I wanted to follow up the health care redux post from the other day with a similar post on the status of energy reform legislation and developments along the leading edge of energy technology, but this is a totally different can of beans. While the health care legislation seems to be crystallizing into something that may find its way into law relatively shortly after recess, the Waxman-Markey looks like it has much farther to go before it finds enough votes in the Senate for it to pass.

Some interesting developments have been seen in public polling on energy issues, perhaps shedding light on why this bill is having such a hard time passing and what sorts of proposals might help or hinder its success.

On the positive side, a Gallup poll in March showed that a whopping 77 percent supported “increasing financial support and incentives it gives for producing energy from alternative sources such as wind and solar”, with only 8 percent being against the idea. However this same poll showed a statistical tie between people who thought it was more important to develop more of our own domestic energy supplies, rather than protect our environment. Since at least 2001 the priority among the polled has been the environment, showing how the economic downturn has altered people’s priorities. Ending on a sort of mixed note, the same poll suggested that the public leans a bit towards also increasing government incentives for producing traditional forms of energy.

From the perspective of someone who follows the development of energy technology fairly closely, these numbers are fantastic. The economic benefits of renewable energy generation, and the clip at which new technologies are catching up on cost, is astonishing. In Nebraska we happen to have an enormous amount of untapped wind resources waiting for better laws (like Iowa’s) to open the gates to investment, job creation and rural economic growth. Solar and algal developments may take years to come to market, but the first post I wrote for this site showed how cellulosic ethanol is nearer to mass production than some might think.

Adding strength to the argument over the most contentious proposal in Waxman-Markey, Pew came out with a poll a few months back that shows a majority (59%) support the idea of capping carbon emissions. Another poll from April showed as high as 75% support for regulating greenhouse gases, while also showing that 77% worry that this would “significantly raise the prices of things you have to pay for”. It appears that the public don’t yet completely connect cap and trade with higher cost (we can be sure the Republicans wont let that lie for long), leaving an opening for those of us who support these kinds of proposals to show the public that the long term costs, and especially the long term economic benefits, are much sunnier the more we move towards renewables.

The most exciting news I’ve come across in a while came from a study from NYU’s School of Business. I found this study by the way of the Breakthrough Institute, a really forward thinking environmental think tank that I would recommend to all of you. This NYU study used S-curve analysis (a model that quite accurately has predicted technological advancement over the years) to project that a $3 billion dollar investment (a relative drop in the bucket when compared to overall energy research and development) in enhanced geothermal, also called hot rock, or deep, geothermal, should catch up to fossil fuels cost wise in only a few years. If this doesn’t convince you, then maybe an MIT study from 2007 showing essentially the same thing will.

President Obama campaigned heavily on the idea that we need to be a leader in renewable energy if we want to continue to be a leader in the world in general. If we are to do that we cannot take a back seat to Asian tigers like China, Japan and South Korea, who are dumping tens and hundreds of billions in to clean energy technology, industry and generation. The video at the top of this post goes through the bullet points of his proposals. It shows how Obama promised $150 billion towards these goals.

Without this research funding we will merely fall behind our competitors and see our trade deficits with those asian nations widen as we import the technologies they would develop instead of us to bring us closer to energy and pollution independence in the years to come. The bill has serious problems, especially in how many credits it gives away initially, but there is still plenty of time to work on fixing some of them and bringing it more into alignment with what the American people want and need. Once President Obama signs the health care bill into law, we will see how committed his administration is to following through with that $150 billion dollar pledge.