Economia das Mudanças do Clima no Brasil

O Brasil corre o risco de ter uma perda na economia de R$ 719 bilhões a R$ 3,6 trilhões em 2050, caso nada seja feito para reverter os impactos das mudanças climáticas. As regiões mais vulneráveis à mudança do clima no Brasil são a Amazônia e o Nordeste, com possíveis perdas expressivas para a agricultura em quase todos os estados. Além disso, a previsão é de uma menor a confiabilidade no sistema de geração de energia hidrelétrica, com redução de 31,5% a 29,3% da energia firme. Estes são alguns dos resultados do estudo Economia das Mudanças do Clima no Brasil (EMCB), que analisa e quantifica o impacto da mudança do clima na agenda de desenvolvimento do país. Lançado ontem em Brasília e no Rio, o estudo teve a coordenação geral do professor da Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo (FEA/USP), Jacques Marcovitch, e a coordenação técnica de Sérgio Margulis e Carolina Dubeux. Outros resultados e dados sobre o estudo estão disponíveis no resumo executivo, anexo, e tambem no www.economiadoclima.org.br, onde podem ser acessadas informações detalhadas sobre essa iniciativa. Para ler o texto na íntegra, clique aqui. (Economia Do Clima - 27.11.2009)

Campinas vai produzir turbina eólica

Campinas vai produzir turbina eólica

Unidade da GE localizada no bairro Boa Vista será a 1ª da empresa a fabricar o equipamento

Sheila Vieira
DA AGÊNCIA ANHANGUERA
sheila@rac.com.br

A planta da GE em Campinas será a primeira unidade da empresa a fabricar turbinas eólicas a partir de 2010. A unidade produzirá aerogeradores de 1,5MW. A companhia, que é a segunda maior fabricante do equipamento no mundo, investiu mais de R$ 145 milhões no segmento no Brasil. Em 2008, a empresa como um todo faturou US$ 3,3 bilhões no mercado nacional, crescimento de 45% em relação ao mesmo período de 2007.

Embora sem data definida para ser iniciada, a nova linha de turbinas deve ser inaugurada no início do próximo ano. Para comportar a nova divisão, a fábrica em Campinas, que funciona desde 1961 em uma área de 66 mil metros quadrados no bairro Boa Vista, será ampliada e terá uma área adicional para as linhas de geradores, motores elétricos e serviços industriais, onde trabalham 1,4 mil funcionários. Mas tudo vai depender da demanda gerada pelo mercado, explica o diretor de Marketing da GE Energy para a América Latina, Marcelo Prado.

“A capacidade da unidade de Campinas em relação à fabricação de turbinas eólicas está atrelada à demanda que sairá por equipamentos do leilão de energia eólica que será realizado em dezembro”, disse. Só após o leilão a GE vai começar a se preparar para a fabricação das turbinas e deverá produzir, localmente, 60% de todo o equipamento necessário para a instalação de uma planta de captação de energia eólica. O diretor de marketing disse que ainda é cedo para estimar o impacto da produção local no preço final da usina de captação, o que depende de volume de produção. “No momento, com um único leilão de eólica programado, não podemos comentar com segurança se vai ser mais caro, igual ou mais barato”, avalia.

Segundo o Banco de Informações de Geração (BIG), da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (Aneel), em novembro de 2008 estavam em operação no País 17 usinas eólicas, com capacidade instalada de 273 MW. Em 2007, a oferta interna de energia eólica aumentou de 236 GWh para 559 GWh, uma variação de 136,9%. No final do ano passado, o BIG da Aneel registrava a existência de 22 projetos em construção a partir da energia eólica, com potência total de 463 MW. Além deles, outros 50, com potência total de 2,4 mil MW, estavam registrados como outorgados, porém sem que as obras tivessem sido iniciadas.

A primeira turbina eólica instalada no País — em 1992, no Arquipélago de Fernando de Noronha — possuía gerador com potência de 75 kW, rotor de 17 metros de diâmetro e torre de 23 metros de altura. Hoje, as torres têm cem metros, quatro vezes mais. Conforme o Atlas de Energia Elétrica no Brasil, estudo feito pela Aneel, a taxa de crescimento médio anual da capacidade de energia eólica é 25%, perdendo para biodisel com 40% e solar com 60%. Em 2006, o conjunto composto por solar, eólica, geotérmica, combustíveis renováveis e lixo produziu apenas 435 TWh (terawatts-hora) de uma oferta total de 18.930 TWh no País.

Potencial

De acordo com o CEO da GE Energy Infrastructure, John Krenicki, o Brasil possui potencial para ser exportador dessa tecnologia para a América Latina. A companhia informou que investiu mais de R$ 145 milhões em treinamento, capacitação de engenheiros, postos de testes e desenvolvimento de novas pás eólicas nos seus parceiros fornecedores de equipamentos e componentes no Brasil. Atualmente, o principal fornecedor de pás eólicas da GE no Brasil é a Tecsis (a empresa forneceu mais de R$ 3 bilhões em pás eólicas). A fábrica da Tecsis, localizada em Sorocaba (SP), tem cerca de 5 mil funcionários, sendo 3 mil exclusivamente para a produção de equipamentos destinados à GE.

“A companhia continuará investindo na transferência da tecnologia de fabricação de aerogeradores para o Brasil, o que dará suporte à diversificação da matriz energética brasileira e ao leilão de energia eólica, que será realizado no mês de dezembro”, afirmou Rafael Santana, presidente e CEO da GE Energy para a América Latina. (Com informações da agência CanalEnergia, Negócios e Empresas)

O NÚMERO

25º
LUGAR

É a posição global do Brasil, com 0,3% do total de energia eólica produzida no Mundo. A Alemanha lidera o ranking com a geração de 23,7%

SAIBA MAIS

A energia eólica é obtida da energia cinética (do movimento) gerada pela migração das massas de ar provocada pelas diferenças de temperatura existentes na superfície do planeta. A geração eólica ocorre pelo contato do vento com as pás do cata-vento, elementos integrantes da usina, informa o Atlas de Energia Elétrica no Brasil. A evolução da tecnologia permitiu o desenvolvimento em regiões com maior potencial medido. O Nordeste, principalmente no litoral, com 75 GW, lidera a produção nacional, seguido pelo Sudeste, particularmente no Vale do Jequitinhonha, com 29,7 GW, e Sul, com 22,8 GW, região onde está instalado o maior parque eólico do País, o de Osório, no Rio Grande do Sul, com 150 MW de potência. Os parques eólicos Osório, Sangradouro e dos Índios, que compõem o empreendimento de Osório, possuem juntos 75 turbinas com potência de 2 MW cada, o que totaliza os 150 MW. São turbinas de 70 metros de diâmetro e posicionadas a cem metros de altura.

Pane tem natureza muito diferente do apagão de 2001

Reproduzo abaixo artigo dos professores Nivalde de Castro e Roberto Brandão publicado na Folha de São Paulo no dia 12 de novembro de 2009.

Pane tem natureza muito diferente do apagão de 2001

NIVALDE J. CASTRO
ROBERTO BRANDÃO
ESPECIAL PARA A FOLHA

O grande blecaute de anteontem reacendeu no imaginário popular o fantasma do apagão. Tudo o que dá errado no Brasil em termos de infraestrutura é chamado de apagão. Fala-se de apagão aéreo, de apagão logístico, de apagão rodoviário. Mas o apagão original, aquele que popularizou o termo, foi o racionamento de energia de 2001.
O que houve na última terça, por mais impressionante que tenha sido pela extensão da área geográfica afetada, foi um evento de natureza muito diferente do apagão de 2001.
Naquele ano, o Brasil vinha de um longo período de baixos investimentos em geração e transmissão de energia elétrica. O índice de chuvas foi abaixo da média, e o sistema elétrico, que trabalhava sem a folga adequada, não teve como abastecer o país.
Hoje, a situação do setor elétrico é outra. Houve uma recuperação dos investimentos no setor, sobretudo em linhas de transmissão, mas também em geração termoelétrica e hídrica. Além disso, este tem sido um ano muito úmido, trazendo farta disponibilidade nos reservatórios das hidroelétricas.
Outro aspecto importante foi a crise econômica, que reduziu o consumo de energia elétrica, de modo tal que hoje temos uma carga menor do que havia sido antecipado.
Mas se tudo está tão bem com a geração e a transmissão de energia, como pôde ocorrer um blecaute como o de terça?
Ora, um blecaute, isto é, uma falha geral no sistema de transmissão, é um evento improvável, mas que pode acontecer. É um pouco como morrer fulminado por um raio: é difícil de ocorrer, mas não é impossível.
Anteontem, houve um desligamento simultâneo de três linhas de transmissão de 750 kV de Itaipu, cuja causa precisa ainda está sendo investigada. O sistema elétrico simplesmente não é capaz de resistir a um evento como esse.
Se considerarmos a lógica do planejamento e da operação do sistema de transmissão, entendemos que a perda de dois equipamentos de um mesmo circuito pode até ser contornada; mas a perda de três aparelhos com a mesma função sempre resulta em um blecaute.
A dimensão do blecaute é explicada pela importância do circuito atingido: o sistema de transmissão de Itaipu, o maior do país.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
NIVALDE J. CASTRO é coordenador do Gesel (Grupo de Estudos do Setor Elétrico) da UFRJ
ROBERTO BRANDÃO é pesquisador sênior do Gesel

Apagão dia 10/11/2009

Só posso afirmar que há muita insanidade na mídia sobre o apagão. De repente, todos os jornalistas se tornam especialistas em energia elétrica.

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL1374813-5598,00-MINISTERIO+DE+MINAS+E+ENERGIA+DIZ+QUE+APAGAO+ATINGIU+ESTADOS+BRASILEIROS.html

A Tirania do Petróleo

Recomendo fortemente a leitura do livro "A tirania do petróleo" de Antonia Juhasz. Neste livro, a autora mostra que a história da indústria do petróleo, "desde sua concepção até os dias atuais, é marcada por práticas anticompetitivas, antidemocráticas e social, econômica e politicamente destrutivas". A autora mostra também que as petrolíferas, em especial as chamadas sete irmãs, sempre buscaram práticas de captura dos governos. Entre as estratégias utilizadas pelas empresas está o constante financiamento da campanha de políticos defensores das empresas.

A autora mostra também que, apesar de as sete irmãs terem perdido poder com o surgimento do cartel dos países produtores, a OPEP, atualmente elas, que hoje são quatro, dominam o processo de formação de preço do petróleo por meio de operações no mercado futuro.

Em suma, mesmo nos EUA, há políticos discutindo a possibilidade de um bem tão estratégico como petróleo se tornar estatal. Afinal, energia é um bem político.

Em um post anterior, reproduzi um discurso do presidente americano sobre novos investimentos em energias renováveis. Em certo momento, o presidente diz que uma pesquisa do pentágono mostra o quão perigoso é depender de insumos fósseis importados. Logo, a saída é o investimento em energias renováveis, ou seja, o remédio caseiro.

Aqui no Brasil temos um futuro energético de dar inveja a qualquer outro país. Temos o pré-sal, o que nos dá uma imensa vantagem competitiva em relação ao mercado internacional de petróleo e gás. E, temos uma diversidade grande de recursos renováveis (água, biomassa, ventos, sol), que nos permitirá, no futuro, ter segurança energética com insumos energéticos renováveis.

Aquecimento Global

Ainda há aqueles que teimam em afirmar que a ação humana não tem contribuído para o aumento da temperatura média do planeta. O artigo reproduzido abaixo mostra um estudo estatístico refutando a ideia do 'esfriamento global'. Vale a pena ler.

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

By SETH BORENSTEIN (AP) – Oct 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It's been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather's normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

Yet the idea that things are cooling has been repeated in opinion columns, a BBC news story posted on the Drudge Report and in a new book by the authors of the best-seller "Freakonomics." Last week, a poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 57 percent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 percent in 2006.

Global warming skeptics base their claims on an unusually hot year in 1998. Since then, they say, temperatures have dropped — thus, a cooling trend. But it's not that simple.

Since 1998, temperatures have dipped, soared, fallen again and are now rising once more. Records kept by the British meteorological office and satellite data used by climate skeptics still show 1998 as the hottest year. However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."

One prominent skeptic said that to find the cooling trend, the 30 years of satellite temperatures must be used. The satellite data tends to be cooler than the ground data. And key is making sure 1998 is part of the trend, he added.

It's what happens within the past 10 years or so, not the overall average, that counts, contends Don Easterbrook, a Western Washington University geology professor and global warming skeptic.

"I don't argue with you that the 10-year average for the past 10 years is higher than the previous 10 years," said Easterbrook, who has self-published some of his research. "We started the cooling trend after 1998. You're going to get a different line depending on which year you choose.

"Should not the actual temperature be higher now than it was in 1998?" Easterbrook asked. "We can play the numbers games."

That's the problem, some of the statisticians said.

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

Apart from the conflicting data analyses is the eyebrow-raising new book title from Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, "Super Freakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance."

A line in the book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."

That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."

Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.

Statisticians say that in sizing up climate change, it's important to look at moving averages of about 10 years. They compare the average of 1999-2008 to the average of 2000-2009. In all data sets, 10-year moving averages have been higher in the last five years than in any previous years.

"To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous," said Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution at Stanford.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called it "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers" ahead of international climate talks in December in Copenhagen.

President Barack Obama weighed in on the topic Friday at MIT. He said some opponents "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change — claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

Earlier this year, climate scientists in two peer-reviewed publications statistically analyzed recent years' temperatures against claims of cooling and found them not valid.

Not all skeptical scientists make the flat-out cooling argument.

"It pretty much depends on when you start," wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

Oceans, which take longer to heat up and longer to cool, greatly influence short-term weather, causing temperatures to rise and fall temporarily on top of the overall steady warming trend, scientists say. The biggest example of that is El Nino.

El Nino, a temporary warming of part of the Pacific Ocean, usually spikes global temperatures, scientists say. The two recent warm years, both 1998 and 2005, were El Nino years. The flip side of El Nino is La Nina, which lowers temperatures. A La Nina bloomed last year and temperatures slipped a bit, but 2008 was still the ninth hottest in 130 years of NOAA records.

Of the 10 hottest years recorded by NOAA, eight have occurred since 2000, and after this year it will be nine because this year is on track to be the sixth-warmest on record.

The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend "will be never talked about again."

Obama e a política para energias renováveis

O presidente norte-americano, Barack Obama, deu mais uma demonstração de sua política direcionada a investimentos em energias limpas. No dia 23, o presidente foi ao MIT e, em sua palestra, conclamou os americanos a liderarem o setor de energias renováveis. É uma clara demonstração daquilo que o presidente havia dito quando ainda era candidato.

Abaixo reproduzo a íntegra de seu discurso:

Remarks by the President Challenging Americans to Lead the Global Economy in Clean Energy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please, have a seat. Thank you. Thank you, MIT. (Applause.) I am -- I am hugely honored to be here. It's always been a dream of mine to visit the most prestigious school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Applause.) Hold on a second -- certainly the most prestigious school in this part of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Laughter.) And I'll probably be here for a while -- I understand a bunch of engineering students put my motorcade on top of Building 10. (Laughter.)

This tells you something about MIT -- everybody hands out periodic tables. (Laughter.) What's up with that? (Laughter.)

I want I want to thank all of you for the warm welcome and for the work all of you are doing to generate and test new ideas that hold so much promise for our economy and for our lives. And in particular, I want to thank two outstanding MIT professors, Eric Lander, a person you just heard from, Ernie Moniz, for their service on my council of advisors on science and technology. And they have been hugely helpful to us already on looking at, for example, how the federal government can most effectively respond to the threat of the H1N1 virus. So I'm very grateful to them.

We've got some other special guests here I just want to acknowledge very briefly. First of all, my great friend and a champion of science and technology here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my friend Deval Patrick is here. (Applause.) Our Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here. (Applause.) Attorney General Martha Coakley is here. (Applause.) Auditor of the Commonwealth, Joe DeNucci is here. (Applause.) The Mayor of the great City of Cambridge, Denise Simmons is in the house. (Applause.) The Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, is not here, but he met me at the airport and he is doing great; he sends best wishes.

Somebody who really has been an all-star in Capitol Hill over the last 20 years, but certainly over the last year, on a whole range of issues -- everything from Afghanistan to clean energy -- a great friend, John Kerry. Please give John Kerry a round of applause. (Applause.)

And a wonderful member of Congress -- I believe this is your district, is that correct, Mike? Mike Capuano. Please give Mike a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT's Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren't built, but are grown -- that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create -- to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

And it's a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation -- not just here but across America -- that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America -- it's the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it's the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail -- but might also change the world.

Even in the darkest of times this nation has seen, it has always sought a brighter horizon. Think about it. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln designated a system of land grant colleges, including MIT, which helped open the doors of higher education to millions of people. A year -- a full year before the end of World War II, President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped unleash a wave of strong and broadly shared economic growth. And after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, the United States went about winning the Space Race by investing in science and technology, leading not only to small steps on the moon but also to tremendous economic benefits here on Earth.

So the truth is, we have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That's in our DNA. The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past. A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures is attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses and our government. A global marketplace that links the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street to the factory worker in China -- an economy in which we all share opportunity is also an economy in which we all share crisis. We face threats to our security that seek -- there are threats to our security that are based on those who would seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that's so essential to our prosperity. The system of energy that powers our economy also undermines our security and endangers our planet.

Now, while the challenges today are different, we have to draw on the same spirit of innovation that's always been central to our success. And that's especially true when it comes to energy. There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels -- we all understand there's no silver bullet to do it. There's going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that's importing oil to one that's exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at MIT to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. There are going to be all sorts of debates, both in the laboratory and on Capitol Hill. But there's no question that we must do all these things.

Countries on every corner of this Earth now recognize that energy supplies are growing scarcer, energy demands are growing larger, and rising energy use imperils the planet we will leave to future generations. And that's why the world is now engaged in a peaceful competition to determine the technologies that will power the 21st century. From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation. It's that simple. (Applause.)

That's why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America. And, by the way, helping to finance extraordinary research.

In fact, in just a few weeks, right here in Boston, workers will break ground on a new Wind Technology Testing Center, a project made possible through a $25 million Recovery Act investment as well as through the support of Massachusetts and its partners. And I want everybody to understand -- Governor Patrick's leadership and vision made this happen. He was bragging about Massachusetts on the way over here -- I told him, you don't have to be a booster, I already love the state. (Applause.) But he helped make this happen.

Hundreds of people will be put to work building this new testing facility, but the benefits will extend far beyond these jobs. For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world's newest and largest wind turbine blades -- blades roughly the length of a football field -- and that in turn will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades.

This grant follows other Recovery Act investments right here in Massachusetts that will help create clean energy jobs in this commonwealth and across the country. And this only builds on the work of your governor, who has endeavored to make Massachusetts a clean energy leader -- from increasing the supply of renewable electricity, to quadrupling solar capacity, to tripling the commonwealth's investment in energy efficiency, all of which helps to draw new jobs and new industries. (Applause.) That's worth applause.

Now, even as we're investing in technologies that exist today, we're also investing in the science that will produce the technologies of tomorrow. The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.) An increase -- that's an increase in funding that's already making a difference right here on this campus. And my budget also makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent -- a tax credit that spurs innovation and jobs, adding $2 to the economy for every dollar that it costs.

And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he's doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake -- (applause) -- everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that's far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America -- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are traveling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil -- (applause) -- we have a few of these folks here today, right there. (Applause.) The young people of this country -- that I've met all across America -- they understand that this is the challenge of their generation.

Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation, due in large part to the efforts of Massachusetts' own Ed Markey, he deserves a big round of applause. (Applause.) We're now seeing prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham joining forces with long-time leaders John Kerry on this issue, to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate as well. In fact, the Energy Committee, thanks to the work of its Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman, has already passed key provisions of comprehensive legislation.

So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it's important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy -- when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim -- make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.

So we're going to have to work on those folks. But understand there's also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way progress -- and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important -- that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

I reject that argument. I reject it because of what I've seen here at MIT. Because of what I have seen across America. Because of what we know we are capable of achieving when called upon to achieve it. This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers and this generation is no different.

Today's frontiers can't be found on a map. They're being explored in our classrooms and our laboratories, in our start-ups and our factories. And today's pioneers are not traveling to some far flung place. These pioneers are all around us -- the entrepreneurs and the inventors, the researchers, the engineers -- helping to lead us into the future, just as they have in the past. This is the nation that has led the world for two centuries in the pursuit of discovery. This is the nation that will lead the clean energy economy of tomorrow, so long as all of us remember what we have achieved in the past and we use that to inspire us to achieve even more in the future.

I am confident that's what's happening right here at this extraordinary institution. And if you will join us in what is sure to be a difficult fight in the months and years ahead, I am confident that all of America is going to be pulling in one direction to make sure that we are the energy leader that we need to be.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)