By John Stark
The General Accounting Office has issued a report saying that while significant changes are ahead for U.S. coal-fired electricity generation, coal will remain a major source of electricity in the decades ahead — unless there is a major government crackdown on greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the report here. Or at least, read the one-page summary of the 54-page report, conveniently placed at the beginning.
Excerpt:
“According to stakeholders and three long-term forecasts GAO reviewed, coal is generally expected to remain a key fuel source for U.S. electricity generation in the future, but coal’s share as a source of electricity may continue to decline. For example, in its forecast based on current policies, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that the amount of electricity generated using coal is expected to remain relatively constant through 2035, but it forecasts that the share of coal-fueled electricity generation will decline from 42 percent in 2011 to 38 percent in 2035.”
But wait:
“EIA forecasts that two hypothetical future policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector by 46 percent and 76 percent would result in coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation falling to 16 and 4 percent in 2035, respectively.”
GAO did the report at the request of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, chairman of the Senate committee on commerce, science and transportation.
“unless there is a major government crackdown on greenhouse gas emissions.”
That darned government. Always throwing water on our attempts to end life as we know it on the planet!
Senate Bill 936, The American Infrastructure Investment Fund Act, is sponsored by Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ), and Bill Nelson (D, FL). Currently languishing in committee, waiting for its moment to emerge, it would expand the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to award stimulus funds for projects other than highways and bridges, to include port and rail freight projects, and provide grants of up to a half billion dollars to projects that “enhance[] national or regional economic development, growth, and competitiveness.”
Rockefeller’s second largest campaign contributor, 2007-2012: Peabody Coal. Source: OpenSecrets.org.
Lautenberg’s fifth major campaign contributor, 2007-2012: Goldman Sachs. Source: OpenSecrets.org.
Follow the money.
I guess the money trail speaks for itself. Aren’t we fortunate to have our gridlocked dysfunctional senators find the time to award stimulus funds for rail projects so that we can greatly accelerate the effects of greenhouse gases; however they cannot find the time to come to agreement regarding the fiscal cliff.
What choices do we have? Hydroelectric can’t provide any more power than it has for generations, and may even provide less, if the enviro-freaks and Indians get their way and tear down the dams. Nuclear power is the same a swear-word. Wind power is a bigger environmental problem than anybody really knows, not to mention an aesthetic one. Not too many choices left that will provide power on a large scale.
On the other hand, there is a move being considered in Canada to build giant hydro electric SMS on some Canadian rivers, and sell the power to the US.
Canada considers hydro-power to be green, renewable energy.
That. Was supposed to be dams. They want to build dams on Quebec rivers.
Also, our own dams have never operated at full capacity. There is much more potential for power from existing dams than we are utilizing. The Quebec dams would supply power to the NE US, where it is needed, though.
See the story on Philipp Saumweber’s Sundrop hydroponic greenhouse that runs on solar energy and seawater in the Australian desert on The Observer/Guardian Environment.
‘Soon after becoming immersed in agriculture as a business, he says, he realised that it essentially involved “turning diesel into food and adding water”.’
I wonder why we cannot go to plasma generators for steam turbines and solve two problems at once? Ele power and getting rid of garbage.