Utilities back 'climate friendly' energy technologies

The industry association of U.S. electric utilities on Wednesday published what its members say are the most promising technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The primary purpose of the paper, put out by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), was to establish the industry's position on U.S. climate change legislation, which many people expect could be passed in the next few years.

In the Edison Electric Institute's "points of agreement," its members agreed on a target of reducing greenhouse gas concentrations by 80 percent compared to current levels by 2050.

To get to that long-term goal, the paper details what utilities believe are viable technologies in the near term. The EEI said it will back regulations that promote development of certain technologies. In the paper, the EEI said:

• Efficiency and renewables are key to near-term reductions.
  
• Maximizing new nuclear is key to mid-to-longer term reductions.
  
• The aggressive development and deployment of carbon capture and storage coupled with advanced coal technologies are necessary to preserving the coal option.
  
• Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) can make a major contribution to reducing net GHG emissions, as well as to reducing foreign oil dependence and consumer prices at the pump.
  
• Other no and low-emitting carbon technologies should be pursued (e.g., smart grid).
  
• Support key concepts underlying the Boucher CCS (carbon capture and storage) bill.
  

For a raft of clean-tech start-up companies, utilities are vitally important potentially customers for their products. But, with a few exceptions, utilities are notoriously conservative when it comes to adopting new technologies, such as smart-grid technology or storage.

Power generation accounts for 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, making them an influential negotiator in climate change regulations which are designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the EIE paper, the group is open to a tax on carbon emissions but is currently focused on a cap and trade regime, where pollution allowances can be bought and sold, as is done now with the air pollutants that cause acid rain.

The groups also lobbied for how pollution allowances should be carved out once regulations are put in place.

Officials from the Obama administration have said that the U.S. intends to take worldwide leadership on climate change mitigation. A number of cap and trade regulations are already under consideration in Congress but they are not expected to be passed in Obama's first year in office.

[expatincebu]

What a sham. Read the headline and you think progress is being made. Read the article and it is just the same old energy industry crap. Carbon capture to keep coal viable and more nuclear power? This is their green initiative? ROTFLMAO, except it isn't funny it is sad and pathetic.

Where is wind, solar, geothermal, hydro? No, they prefer the proven cash cows of dirty coal and toxic nuclear. Both only exist with huge federal government welfare subsidies. Both require extraction and refinement that is devastating to the environment and very carbon intensive in itself. Both create tons of dangerous toxic by products that cannot be disposed of in any safe way.

Business as usual with the "change" label stuck on it. We are going to see a lot of that in the coming years as the failed status quo seek to retain its power and wealth. What did the Who say? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[ToddWBeaver]

Where are solar and wind? Those technologies don't deliver--yet. That doesn't mean I don't hope they do, but you have to realize solar isn't viable in many climates and wind is currently delivering only about 18% of what's been promised. Let me repeat that -- installed wind power is actually delivering on 1/6 of what it's supposed to be capable of providing.

Wind and solar also work only when conditions are right. Conventional power sources work regardless of the weather or time of day. We don't currently have the ability to store solar or wind power and until the obstacles can be overcome economically and deployed wide scale, wind and solar should remain secondary.

[expatincebu]

Todd, the article is about the energy industry adopting climate friendly technology. There is nothing about coal and nuclear that is climate friendly. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been poured into these two already to subsidize them, now they want more hundreds of billions. If we spent that money on wind and solar and hydro and an adequate transmission infrastructure we could be carbon free easily.

[Lerianis]

Actually, nuclear is one of the most friendly to the environment power-generation things out there. The problem is that nuclear 'waste' is not reused the numerous times it could be reused, until you could bathe in the stuff and not get a lethal dose of radiation.
That is what we need: nuclear power plants that, when the stuff is depleted at one plant, it is sent to ANOTHER plant specially designed to use that 'depleted' nuclear waste in a reactor that is specially built to get the most out of that depleted nuclear material.

[HeavyJim]

Subsidies for coal and nuclear? Yes, your government at work. But you can't even say wind or solar without subsidy or government welfare in the same sentence.