem, so it can’t be solved without a global regime to drive joint action, and the landmark Paris accord finally delivered that regime, after 20 years of trying. It is built to work both for the United States and for others. It has a bottom-up structure based on countries devising their own climate plans and targets; it applies to all, including China and India; it renews itself every five years a.s countries update and augment the ambition of their efforts; and it includes binding commitments for full transparency, so all countries can have confidence that others are acting.
Second, we have entered a period of explosive growth in clean energy, led by the genius of U.S. innovation both in technology and in business models, and by the massive markets being created worldwide for pollution-free energy. The costs of wind and solar generation have been plummeting and are already near the cost of fossil fuel, and sometimes cheaper. More than 60 percent of new electricity capacity in the United States in the past two years has come from these sources.
And innovation is blossoming all over the clean-tech landscape, from storage technology to open the door for expanding use of renewables, to electric vehicles, to a smarter grid that will enable more work to be done with less energy.
Plus, there are jobs — for example, more solar jobs now in the United States than in the oil, gas and coal extraction industries combined. And clean energy is hugely popular with both Democratic and Republican voters.
We still, crucially, need strong policy support and research and development, but the change is gathering speed.
Globally, the economic potential of the clean-energy transition is staggering, amounting to trillions of dollars. No one has more to gain than the United States by jumping into this new “great race” with both feet, given our unparalleled culture and infrastructure of innovation. It’s the deal of the century, and a presidential dealmaker should pursue it with gusto.
None of this would prevent generous treatment for those, such as coal miners, who helped build the industrial backbone of our nation. Or, indeed, for full-on R&D and other support for technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
Is it plausible that Trump could recognize the climate challenge and embrace this opportunity? The key lies in that “open mind” of his. If it is open, then he will listen to knowledgeable advisers — from the military, big business, Wall Street, the scientific community — and he’ll come quickly to understand the risk of climate change and the reward of taking it on.
With an open mind, Trump can make history. He has a Nixon-to-China capacity to bring Congress, the American public and the rest of the world with him on climate. He should seize it.

When I was born Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was President of the United States. Since then I have lived through many presidential elections, but none as strange as the one currently underway in the United States. It is truly one for the history books, and many articles, books, and PhD theses will be written about it in years to come. It has been a nasty campaign so far, and is likely to get even nastier as we approach November 8th, Election Day. As a result, it is often hard to focus on policy issues that differentiate the two principal candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The level of invective is high, and issues of temperament and trustworthiness are often grabbing most of the attention. Nevertheless, energy policy is important and has had and will have a major impact on the U.S. economy, its environment, and its national security. Therefore, there has been increasing attention recently to the energy policies of the candidates – e.g., the search of their websites in July by an analyst for the American Council on Renewable Energy to measure their interest in renewable energy. As reported by Forbes in August: “The search produced 55 results on Hillary Clinton’s website – it jumped to 92 as she published more detailed plans – and only one on Donald Trump’s site.” In this blog post I will add to this effort by identifying and and comparing the energy policies of the two candidates based on their published positions and their public statements. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump

I will approach this task by using questions prepared by Science Debates (sciencedebates.org), an organization that is “asking candidates to hold a debate exclusively about major issues in science, engineering, health and the environment.” They know that will not happen in 2016 (they also tried unsuccessfully in 2008 and 2012) but have put together a set of 20 questions that the candidates have answered in writing. I have selected two of the questions as the basis for my comparisons.

Question #1: “The Earth’s climate is changing and political discussion has become divided over both the science and the best response. What are your views on climate change, and how would your administration act on those views?”

Donald Trump’s response to Science Debates:

“There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” Perhaps the best use of our limited financial resources should be in dealing with making sure that every person in the world has clean water. Perhaps we should focus on eliminating lingering diseases around the world like malaria. Perhaps we should focus on efforts to increase food production to keep pace with an ever-growing world population. Perhaps we should be focused on developing energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels. We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”

The following statements are direct quotes from the Trump website (www.donaldtrump.com):

“Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.”

“Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”

The following are public statements made by Donald Trump:

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” (tweet, November 2012)

“Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax! (tweet, December 2013)

“We should be focused on clean and beautiful air – not expensive and business closing GLOBAL WARMING a total hoax!” (tweet, December 2013)

“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.” (tweet, January 2014)

“Maybe some climate change is man made, but not all.” (June 2015)

HIllary Clinton’s response to Science Debates:

“When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear. Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time and its impacts are already being felt at home and around the world. That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.

I will set three goals that we will achieve within ten years of taking office and which will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century:

Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
To get there, my administration will implement and build on the range of pollution and efficiency standards and clean energy tax incentives that have made the United States a global leader in the battle against climate change. These standards are also essential for protecting the health of our children, saving American households and businesses billions of dollars in energy costs, and creating thousands of good paying jobs.

These standards set the floor, not the ceiling. As Phresident, I will launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with those states, cities, and rural communities across the country that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency, giving them the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.”

The relevant climate change material on the Clinton website is similar to the above answer to Science Debates and so will not be reproduced here.

The following is a public statement by Hillary Clinton:

(What will you do about climate change?) “I have been on the forefront of dealing with climate change, starting in 2009, when President Obama and I crashed a meeting with the Chinese and got them to sign up to the first international agreement to combat climate change that they’d ever joined.” (Q: Are you referring to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen?) “When we met in Copenhagen in 2009 and, literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world. They told us they’d left for the airport; we found out they were having a secret meeting. We marched up, we broke in, we said, “Let’s sit down and talk about what we need to do.” And we did come up with the first international agreement that China has signed.” (Source: Democratic primary debate, October 2015)

Question #2: “Strategic management of the U.S. energy portfolio can have powerful economic, environmental, and foreign policy impacts. How do you see the energy landscape evolving over the next 4 to 8 years, and as President, what will your energy strategy be?”

Donald Trump’s response to Science Debates:

“It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption. Further, with the United States, Canada and Mexico as the key energy producers in the world, we will live in a safer, more productive and more prosperous world.”

The following statements are direct quotes from the Trump website (they touch on both energy and global warming issues):

“Energy reform—
– Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
– Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
– Ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
– Make land in the Outer Continental Shelf available to produce oil and natural gas.
– Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
– Lift restrictions on American energy to increase:
– Economic output by $700 billion annually over the next 30 years,
– Wages by $30 billion annually over the next 7 years,
– GDP by more than $20 trillion over the next four decades, and
– Tax revenues by an additional $6 trillion over 40 years.”

The following are published statements or public comments by Donald Trump:

“There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy–so-called green energy–from renewable sources. That’s a big mistake. To begin with, the whole push for renewable energy is being driven by the wrong motivation, the mistaken belief that global climate change is being caused by carbon emissions. If you don’t buy that–and I don’t–then what we have is really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.” (Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, November 2015)

“The most popular source of green energy is solar as several decades after installing solar panels to get your money back. That’s not exactly what I would call a good investment. Even if that number is only half right, what kind of investment do you want to make that takes 20 years before you break even
(Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, November 2015)

“Right now, green energy is way behind the times. You look at the windmills that are destroying shorelines all over the world. Economically, they’re not good. It’s a very, very poor form of energy.” (March 2012)

“Among all the gifts that God gave to America was an abundant supply of natural energy. According to the Department of Energy, the natural gas reserves we have in the ground could supply our energy needs for centuries.
Researchers at Rice University in Houston, Texas, have estimated we might have two trillion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to last the next 285 years. Technology has changed so much in the last few years that a Goldman-Sachs study has estimated that by 2017 or 2019, we could overtake both Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer.
The oil is there for the taking; we just have to take it.
I’ve never understood why, with all of our own reserves, we’ve allowed this country to be held hostage by OPEC, the cartel of oil-producing countries, some of which are hostile to America.
(Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, November 2015)

“I’m very strongly in favor of nuclear energy. You know, it’s sort of interesting. If a plane goes down, people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash, people keep driving. There are problems in life. Not everything is so perfect. You have to look very carefully, though, at really taking care; having the best people in terms of safeguards for nuclear energy. But we do need nuclear energy, and we need a lot of it fast.
(Source: interview, Msrch 15, 2011)

Hillary Clinton’s response to Science Debates:

“The next decade is not only critical to meeting the climate challenge, but offers a tremendous opportunity to ensure America becomes a 21st century clean energy superpower. I reject the notion that we as a country are forced to choose between our economy, our environment, and our security. The truth is that with a smart energy policy we can advance all three simultaneously. I will set the following bold, national goals – and get to work on Day 1, implementing my plan to achieve them within ten years of taking office:

Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
My plan will deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. This includes:

Defending, implementing, and extending smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
Launching a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities to cut carbon pollution and expand clean energy, including for low-income families.
Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers.
Ensuring the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
Reforming leasing and expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
Cutting the billions of wasteful tax subsidies oil and gas companies have enjoyed for too long and invest in clean energy.
Cutting methane emissions across the economy and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
Revitalizing coal communities by supporting locally driven priorities and make them an engine of U.S. economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been. When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear. Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time and its impacts are already being felt at home and around the world. That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.

I will set three goals that we will achieve within ten years of taking office and which will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century:

Generate half of our electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of my first term.
Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.
Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.
To get there, my administration will implement and build on the range of pollution and efficiency standards and clean energy tax incentives that have made the United States a global leader in the battle against climate change. These standards are also essential for protecting the health of our children, saving American households and businesses billions of dollars in energy costs, and creating thousands of good paying jobs.

These standards set the floor, not the ceiling. As President, I will launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with those states, cities, and rural communities across the country that are ready to take the lead on clean energy and energy efficiency, giving them the flexibility, tools and resources they need to succeed.”

The relevant statements on the Clinton website are essentially a restatement of her answer to Science Debates and so will not be reproduced here.

The following are public statements by Hillary Clinton:

“We need to implement the president’s executive actions and quickly move to make a bridge from coal to natural gas to clean energy. That is the way we will keep the lights on while we are transitioning to a clean energy future.” (Source: 2016 PBS Democratic primary debate, March 2016)

(Re fracking) “#1, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it. #2, I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it, #3, unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated. So first, we’ve got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking unless conditions like the ones that I just mentioned are met.” (Source: Democratic primary debate in Flint, Michigan, March 2016)

“We do have enough money in LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) to help consumers pay their bills. We should have a crash program on weatherization to help to drive those bills down. We need to do more to investigate, and we might even have to look at the strategic petroleum reserve, which the Bush administration has been filling up beyond any expectation of need for the short term. We also have to have a serious move toward energy efficiency and conservation. We need to get people to be more conscious to do it for themselves. (Source: Democratic primary debate at Drexel University, October 2007)

(Q.Would you rule out expanding nuclear power?) “No, but it would not be one of the options that I favor, unless, number one, the cost can get down for the construction and operation; number two, that we have a viable solution for the nuclear waste. I voted against Yucca Mountain. I’ve spoken out against Yucca Mountain. I think that recently the discovery–there’s an earthquake fault going under the proposed site at Yucca Mountain–certainly validates my opposition. So there are a lot of very difficult questions. But we’re going to have to look at the entire energy profile, in order to determine how we’re going to move away from our dependence upon carbon-based fuels. And I will look at everything, but there are some tough questions you’d have to answer with respect to nuclear.”
(Source: Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College, September 2007)

In the above compilation I have tried to let the candidates speak for themselves. It is clear that there are major policy differences between the two candidates with respect to our energy future and our response to global warming and climate change. Based on what I have said previously in this blog I am clearly not neutral in this debate. I strongly support Secretary Clinton’s vision of a clean energy future that moves us quickly away from dependence on fossil fuels and towards an energy system increasingly dependent on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Donald Trump’s vision is very different. The American people have a clear choice to make in the upcoming election on these and other issues.

The attached article was first published in the e-journal CleanTechnica. It was authored by Zachary Shahan who serves as CleanTechnica’s director and chief editor. In accord with Zach’s request, I am reprinting here the basic facts in the article to give them increased visibility. The purpose of the article is discussed in its second paragraph. The charts referred to in the article’s title can be found in the original article on the CleanTechnica website.

The facts attest to the reality that an energy revolution is underway, as the world transitions from an energy system largely dependent on fossil and nuclear energy to one increasingly dependent on renewable energy, and one in which solar energy is playing an increasingly important role.
………………………………………………

10 Solar Energy Facts & Charts You (& Everyone) Should Know
August 17th, 2016 by Zachary Shahan

I sometimes forget that not everyone has the time to read all 9,190 solar energy articles we’ve published here on CleanTechnica — or even 10% of them, or 1% of them. Okay, who am I kidding — most people haven’t read a single solar energy article published on CleanTechnica.

Our goal isn’t just to be a cheerleader for the people who have gone solar and who have switched to electric cars, and it isn’t just to help keep industry insiders informed. Our goal is to help society help itself by inspiring more people to switch to cleantech. Part of that is sharing useful information that most people aren’t aware of about solar costs & incentives. Part of that is trying to persuade people to cut the death toll. Part of that is covering new solar tech that may interest you. Part of that is debunking media and fossil/utility misinformation.

It hit me after writing that last piece, though, that there are really a handful of solar energy facts that few people know but that I think should be common knowledge in a healthy, democratic, free-market society. That’s how I got to writing this article.

You can do your part on this point, of course, by 1) sharing these more widely than you share the typical article, and 2) throwing additional facts and charts into the comments. (Also, yes, I will update the figures in this article as they change or as more up-to-date figures become available — so check in again from time to time.)

1. The price of a solar panel in 1975 was ~227 times higher than it is today — $101.5/watt versus $0.447/watt.

solar price drop installations

2. The price of a solar panel today is ~30% what it was in 2010 — $0.447/watt versus $1.50/watt. That’s a 70% discount!

solar panel price drop

3. The lowest wholesale solar price bid from a solar project developer (unsubsidized) is 2.91¢/kWh. That’s cheaper than what new natural gas, coal, or nuclear power can provide practically anywhere in the world.

Lazard-Solar-Wind-Prices-LCOE-3

4. Even excluding that record-low bid, and not taking into account the large social costs of coal and natural gas electricity, utility-scale solar power is cheaper than new coal, nuclear, natural gas peaking, and IGCC power plants. It is comparable to combined cycle natural gas power plants, but again, that is without taking into account the social costs of pollution from extracting and burning natural gas.

5. 99% of new electricity generation capacity added in the US in Q1 2016 came from renewable energy sources, 64% from solar. (Findings from my report, linked above, were confirmed by GTM Research & SEIA.)

US Renewable Energy Capacity – Q1 2016

6. The average installed cost of a residential rooftop solar power system in the US was $3.21/Wdc in Q1 2016.

solar power installed prices

7. The country leading annual solar power installations is now China, with the US at #3.

solar-growth

8. Overall, solar power capacity grew >10x over from 2009 to 2015, and >100x over from 2002 to 2015.

9. US solar energy industry added more jobs in 2015 than the US oil & gas extraction & pipeline industries added combined, and grew 12x faster than the US economy as a whole.

US Solar Jobs Greater Than Oil + Gas Extraction & Pipeline Sectors Combined

10. Solar energy potential dwarfs the potential from every other energy resource on the planet. (Note that, in the following chart, the energy potential for renewables is annual energy potential, whereas the energy potential from non-renewables is for total known reserves.)

solar energy potential
“2009 Estimate of finite and renewable planetary energy reserves (Terawatt-years). Total recoverable reserves are shown for the finite resources. Yearly potential is shown for the renewables.” (Perez & Perez, 2015)

On August 23, 2016 I became a published author. Pan Stanford Publishing, along with CRC and Amazon, listed the book on their websites. Information from the Amazon website is shown below; the Table of Contents is from the CRC website:

The U.S. Government and Renewable Energy: A Winding Road
Paperback – August 23, 2016
by Allan Hoffman (Author)
ISBN-13: 978-9814745840 ISBN-10: 9814745847
Price: $49.95 FREE Shipping for Prime members once available

This is a book on how the U.S. and other governments have changed their thinking about energy issues over the past four decades, a change triggered by increasing concern about the role of fossil fuels in global warming and climate change, greater awareness of the risks of nuclear power, and the emergence of viable renewable energy sources. It will help understanding of how this change came about in the United States from the unique perspective of a well-placed participant and observer. It will enhance understanding of the global energy transition that is finally getting underway in the second decade of the 21st century at an accelerating, even dizzying, pace.

The book’s main purpose is to illustrate how the U.S. government moved along its winding path to where it is today in getting ready for a renewable energy future. Target audiences are the young people who will inherit the transition and shape its future, those in government who currently shape our public policies, and those colleagues, friends, and family members who lived through many of the times and events discussed in the book.

Editorial Reviews
“Hoffman played a substantial role in the development of a wide variety of renewable energy technologies over the past 40 years, while employed at the U.S. Senate, the National Academy of Sciences, and the DOE. Much can be learned by examining the failures as well as the successes. Hoffman tells us what needs to be done for a gentle landing on sustainable technologies with a smart grid. This is an important and necessary path for the nation and the planet.”
―Emeritus Professor David Hafemeister, California Polytechnic State University, USA, and Author of Physics of Societal Issues

“I always had great admiration for those in government who were able to establish programs for the advancement of renewable energy (RE). This is especially true for people in the U.S. government (USG), which was highly influenced by the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries. Allan R. Hoffman was one of these USG officials who led this effort for many years. He now presents us with this interesting and informative book that describes how RE programs were first formulated and then traveled through a winding road in the USG.”
―Dr. Peter F. Varadi, Co-founder of Solarex Corporation

“Dr. Allan Hoffman presents a unique personal record of the U.S. energy policy development during four decades. He is one of the top driving forces in this progress and conveys a fascinating description of the successes and disappointments from the inside of the federal government. Earlier than most people, he recognized the potential of renewable energy. He has also been a pioneer in comprehending the water–energy linkage. For anybody who wishes to understand how technology relates to politics, this book is a must-read.”
―Prof. Gustaf Olsson, Lund University, Sweden”

Table of Contents

Introduction

The New England Years: How It All Got Started

Introduction to Capitol Hill

OPEC Oil Embargo and Corporate Average Fuel Economy

First Tour of Duty in the Executive Branch and the DPR

Post-Domestic Policy Review Period and the Ronald Reagan–George H. W. Bush Years

The Clinton–Gore Years (Part 1 of 3)

The Clinton–Gore Years (Part 2 of 3)

The Clinton–Gore Years (Part 3 of 3)

The 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta

Cooperation with Other Countries to Develop Renewable Energy Technologies

The George W. Bush–Dick Cheney Years

Time in the Obama Administration and Final Years in Government

Summarizing and Looking at Today’s Renewable Energy Situation

Looking Ahead

The Importance of Energy Policy
…………………………………………..

A digital edition of the book is also in preparation and will be released in the near future.

To the readers of this blog:

I apologize for not adding posts to my blog for quite some time, while I have been distracted by writing a book and five chapters for a colleague’s new book on solar energy. The book is entitled ‘The U.S. Government and Renewable Energy: A Winding Road’ and will be published by Pan Stanford Publishing later this summer. It will be available initially in softcover, and after a while in digital form. A hardcover version may also be published.

The five chapters will be published toward the end of this year in a book being edited by Dr. Peter F. Varadi and entitled ‘Sun Towards High Noon: Meteoric Rise of the Solar Industry Continues’. It will also be published by Pan Stanford Publishing.

With the completion of these writing activities I plan to return to blogging, starting with an analysis of the energy policies put forward by the two U.S. presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.