If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

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. 

Financing Environmental Resiliency and a Low-Carbon Future with Green Bonds
Sponsored By: NSF International

  
Leveraging EHS Software in Support of Culture Changes
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

  
10 Tactics of Successful Energy Managers
Sponsored By: EnergyCap, Inc.

  
Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  

3 thoughts on “Advanced Electricity Technologies Could Lower CO2 Control Costs By 50%

  1. NO! No to nuclear, coal carbon capture and storage. The inclusion of these options casts doubts on much else that you advise.

  2. 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

  3. A wind turbine will not make a sfinigicant dent in your electric bill unless you live in a place where the wind blows pretty hard most of the time. Even in a very windy location, it may take 10 years for to generate enough power to pay for the initial cost. Windmills are designed to produce maximum power at a particular wind speed; at half that speed, they produce only one eighth as much power. Here’s a link for some commercially available windmills. If you build your own, it will probably be much less efficient. In most cases, the price tag does not include a tower or installation. Check your electric bill to see how many kilowatt hours you use during your windy season. Divide by the number of hours in the billing period to get the average power consumption. Before deciding on a windmill, you should compare against other options. In urban communities with lots of sunshine, solar is best. Gasification is a much more attractive option for areas that don’t get much wind or sunshine. However, the gas turbines that go with them tend to be pretty noisy, so they are not suitable for crowded urban communities.

Leave a Comment