August 20, 2007
Advanced Electricity Technologies Could Lower CO2 Control Costs By 50%
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.
Advertisers
Enhance Sustainability. Improve Profitability.
Learn how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
EFFECTIVELY MANAGE WATER COMPLIANCE
Understand how increased enforcement may affect your company. Find out more >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/06/2009
- 11/05/2009
- 11/04/2009
- Emissions Intensity Falling Globally
- JohnsonDiversey Ups GHG Reduction Target to 25%
- Sainsbury’s Offers Free London Electric Car Charging
- Carbon Trading Could Trigger a ‘Sub-prime Style’ Economic Crash
- Peabody, Exxon Accused of Undermining Climate Talks
- BMW, Toyota, Ford Tout Eco-cars
- In ‘Apathy Gap,’ Energy Efficiency at Home Ranks Low
- China Pushes for CO2 Storage, Not Emissions Reductions
- Clean Tech VC Funding On Rebound, Up 50% Since 2nd Quarter
- IECC Building Code Recommendations Add Up to 30% in Energy Efficiency Gains
- Disney Buys $7M in Reforestation Offsets, a Corporate Record
- McKesson to Save $300K Via Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
- Sprint to Save $2.1M With Eco-Friendly Packaging
- U.S. Export-Import Bank Adopts Carbon Policy to Support Renewable Energy
- Greening the Automotive Supply Chain
- Yokohama Rubber Cuts GHG Emissions 13.4% in 2008
- Electronics Industry Lawsuit Called ‘Attack on States’ Rights’
- Wal-Mart Adding LEDs to 650 Stores
- One Committee Down for Senate Climate Bill, Five More to Go
- EU Poised to Give Heavy Industry Free Carbon Permits
- ResponsibleTravel.com Scuttles Carbon Offsetting Option
- U.S. Cap-and-Trade Creates Winners and Losers among Largest Emitters
- DOE Awards $155M to Make Industrial Sector More Energy Efficient
- System Upgrades Power Up Energy Savings for Hotels
- Xerox Cuts GHG Emissions by 20% from 2002
- Waste Management Landfill Gas Project Complete
- Intel, Pepsi, Kohl’s Stay Atop Green Power Partnership list
- Wal-Mart Thinks Big With Smaller Stores
- Despite Critics, Gore ‘Proud’ to Invest in Green Firms
- Metal Recyclers Spar Over Ship Recycling Site
Industry Voices [ see all ]
A Roadmap for a Renewable Energy Partnership
Brad Cashaw
Vice President
Quaker Foods and Snacks Supply Chain and Sustainability
Forest Carbon Core to Climate Change Deal
Chris Elliott
Forest Carbon Initiative Lead
World Wildlife Fund
VCS and CarbonFix Tops in Review of Forestry Carbon Standards
Paulo Lopes
Carbon Management Consultant
Carbon Clear







Reader 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, 2007
I 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