National Academy blockbuster: Cleaner energy possible
Coal industry supports don’t much like it when they are confronted with the inevitability of changes in our energy system to deal with global warming. One typical response: To throw out figures about how much our nation relies on coal and argue that there’s no way to replace the 50 percent of our electricity that comes from burning it.
But a new study – just out this morning from the National Academy of Sciences — explains that a cleaner energy future is possible. Sure, it’s a major undertaking, and it might increase costs. But its doable, and it’s necessary to save the planet, according to the scientific consensus spelled out in the report. And guess what? It might even be able to include coal, if the industry stops fighting change and works to perfect and deploy carbon capture and storage technologies.
According to the NAS report, “America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation“:
With a sustained national commitment, the United States could obtain substantial energy-efficiency improvements, new sources of energy, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through the accelerated deployment of existing and emerging energy technologies …Â
But …
Initiating deployment of these technologies is urgent: Actions taken — or not taken — between now and 2020 to develop and demonstrate several key technologies will largely determine the nation’s energy options for many decades to come.
One solution? Energy efficiency, which the study says is “a near-term and low-cost way to reduce U.S. energy demand:
Fully deploying these technologies is buildings alone could save enough power to eliminate the need for new electricity generating plants to meet growing U.S. demand. However, some new plants would likely still be needed to address regional supply imbalances, replace obsolete technology, or present more environmentally friendly sources of energy.
Deployment of efficiency technologies in the building, industrial, and transportation sectors could reduce projected U.S. energy use by 15 percent in 2020 and by 30 percent in 2030. Even greater energy savings would be possible with more aggressive policies and incentives.
In addition, the study explains:
 The United States have many promising options for obtaining new sources of electricity over the next two to three decades, especially if carbon capture and storage and evolutionary nuclear technologies can be deployed at an adequate scale.
However … the deployment of these new technologies is very likely to result in higher consumer prices for electricity. In addition, the nation’s energy grid will require expansion and modernization to enhance its reliability and security, accommodate changes in load growth and electricity demand, and to enable the deployment of new energy efficiency and supply technologies, especially intermittent wind and solar energy.
11 comments
Energy Efficiency — Cheap, Clean, and Made in the USA!
Here’s a link to a legal brief that was just filed by the West Virginia Citizen Action Group before the West Virginia Public Service Commission, in AEP’s pending electricity rate increase case:
http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scripts/WebDocket/ViewDocument.cfm?CaseActivityID=273866&NotType=‘WebDocket’.
Introductory paragraph: “If the citizens and businesses of West Virginia are to be required to pay the Companies substantially increased rates for electricity, the West Virginia Public Service
Commission must see that those increased rates are accompanied by an all-out effort by the Companies in the area of demand-side management and energy efficiency (”DSM/EE”); and by strong programs to lessen the severe, adverse impact of the increases on low-income West Virginians.”
Lots of good info in the brief on how energy efficiency and demand-side management can dramatically reduce the need for new electricity generation facilities and save businesses and consumers big bucks.
now if you can get the same people that are trying to stop the wind farm from being built,that would be a start.it seems to me no matter what you do,if it’s coal you’ve got someone against it.if it’s a wind farm you ‘ve got someone against it,and don’t even talk about nuclear power.so you tell us,apparently you have all the answers, mr. ward, our ears are open to what your input is on this subject.
Randy Clements, I understand your point. And one reason that investing in energy efficiency is such a strong idea is that there are essentially no interest groups that are against it.
One problem with getting energy efficiency programs going full-blast has been that electricity has been so cheap that in many cases, it costs more to conserve it than to generate it.
But those days are over, and energy efficiency programs can now save consumers money and reduce greenhouse gases. A rare thing, a true “win-win.”
thomas , i believe in this global warming, and i understand that it will cost us more “out of pocket ” to clean up our enviroment.there is also a bigger picture here other than just coal.people worry about their jobs,and as i’ve said,i would like to know if all these activists are preaching the talk or are actually walking the walk,so to speak.as i’ve pointed out there are people speaking out against the coal companies,but that have and are polluting the enviroment in other ways.until we agree on how to produce this power,then all of this isn’t going anywhere.if we all don’t do our part, then there is no point in doing anything at all.
A quick correction: contrary to coal industry claims, coal no longer supplies 50% of our electricity. According to the Energy Information Administration’s Electric Power Monthly, coal produced just 43.9% of electricity in April of this year.
We still burn a lot of coal, but it’s American ingenuity that keeps the lights on.
Thanks, Matt.
Those are very interesting numbers for anyone who wants to look at it, they’re available here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
A couple things jumped out at me:
– For the years shown there, net generation has increased 22.6 percent (counting only the full years from 1995 to 2008.
– At the same time, coal generation went up 16.7 percent.
– During that period, coal’s share dropped from 50.9 percent to 48.5 percent.
You may know more about these data than I do … but I would hesitate to pull out just one month’s numbers … if you look at the last rolling 12 months figures, coal’s share is 47.3 percent — between the 43.9 percent you cite and the 50 percent I mentioned in this post.
Still, the narrative that goes with the data page (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html) states:
The drop in coal-fired generation was the largest absolute fuel-specific decline from April 2008 to April 2009 as it fell by 20,551 thousand megawatthours, or 13.9 percent.
Very interesting numbers. Thanks again, Matt.
[…] This post was Twitted by Kenwardjr […]
Ken,
You’re absolutely right and I stand corrected in regard to my implication that the number from April is more general. I think your rolling 12 months analysis provides a more accurate assessment of where we’re at: 47.3%. Of course, that number has been on a declining trend over the last 12 months, so it will be real interesting to see what the May and June figures look like - and I’ll also concede that the picture could change somewhat if there’s a bigger than expended rebound in the price of natural gas.
That said, I think the fact that coal’s share of electric generation is declining and currently stands well below the commonly-cited 50% figure is important and very much under-reported.
I also stand by the statement that “American ingenuity keeps the lights on” and will continue to do so whether or not coal use continues it’s recent rapid declines.
randy clements, believe me I would love to see windmills on all the mountains around where I live. If you had a massive MTR site bearing down on you, most likely you would rather have the windmills too. I would love to be off the grid, and maybe someday that will be a possiblity. In the meantime, I would love to see cleaner less destructive ways of producing electricity for everyone.
Matt, Ken,
Does the big dip in April have to do with utilities buying relatively more electricity from (now often cheaper) natural gas plants, along the line of what Joe Romm predicted?
http://test.cp.techprogress.org/2009/06/10/game-changer-part-2-why-unconventional-natural-gas-makes-the-2020-waxman-markey-target-so-damn-easy-and-cheap-to-meet/
It could be significant
That is a great article. Thank you for sharing.
Leave a Comment