Clean Energy Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
As the new home of NMPIRG's environmental work,
Environment New Mexico can be contacted with any questions regarding this report.
Modern life relies on energy. Energy
gets us from place to place,
enables us to live in otherwise
inhospitable climates, and lights our lives.
Had we failed to invent the light bulb,
the combustion engine, or the refrigerator,
our lives would be immeasurably
different — and shockingly limited.
Because our dependence on energy is
so absolute, we require a reliable energy
supply at stable prices. We should be able
to use energy when we need it, and pay a
reasonable, predictable amount for it.
Further, the tradeoffs we make for energy
should be sensible; that is, they
should not create massive costs in other
realms of the economy or our lives.
Recent fluctuations in supply, price,
and policy have brought us to a crossroads
for our energy future. We have a choice
between the energy plan being proposed
by President Bush, which would increase
our reliance on dirty, unsustainable fossil
fuels and nuclear fission and ultimately
increase our nation’s dependence on unstable
foreign sources, or an entirely different
path to a new energy future. That
new energy future should be characterized
by energy efficiency, reliance on
clean, unlimited, and universally accessible
energy sources, and a commitment
to end the unacceptable tradeoff of our
health and environmental quality for fossil
fuel.
The Bush energy plan promotes and
accelerates investment in the same
sources of energy we have relied on
throughout the last half-century — fossil
fuels and uranium — as well as in the infrastructure
that converts those fuels into
power we can use. The plan proposes
1,300 new power plants (more than one
per week for the next 20 years), 38,000
miles of new gas pipelines (ten times the
distance from Maine to California), expanded
fuel exploration and production to keep these plants operating, and dramatically
increased air pollution from
utilities.
The problems with the Bush energy
plan break down into the following major
areas:
Escalating
environmental tradeoffs
The extraction of fossil fuels is a messy
business that we have been willing to accept
in return for the payoff of relatively
cheap energy. But we are fast approaching
the point at which the tradeoff is no
longer tolerable. The oil, gas, and coal
industries argue that the resources they
provide are essentially unlimited: go
ahead, use it up, we’ll get more. What
they fail to explain is that they will soon
only be able to get more by exploring in
locations that have long been held sacrosanct,
off-limits to the destructive processes
of drilling and mining due to their
intrinsic beauty and environmental value.
The fact that the Bush energy plan calls
for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, Florida’s Gulf Coast, the
Rocky Mountains, and more underscores
the unsustainability of our current energy
path. Today these places, tomorrow...
where? We simply can’t afford to assault
these significant pieces of our national
heritage for oil that will last us only a few
years – especially when better alternatives
are available.
Further, the burning of fossil fuels is
the chief cause of the global warming that
is causing worldwide climate change. The
tradeoff for continuing down the old energy
path will be increased temperatures
and massive weather changes that will be
devastating to the economy and our lives.
Nuclear power is another environmental
nightmare. Irradiated nuclear
fuel, arguably the most dangerous substance
known, is piling up in temporary storage facilities all around the country
with no sound method for handling the
waste. There is no good solution to this
problem, and there may never be. This
waste remains dangerous to humans and
other living things for at least a quarter
of a million years. Five metric tons of
high-level radioactive waste is generated
every day, with more than 34,000 tons
already in temporary storage at the power
plants. The mining and enrichment of
uranium itself generates tons of waste
which threatens nearby waterways.
Public health costs
Half the country lives in places where air
quality exceeds basic health standards. In
1999, the health standard for smog was
exceeded 7,694 times in 41 states, and
fossil fuel power plants are the number
one culprit. In the U.S., energy production
and use is the cause of 95% of smog,
92% of fine particulate matter, and 34%
of mercury emissions. These hazards lead
to asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and
other respiratory ailments, as well as
cancer and under-development of the
brain and nervous system. We also experience
these problems in our economy as
excessive health care costs and lost productivity.
Deepening our reliance on fossil
fuels would exacerbate this public
health crisis.
Energy production and use is the primary source of:
Global Climate Change 82%
Acid Rain 85%
Smog 95%
Nuclear Waste 95%
Oil Spills 100%
Wasteful spending on
outmoded technology
Most experts agree that our days of reliance
on fossil fuel and nuclear power are
numbered because we are in the process
of developing clean and sustainable
sources, including wind power, solar photovoltaics,
and the hydrogen fuel cell. It
simply makes no sense to make a massive
investment in old-fashioned energy when
a worldwide conversion is likely inevitable.
Were we to pour equivalent resources
into clean alternatives today
instead of investing in the Bush energy
plan, our clean energy future would be
much quicker to arrive. Instead, we’re
being asked to pour money into outmoded
power plants, pipelines, vehicles,
and other infrastructure that may not
even serve its useful lifetime.
An increasingly unreliable future
By boosting our reliance on fossil fuels
and largely dismissing energy efficiency
and renewable energy, the Bush energy
plan would ultimately force increased
dependence on foreign oil by increasing
our overall oil dependence. To date, we’ve
used up 63% of the total historical and
projected crude oil reserves in the U.S.,
while other countries still have 80% of
their total stock left. While increased
domestic oil exploration and recovery
might cause a short-term reduction in
imports as a percentage of consumption,
it would only exacerbate the problem
later. The only long-term means to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil is to
reduce our dependence on oil altogether.
For our electricity needs, energy companies
are pointing to natural gas as the
principal answer, but this leaves electricity
markets vulnerable to uncertain natural
gas flows and annual fluctuations in
supply. Recent brownouts in California
and price spikes around the country are
partly the result of reductions in the available
supply of natural gas.
Lack of consumer protection
The Bush energy plan favors large companies
focused on traditional energy
production and fails to promote opportunities
for more nimble entrepreneurs to
develop new technologies. The large traditional
companies wield enormous
power over the market with little democratic
oversight. In addition, electricity
deregulation has left consumers vulnerable
to fluctuating energy prices. Consumers
in some states have already seen
prices rise dramatically due to skyrocketing
wholesale prices set by companies
that are reaping record profits.
A Smarter, Cleaner Energy Future
The alternative to the Bush energy plan
is an immediate investment in a smarter,
cleaner energy future. Strong support for
energy conservation and efficiency,
coupled with increased emphasis on the
development of renewable energy, will
produce solutions to the immediate energy
crisis, make the energy supply more
diverse and reliable, and move us along
the path of a clean, healthy, and reliable
energy future.
Conservation and Efficiency
Energy conservation and efficiency measures
should always be our first response
to potential supply/demand imbalances.
They have the same effect as increasing
supply without the negative consequences
of increased energy production and use.
In most cases, efficiency measures that
reduce demand are also cheaper and faster
to implement than supply-side options.
The California Public Utility Commission
recently calculated that energy
efficiency programs in that state have cost
an average of 1.6 ¢/kWh, about a third
of the typical cost of new fossil fuel power
plants. And whereas large gas-fired power
plants take 2–5 years to get online, savings
from conservation measures can be
realized in days or months. These savings
can last as long as or longer than new
power plants in the case of durable equipment
and buildings.
There are great opportunities for energy
conservation and energy efficiency
improvements in each of the main sectors
of energy use — transportation, industrial
processes, and buildings &
appliances. Vehicle manufacturers have
made great strides in fuel economy technology,
yet have not used these technologies
to sell more efficient cars. Industry
is slowly integrating whole system design
into their factories and using more
efficient motors and pumps. Building
codes and appliance standards have the
potential to greatly reduce energy consumption
in commercial and residential
buildings.
Renewable Energy
Renewable energy production has moved
from its infancy to a significant source of
power with the potential to grow exponentially
in the next few years and beyond.
After decades of developing the
technology and identifying the resources,
we can put this knowledge into action and
significantly change the energy mix.
The best wind, solar thermal, and geothermal
projects can now produce electricity
for the same cost as fossil fuel
electricity production. Many other
projects could be developed at costs in
the range of 51/2¢/kWh. This is close
enough to the roughly 41/2¢/kWh cost
of generation from coal and natural gas
that it is worth our while to develop these
resources now. The benefits will be felt
throughout our economy in lower health
care costs resulting from air pollution
from power plants and less environmental
damage from fossil fuel extraction and
polluted air and water. Plus, generation
costs will continue to decrease through
economies of scale as new technologies
become more widespread. Renewable
energy production also creates well-paying,
technology-oriented jobs.
For all of these reasons, stimulating
renewable energy production is a more sensible long-term investment than propping
up traditional energy systems. Most
energy companies are reluctant to develop
renewable energy projects even at
equal cost to traditional fuels because of
the inevitable uncertainties of new technology.
But while they are less proven,
renewables will be more beneficial and
should be given higher priority.
Through a combination of requiring
electricity retailers to buy power from renewable
energy producers and providing
financial incentives to narrow the cost
difference, we could capitalize on a wealth
of renewable energy opportunities. The
federal government should require that
electricity retailers buy at least 20% of
their supplies from renewable energy
producers by 2020 and should stimulate
production through R&D subsidies and
government procurement policies.
The nation needs to make a policy
choice this year that will determine our
energy structure for the coming years and
decades. One path includes increased
subsidies to fossil fuel and nuclear power
companies, weakened clean air protections,
extending the lifetimes of nuclear
plants, and drilling in many sensitive areas
throughout the country. The other
path starts now with our transition to
smarter, cleaner energy sources by encouraging
renewable energy development
and committing ourselves to energy
conservation and efficiency. As this second
path would reduce damage to our
health and the environment and would
save us money in the long run, it would
be irresponsible to ignore this opportunity
and drive the country further into
fossil fuel dependence and nuclear risk.
|
