|
March-April 2008
|
< previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Wind power is the fastest-growing component of the world’s renewable-energy portfolio. In its 2007 Alternative Policy Scenario, the International Energy Agency (an organization funded by 27 of the world’s largest energy-consuming countries) projected the possibility of an 18-fold increase in wind-powered generation of electricity globally by 2030. The most impressive growth was forecast for Europe where, it was suggested, 30 percent of electricity could be contributed by renewable sources (mainly wind). Europe’s commitment to sustainable energy is based in large measure on a conviction that the threat of future climate change is real and urgent. The Bush administration has not as yet seen fit to share this view; should future U.S. administrations do so, there is no doubt that wind power could make an important contribution to the future production of electricity in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest Laboratory estimates the country’s total annual wind-power potential at 10,777 billion kWh (a number our analysis suggests may be conservative), more than twice the amount of electricity consumed in the country in 2006 (4,000 billion kWh): resources available in North Dakota alone could accommodate more than 60 percent of total current U.S. demand (see “Running on Wind?” page 32). Wind power today accounts for only about 1 percent of the nation’s supply of electricity, but that contribution is increasing rapidly. For the boom to endure, both federal and state government must demonstrate their long-term commitment to wind energy—and regulators must approve and fast-track authorization for expanding the transmission systems required to connect these potential new sources of power to the national electrical grid. Nuclear power can also contribute to our energy future—depending on how the public perceives the safety factor. There is an urgent need for public education and discourse to identify both the risks and benefits of nuclear power, and for policies that will enhance the latter while reducing the potential of the former. It will be important, for example, to formulate viable plans for both interim storage and longer-term disposal of nuclear waste. (An international committee convened under the auspices of the U.S. National Research Council in 2001 recommended that: “Decision makers, particularly those in national programs, should recognize the public’s reluctance to accept irreversible actions and emphasize monitoring and retrievability.”) From a purely technical point of view, both of these challenges appear manageable. With such a strategy in place, nuclear power (together with wind) can provide an economically competitive, environmentally constructive alternative to carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Pursuing the Wrong Paths?Effecting the transition from today’s carbon-intensive energy system to a less carbon-intensive energy future will require a more focused approach than that defined in last December’s energy bill. Among other initiatives, the act would encourage increased use of coal coupled with capture and burial of the resulting CO2, in addition to greatly expanded production of ethanol. Current multibillion-dollar federal subsidies encourage the conversion of abundantly available coal to an energy-rich but cleaner alternative, either gas or liquid: so-called clean-coal technology. The problem is that turning coal into liquid requires more coal to be consumed and more CO2 to be produced than would be the case if the coal were consumed directly. In principle, this CO2 could be captured and sequestered: buried in saline aquifers; in abandoned coal, gas, and oil fields; or even in deep-ocean sediments (see “Fueling Our Future,” May-June 2006, page 40). But the quantities involved would be enormous: billions of tons per year, with costs estimated conservatively at a minimum of $30 per ton of CO2, and with significant prospects for NUMBY (“Not under my back yard!”) public opposition were such a strategy to be implemented on a large scale. Converting biomass to ethanol offers a potential means to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Global production of ethanol is projected to rise to more than 15 billion gallons this year—more than half produced by processing corn in the United States (the new energy bill sets a goal of 9 billion gallons for U.S. production in 2008, increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022, and projecting that by that time, 21 billion gallons would be derived from sources such as cellulose). Hailed initially as a panacea, ethanol has now become an important target for criticism. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has described ethanol as “a cure that is worse than the disease.” The controversy reflects concern that demand for ethanol has driven up the price of corn and potentially the price of other food crops that might be displaced by corn (see my article “The Ethanol Illusion,” November-December 2006, page 33). Despite hopes that in the future ethanol could be produced from nonfood sources, such as switchgrass and wood chips—so-called cellulosic ethanol (strongly promoted in the new energy law)—does it make sense to spend significant resources to convert cellulose to ethanol when more energy could be delivered simply by burning the cellulose and converting 30 percent or more of its embedded energy to electricity? (Because the carbon contained in the cellulose is derived from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, this could be accomplished with no net additional emission of CO2; producing ethanol from either corn or cellulose, on the other hand, is associated inevitably with significant emission of greenhouse gases.) Promoting Practical PoliciesTo return to the twin challenges for energy policy posed at the outset: We could save money and markedly reduce our dependence on imported oil by promoting a transition in the transportation sector from today’s reliance on gasoline-fueled internal-combustion engines to increased use of electricity delivered to plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we could reduce emissions of CO2 released from generating electricity by promoting increased use of non-fossil alternatives such as wind and nuclear power. A phased reduction in use of fossil fuels in the electricity sector could be promoted by a carbon tax (which would raise gasoline prices for drivers, too), or by requiring electricity producers to acquire permits for emission of CO2. If permits were auctioned for as little as $20 per ton of CO2, the revenue raised could be as much as $50 billion per year—comparable to the levy now imposed by state and federal taxes on gasoline. Allowing permits to be traded would encourage selection of the most efficient means to reduce emissions. Revenues raised by auctioning the permits could be used to compensate for tax revenue lost due to the reduction in gasoline sales, and potentially also to promote non-carbon energy alternatives. Weaning Americans from an energy system based largely on carbon-emitting coal, oil, and gas will not be easy. Embedded interests (coal and oil companies and operators of gasoline stations, for example) will inevitably be threatened and will surely resist. It is a challenge, though, that we must meet. The present system is simply not sustainable.
Michael B. McElroy is Butler professor of environmental studies.  
 
 
|
