The Bottom Line: Clean Energy and Public Opinion

PrintEmail

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll of the American public offers a number of clues for what direction we should move in as we continue to shape U.S. energy policy in the coming months and years.
 
A majority of Americans (57 percent) generally support the proposed changes to U.S. energy policy being developed by Congress and the Obama administration. Even when Cap and Trade is mentioned specifically, 52 percent of Americans support the reform. 
 
While this may seem shocking to some, it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Americans typically show concern about the environment when spoken of in generalities.
 
Most Americans agree that steps must be taken to conserve and improve our country's environmental landscape. One must look no further than the success of national parks or increased real estate values near green spaces.
 
Support for environmental initiatives drastically changes, however, when real costs are involved. Supporting a cleaner and healthier environment is easy, but paying $50 a month may not be palatable. The Washington Post-ABC news poll shows this to a whole new extreme.
 
When asked about their support "if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by $10 a month," Americans supported the measure 58 percent to 40 percent. But when the cost is raised to $25 per month, opinions flip. Fifty-nine percent opposed the program and only 39 percent supported it. 
 
These numbers tell us that Americans do generally want to curb greenhouse gas emissions, though they may disagree over the most effective way to do it.
 
These poll numbers also tell us that Americans are very concerned about costs. Even just adding $15 per month per family to the cost of any proposed legislation turns public opinion completely around. Any national energy policy must keep this in mind. 
 
This is why the current administration needs to completely reevaluate how it subsidizes and encourages growth in the field of clean energy. While cap and trade legislation is certainly one way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, supporting new and developing technologies that are better for the environment can accomplish the same thing. 
 
Currently, most energy subsidies are going to wind and solar power. These are very popular alternative energy sources among Americans when asked about them in theory, but bring up the cost and people's perceptions may change dramatically. 
 
Wind farms now receive huge subsidies from the U.S. government to the tune of $23.37 per megawatt hour. Coal, on the other hand, receives 44 cents in government benefits per megawatt hour. And, even with these huge amounts of money going to wind farms, wind only provides a little less than 1 percent of net electric generation in the United States.
 
But it doesn't stop there. Wind is an inherently flawed energy source because it can only generate power 25 percent of the time (i.e. when the wind is blowing), and it changes in strength from minute to minute. This means each wind farm needs another source of electricity in order to provide steady base power. The most common alternatives?  Natural gas and coal plants--neither of which are good for CO2 emissions. 
  
Solar energy is even worse when measured on these metrics. The cost per megawatt hour of solar power is four to five times higher than that of wind power. And solar power has a similar problem with intermittency because of clouds and nighttime. 
 
There is a reasonable alternative that Americans would overwhelmingly support if only Congress and the Obama administration would make it a priority. Nuclear power already provides the nation with 20 percent of its electricity demands, and it doesn't emit any greenhouse gases.
 
Not only is nuclear power good for the environment, but it is also cost-effective. For example, the average fuel cost for nuclear plants last year was 0.45 cents/kwh, compared to 1.36 cents/kwh for coal and 3.44 cents/kwh for natural gas. 
 
With so much emphasis on both these factors, encouraging the use and development of nuclear power should be a top priority of U.S. energy policy. The foundation is already there, but strong leadership from Washington is still needed.