King coal: U.S. electricity generation by energy source; electricity generation accounts for 33 percent of total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.
Source: EIA
The great electrification projects of the 19th and 20th centuries created a world where (at least in developed countries) electricity is as common as clean water. They also created a world addicted to fossil fuels. Globally, over 40 percent of electricity is generated from coal and another 20 percent from natural gas, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.
The consensus that carbon dioxide is changing the climate in dangerous ways has convinced most politicians, scientists, and industrialists that we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The U.S. Congress is currently considering a bill that calls for a 17 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 2005 levels by 2020.
But renewable power represents only about 9 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Solar power is responsible for a scant 0.02 percent. The reality is that renewable power and other alternatives to fossil fuels, including nuclear, remain too expensive to compete with coal and natural gas. Coal costs about two to four cents per kilowatt-hour; electricity from photovoltaics costs about five times that. Even with legislative efforts to increase the cost of emitting carbon, for the foreseeable future the imposed cost of emissions will probably to be too low to drive substantial investment in alternatives. Compounding the problem, the worldwide credit crisis that began last fall effectively halted construction of new types of power plants, many of which cost hundreds of millions to build.
Renewables are unlikely to end our reliance on fossil fuels within the next 20 years. But that is no reason for inaction. Smarter policy decisions and technological innovation can reduce what our energy sources contribute to climate change. Legislation that puts a price on carbon emissions is essential, but it must be based on a full accounting of environmental and economic costs. It is also critical that government and industry make a long-term commitment to funding energy research. The goals are clear: a smarter grid that can handle intermittent power sources and distribute and store electricity more efficiently; a realistic and safe approach to carbon sequestration; and lower-cost photovoltaics that could finally fulfill the immense potential of solar power.
Hello TechReview,
Carbon Sciences (CABN.OB) has 'scalable technology' for capture of CO2 'At The Flue', and converting the CO2 into HydroCarbons:
About Carbon Sciences Inc.
Carbon Sciences Inc. is developing a breakthrough technology to transform carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions into the basic fuel building blocks required to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other portable fuels. Innovating at the intersection of chemical engineering and bio-engineering disciplines, we are developing a highly scalable biocatalytic process to meet the fuel needs of the world. Our solution to energy and climate challenges is a sustainable world of fuel consumption and climate stability by transforming CO2 into fuel. For example, Carbon Sciences' breakthrough technology can be used to transform CO2 emitted from fossil fuel power plants into gasoline to run cars and jet fuel to fly aircraft. To learn more about the Company, please visit our website at http://www.carbonsciences.com.
Roy Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
I can't believe that a supposedly scientific publication is doing an entire series on renewable energy, not because it can reduce pollution writ large, not because it will need to ramp up as fossil fuels are expended, not for any number of GOOD reasons, but because of a mythology which has not one shred of actual, documented, scientific proof!!!! this is pathetic. I applaud the focus on renewable energy, but tying it to the carbon emission scare tactics of the left quite simply destroys your credibility as a serious scientific/technological journal.
Smithsomian, there is only one word to describe your rant and that's "Sad".
It's hard to believe that there are still some relics out there like you, who would still maintain that climate change is "a mythology which has not one shred of actual, documented, scientific proof!". Please take your head out of the sand. Even George Bush admitted towards the end of his presidency that he'd got it wrong.
And then to blame it on that great American bogieman - "the left", Ooooooooooooooh!
The only one lacking credibility here is you.
you might note that I said nothing about the accuracy or otherwise of "climate change." clearly, there is a trend of warming. that is not the issue. the claim of anthropogenic climate change or global warming, however, has not a single shred of actual proof, just as I stated. I am not sure that an expression of shock that an otherwise superior scientific publication would sign onto a political bandwagon counts as a rant, but so be it. I probably should not have said "the left," though I am hard-pressed to find anyone not associated with the liberal establishment who gives anthropogenic climate change any credence at all. using a theory without any proof to drive massive taxes, economic changes, etc., is just not good policy, and a technical publication should not be supporting any such idea.
The subject of global warming has become so politically charged that actual constructive debate is very difficult, and objective research even harder.
Having said that I personally believe human activity is driving global climate change. We don't have sufficient understanding of how the global climate works to predict the changes we're driving. In much research the margin of error is larger than the predicted changes due to human activity.
The uncertainty is actually my biggest cause for concern. We're engaged in the biggest uncontrolled experiment in human history and I find that VERY frightening. We need actions across multiple fronts to reduce the potential damage.
The first action should be significant conservation. Improve the biggest energy users and the easiest changes first. Replacing a truck that gets 15 MPG with one that gets 25 MPG will have a much bigger impact than replacing a 30 MPG compact car with a hybrid that gets 60. Phase out conventional light bulbs. Synchronize the national traffic grid. That alone will save over 10% of our oil use. Modify building codes to cut household energy demand in half. The technology is available and MUCH more cost effective than renewable fuels.
A large scale program to cost reduce nuclear power would be a huge win. Nuclear power has proven very reliable and cost effective. Standardized designs that use spent fuel would solve two problems at once, reducing carbon footprint, and reducing nuclear waste. Also look at nuclear power as renewable. And force the federal government to actually keep its commitment to reprocess spent fuel.
Accelerate research on hot rock geothermal. We've been drilling and fracturing rock for decades for oil. Adapt the technology to drill for heat in rock.
Change land use. Paint roofs and streets white.
Last of all, accept that coal will need to be a big part of our energy future for a long time. Conduct materials research to develop higher temperature boilers and turbines that can increase efficiency and reduce carbon.
Biofuels and solar energy have become the poster technologies of Green. Unfortunately their impact is close to zero and will not grow enough to make a significant difference. Ridged mandates on biofuels and solar will only slow progress in other areas, and divert funding and talent from areas that can make a more significant impact.
Re: Renewables, the best choice?
well said. you state very little with which I disagree, with the caveat that all these actions need to include awareness of and mitigation for their economic impact. those are all good actions, but they should not be executed at teh expense of our economy, and they should not be driven by a false sense of urgency about a problem that has been thoroughly hyped, but has no rigorous proof.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
amit_varde
1 Comment
broken link
sorry didn't know a better feedback format
the Read more links are broken in the articles but work fromt he home page.
Reply