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 percent while meeting the continuing growth in demand for electricity according to research from the Electric Power Research Institute.
EPRI says that previous research 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,The Power to Reduce CO2 Emissions -? The Full Portfolio (PDF), says 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.
Retailers, Developers and Eco-Business Leaders...learn about green retail trends, consumer buying habits and sustainable business practices. Register NOW to Attend!
The 2008 Green Leaders Survey collects sustainability program insights from business and civic leaders. Learn from peers what works and what doesn't. Take survey>>
Recycling rates in the U.S. are low and getting lower. The U.S., by far the world's biggest consumer of aluminum ... continue »
Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of financial institution executives say they plan to build new or undergo a major remodel of an existing ...
click to view full size chart »
This promotional video features restaurateurs discussing sustainable solutions and Conserve, the environmental initiative of the National Restaurant Association....
Comments
NO! No to nuclear, coal carbon capture and storage. The inclusion of these options casts doubts on much else that you advise.
LEE LOE August 23rd, 2007I am sorry, but inclusion of nuclear and coal in the mix casts serious doubt on your recommendations. I personally believe that conservation and radical re-engineering of many products can cut our energy uses 780 to 80 percent, but that big, centralized energy systems are first of all, inefficient by their nature, and second, in the cases of nuclear and coal, inherently dangerous. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc. are much more viable alternatives, and when combined with massive conservation and re-engineering, contain the key to long-term energy security.
I recommend reading Amory Lovins. Here’s an introductory article to his work that I wrote a few years ago: http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/amorylovins.shtml
Shel Horowitz, author, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First
Shel Horowitz, Ethical Marketing Expert August 24th, 2007