SUBSCRIBE TO TMCnet
TMCnet - World's Largest Communications and Technology Community

CHANNEL BY TOPICS


QUICK LINKS




Study Says Switch to Clean Energy Would Not Be Pricey or Dicey

Renewable energy

Welcome to
Renewable energy

Renewable energy - Featured Article

November 17, 2011

Study Says Switch to Clean Energy Would Not Be Pricey or Dicey

By Cheryl Kaften
TMCnet Contributor

Share

It is a misconception that switching to renewable energy would leave the United States with an unreliable and unreasonably expensive power supply.  In fact, switching to clean energy could save the nation’s electricity customers $83 billion over the next 40 years—and could also save lives and create jobs.


Those are the major conclusions of a new study conducted by Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Synapse Energy Economics on behalf of the nonprofit Civil Society Institute, based in Newton, Massachusetts.

The findings should receive a warm reception from most Americans. According to the researchers, more than three out of four Americans (77 percent)—comprising 65 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of Independents, 88 percent of Democrats, and 56 percent of Tea Party members—believe that,  “The United States needs to be a clean energy technology leader; and it should invest in the research and domestic manufacturing of wind, solar, and energy efficiency technologies."Titled "Toward a Sustainable Future for the U.S. Power Sector: Beyond Business as Usual 2011," the Synapse/CSI (News - Alert) report also details other major benefits of green energy, including: 

  • Avoiding tens of thousands of premature deaths due to pollution;
  • Creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs;
  • Diminishing carbon pollution; and
  • Significantly reducing the amount of water needed for power production.

The study comes at a time, said the authors, when the use of fracking in natural gas exploration is coming under scrutiny, with evidence of groundwater contamination and greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns are increasing about the vast amounts of water used at coal-fired and nuclear power plants, particularly in regions of the country facing water shortages. Events at the Fukushima nuclear plant have renewed doubts about the ability to operate large numbers of nuclear plants safely over the long term. Further, cost estimates for “next generation” nuclear units continue to climb, and lenders are unwilling to finance these plants without taxpayer guarantees.

In addition, the study points out, “Information has emerged over the past year suggesting that the cost of replacing coal with clean energy is falling. The current and projected price of coal has increased, and the price of photovoltaic (PV) systems has fallen sharply since 2009, a result of unprecedented growth in this sector globally. Further, the financial sector is increasingly placing risk premiums on technologies with carbon emissions, making renewable energy and efficiency more attractive in comparison.”

Specifically, the steep health and environmental risks of coal-fired electricity could be dramatically reduced and, by 2050, eliminated altogether when all such facilities are retired.  For example, over 50,000 premature deaths would be avoided relative to status quo trends linked to pollution from coal-fired plants. Due in part to a significantly increased emphasis on energy efficiency, power sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2020 would fall 25 percent below 2010 levels; by 2050, such pollution would be 81 percent below 2010 levels. Under status quo trends, CO2 emissions would increase 28 percent from current levels by 2050.

The construction and operation of the new power plants in the first decade would create jobs for about 310,000 people. However, the authors caution, “It is important to note that there would be other economic impacts as well: jobs created by lower cost electricity; jobs created in dismantling coal and nuclear plants and remediating the sites; and jobs lost in operating coal and nuclear plants, mining coal, and other associated activities. Assessing all of these dynamics was beyond the scope of this work.”All good news? Well, the study does rely on one variable that many environmentalists may see as a drawback:  Natural gas use in 2050 would be reduced 28 percent from projected levels for 2050. However, according to the report, “Fueling North America’s Energy Future The Unconventional Natural Gas Revolution and the Carbon Agenda,” released last year by Massachusetts-based IHS (News - Alert) Cambridge Energy Research Associates, North American natural gas resources have increased by more than 1,800 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) over the past three years, bringing the total natural gas resource base to more than 3,000 Tcf—a level that could supply U.S. current consumption for well over 100 years.

Just this week, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a bill that would provide incentives to U.S. manufacturers for producing or retrofitting natural gas-powered vehicles (NGVs), as well as for building natural gas refueling infrastructure. The New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NAT GAS) Act of 2011 also would expand tax credits to consumers of dedicated natural gas vehicles and certain bi-fuel and dual-fuel alternative natural gas vehicles to help offset incremental cost; subject to caps, depending on vehicle size.  It would be fully paid for by a temporary user fee at the natural gas pump.

Therefore, the questionable nature of natural gas “fracking” will have to be resolved before all before the report gets full approval from green advocacy groups.

Civil Society Institute President Pam Solo said:  "U.S. policymakers and others who assume that a safe, renewable energy future —including an end to reliance on coal-fired electric power and a sharply reduced reliance on nuclear power and natural gas —is impractical and too expensive for the United States to achieve are wrong.  The truth is that America can and should embrace a workable and cost-effective future that is built on safe, renewable energy.  Not only is it feasible and less expensive to do so, but we really have no other choice as a nation, given the concerns about coal emissions, natural gas 'fracking,' and nuclear reactor safety."Synapse Energy Economics President Bruce Biewald said,  "The results of our new analysis are very encouraging. We find that a transition to efficiency and renewable energy for our electricity is likely to be less expensive than the business-as-usual status quo approach. There are indications now that the cost of replacing coal with clean energy is falling. The current and projected price of coal has increased, and the price of photovoltaic systems has fallen sharply since 2009, a result of unprecedented growth in this sector globally. Further, the financial community is placing higher risk premiums on technologies with carbon emissions, making renewable energy and efficiency more attractive."


Cheryl Kaften is an accomplished communicator who has written for consumer and corporate audiences. She has worked extensively for MasterCard (News - Alert) Worldwide, Philip Morris USA (Altria), and KPMG, and has consulted for Estee Lauder and the Philadelphia Inquirer Newspapers. To read more of her articles, please visit her columnist page.

Edited by Rich Steeves

View all Renewable energy Articles >>>

Renewable energy Related Articles









Technology Marketing Corporation

2 Trap Falls Road Suite 106, Shelton, CT 06484 USA
Ph: +1-203-852-6800, 800-243-6002

General comments: [email protected].
Comments about this site: [email protected].

STAY CURRENT YOUR WAY

© 2024 Technology Marketing Corporation. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy