Electric Power Research Institute Gets A "Can Do" Attitude On Climate
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 08.15.07
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has released a study that shows that "the aggressive development and implementation of a full portfolio of advanced electricity technologies could reduce the economic cost of cutting future U.S. CO2 emissions by more than 50 per cent while meeting the continuing growth in demand for electricity." All this, and they haven't even accounted for the economic loss that would result from the "do nothing" alternative.
"Previous EPRI work has shown that absent investments in advanced technologies, significant reductions in future emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will result in higher prices for electricity and natural gas, and reduced economic growth."
"However, by developing and deploying advanced electricity technologies, such as a "smart" electricity grid, plug-in hybrid vehicles, new advanced nuclear reactors, and clean coal technologies with carbon capture and storage, this EPRI study shows that the same cuts in future U.S. CO2 emissions could be accomplished at much lower cost, saving as much as $1 trillion in future U.S. economic growth under some scenarios analyzed." Via::Power Engineering Image credit:: EPRI report cover excerpt. TreeHugger comment after the fold.
We note that EPRI seems to be assuming, as a base case, that carbon dioxide from coal-fired anything would be sequestered - good progress. The always controversial reliance on additional nuclear generation capacity is also noted; but, so is active consideration of conservation. More of that please.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton
- How to Cure Green Apathy in Friends and Family
- Did You Know Saving Water = Saving Electricity?
This is really interesting. Mostly, it shows how pointless nuclear is. It doesn't contribute much, but consider how much its gonna cost for that small possible incemental boost, as opposed to all those other energy streams.. I'm also not figuring in the downsides of nuclear either. I'm happy to see it quantified how pointless an undertaking it is.
What?? I don't think this shows that nuclear is pointless at all. It's contributing just as much as renewables or efficiency is. I think what their message is is that we need to develop all of the technologies listed, I don't think thats a bad strategy considering that some of them we don't even know if/when they will work. I'm really sick of hearing about the economic cost of this and that. We are a greedy, spoiled, hording society, we don't want to give up anything no matter how little it means to us. Do we really think that if we start implementing pollution controls and resource use restrictions that our economy is just going to collapse and we will all end up dieing of starvation in poverty. If people had to pay twice as much for their electricity what would they give up, their extra car, not getting another 60" plasma TV for their home theater room, maybe their kids would have to share a bedroom instead of having a couple hundred square feet of their own space. I think we would all be amazed at how much we can cut out of our lives before it would really ever impact our happiness. And thats my rant for the day.
It's contributing just as much, however to implement it costs many many times more (depending on how you calculate the risk.)
Simple math. This post proves nuclear is pointless.
Amen, brother. What we definitely need is more of doing without and living life as if it were a gift and not a birth right.
Quoted directly from their website
"EPRI's members represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the United States"
This report seems to be nothing but a grasp by todays energy producers to hold onto their power. Note the massive reliance on "clean" coal and nuclear. This report shows almost no reduction in reliance on those two sources, and only a 5% reduction in coal, with a 10% INCREASE in nuclear generation.
I support nuclear as a necessary tool to get off coal, not as a replacement for renewables, energy efficiency (other reports have shown MUCH higher potential), and low CO2 natural gas. Infact, the only this this does is cut natural gas use, and use fictional CCS. CCS has never been proved to work in the capture OR the storage.
=== author's response follows ====
Thanks for the insightful comment. At least they've gotten off the "it will destroy our economy" bandwagon, which makes it that much harder for dip stick politicians to throw that talking point around.
Would you mind linking us to a few of the studies you that offer different scenarios?
Nah, the original poster is all wet.
Nuclear clearly contributes every bit as much as other options and it's not at all clear that it would "cost several times more" as alleged. The going in assumption on the part of the study is that any nuclear plants would be "new and advanced", and that means we'd build them smartly and using modular components rather than hand-crafting the things as was done all through the '60s and '70s. Get rid of the hysterical lawsuits to stop them and you've got good, cheap, reliable power at minimal risk with minimal CO2 contributions.
One shouldn't bring their anti-nuclear biases to this argument if you want real change. I'm not particularly a fan of or believer in technology advancements in the carbon capture realm either but it's important to try.
The GOAL is to get to a cleaner, healthier energy production suite. We won't get there without every option on the table.
Ferretman
Get rid of the hysterical lawsuits to stop them and you've got good, cheap, reliable power at minimal risk with minimal CO2 contributions.
The nuclear energy industry has been flogging that line since the 50s -- except for the CO2 part they desperately (and cynically) inject now.
Can we start TV without electric power. and can we use to start AA/1.5V battery.