2010 National Yps Energy Policy Recs Web Quality

8/6/2019 2010 National Yps Energy Policy Recs Web Quality

1/58

Energy Innovationin the United States

Final

Student Policy

RecommendationsJune 13-19 2010

Keystone, CO


2/58

Energy Innovation in the U.S.

2

About Youth Policy SummitThe pow er of Youth Policy Summit lies in the ambition of its alumni. Young w omen and mencome to the Summits as students, curious and ready to learn. They leave, after a w eek of in-tensive study and collaboration, active and inspired citizens of their local communities, our na-tion, and the w orld.

In June 2010, The Keystone Center hosted the National Energy Innovation Summit for fortyhigh school students w ho are part of the National Consortium for Specialized SecondarySchools of Math, Science and Technology. Ten high schools f rom across the nation came to-gether in Keystone, Colorado to address the challenges, opportunities and concerns associ-ated w ith developing consensus-based policy recommendations for energy issues in the

United Sates.

After researching divergent stakeholder groups and various aspects of the energy puzzle, stu-dents spent a week ardently discussing the possibilities for sustainable solutions to meet cur-rent and future energy demands of our nation. During the Summit, part icipants took stock ofthe larger technical, legal, environmental, social, economic, and political problems and sharedtheir ow n research to prioritize issues and options. They interacted with leaders in the fields ofenergy, government, and the non profit sector w ho are actively grappling w ith these same is-sues day to day.

With guidance from professional educators and facilitators from Keystones Center for Edu- cation and Center for Science and Public Policy , students created viable solutions to aproblem that is confounding policy makers nationally. This report represents the results of thestudents deliberations: a written set of recommendations that w ill be shared w ith leaders ineducation, policy, energy, youth development and government.

These young leaders received training and practice in skills essential for the 21 st century workforce such as critical thinking, creativity, leadership, negotiation, and innovation. Freshly aw areof their ow n potential for leadership and change, the students are inspired to take their recom-mendations to leaders in their ow n communities, demonstrating the undeniable pow er of work-ing together.

Since 2004, The Keystone Center has conducted YPS programs for over 500 young leadersfrom 23 states across the nation. Topics focus on current issues facing our nation in the areasof energy, environment and public health. With eight Summits planned across the nation for2011, w e encourage teachers , students, private and public organizations and govern mentleaders to visit www.youthpolicysummit.org to learn about opportunities available in your regionand how to get involved.


3/58

Energy Innovation in the U.S .

Table of Contents

Overview of Student Research 5

Summary Timeline and Introduction 8

Economics: Subsidy Reform 10

Education: Public Awareness and WorkforceTraining 13

Fossil Fuels: Transportation and Electricity 18

Nuclear Power: New Technology andIncreased Production 27

Renewable Energy: Implementation andStorage 32

Energy Efficiency: Commercial, Industrial andResidential Buildings 41

Bibliography 50

Conclusion: Looking Forward, 2050 andBeyond 48

Acknowledgements 56


4/58


4

Keystone allowed me, as an up and coming member of society, to express and share my views, talents,experiences, as well as my culture in a meaningful and constructive way that is more likely to affect a policy change.

-Andreas Kofler, Participant

INNOVATION

LEADERSHIP S OLUTIONS


5/58


Overview of Student Research

The Groups Task

What should be done, and by whom, to bring about the changesnecessary to meet the growing energy demand, while simultaneouslygrowing the workforce and significantly limiting the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? Participants should consider three time frames:near-term (4-8 years), mid-term (10-20 years), and long term (up to 50years).

To begin answering these questions, students were asked to research the followingenergy topics prior to their arrival at the Summit. As a group, the participants becameexperts on the current issues, barriers and opportunities as they exist today in theUnited States.

Electricity-Renewable (Solar, Wind, Biomass, Geothermal, etc)

Electricity-Fossil Fuels (Coal, Natural Gas, Carbon Capture and Storage, etc)

Electricity-Nuclear (New and existing technology for production and waste s torage)

Transportation-Fuels (Including gas, electric, batteries and renewables, etc)

Transportation-Public, Private, Commercial, Industrial (Trains, bus, subways, passenger cars, shipping, etc)

Buildings Efficiency- Residential, Commercial, Industrial (Products, behavior, systems, etc)

Education and Workforce Development (What options exis t to train and develop a new workforce and educate the generalpopulation for behavior changes associated with Energy Innovation)


6/58


6

PESTLE Analysis

To broaden the depth of their research, students worked in groups to perform aPESTLE analysis of each research topic listed on page 5

Political. Describes how, and to what degree government should intervene in the economy andsociety.

Economic. Includes economic growth, inflation and taxes.

Social. Includes cultural aspects, demographic differences, environmental justice (are someimpacted more than others)

Environmental. Encompasses all impacts on the environment, including air andwater quality, and impacts from climate change.

Technological. Includes the rate of technological change and impacts from research and develop-ment.

Legal. The laws of the land, including environmental, as well as health and safety anddiscrimination laws and regulations. Congress and the State Legislatureenact laws and the US Environmental Protection Agency and state environmentalagencies create their own regulations to limit some activities and encourage others.

Stakeholder Assignments

In addition to their energy research topics, each student was asked to represent theinterests of an important stakeholder involved in the energy conversation.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) composed of environmentalgroups, consumer advocacy groups, coalitions and social justice groupswho are non profits.Public Sector , including federal, state and local government agenciesPrivate Sector , including corporations and organizations that are in theenergy production or transmission sector, provide engineering services ormanufacturing for energy sector or who are large consumers of energy.Academia, Education and Research institutions


7/58


Stakeholder List

1. Non Governmental Organizations:Alliance to Save EnergyAmerican Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE)Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)Natural Resources Defense Council

(NRDC)US Public Interest Research Group

(PIRG)Sierra ClubUnion of Concerned Scientists

2. Federal and State Public Sector:National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners (NARUC)National Association of State Energy

Officers (NASEO)US Dept of Energy Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy(DOE/EE-RE)

US Dept of Transportation Research and InnovativeTechnology Administration, Officeof Research, Development &Technology

US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and AirQuality (EPA/OTAQ)

US Dept of Labor Employment andTraining Administration

3. Energy Generators andConsumers:

Constellation EnergyAmerican Electric PowerExelonSouthern Company

Exxon Mobil

4. Renewable Energy Companies:Applied MaterialsGeneral Electric EnergyVestasSiemensSunPowerFirst SolarOrmatUnited Technologies

5. Construction Companies:Anderson WindowsLafargeOwens CorningVulcan MaterialsShaw GroupUS Green Building CouncilFluorCH2M Hill

6. Transportation Industry:DelphiFedExFordGeneral MotorsAMR (American Airlines)Visteon

7. Education and Training:American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air-ConditioningEngineers (ASHRAE)

American Association of CommunityColleges

Apollo AllianceInternational Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers

International Brotherhood ofBoilermakers


8/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

8

Summary TimelineBy Year Idea/ Goal

2010 Begin a f ive-year education plan to increasepublic awareness about alternative energysources, as well as implement workforcetraining programs.

2015

Begin fiv e y ear adv isory period for the fossilf uel industry t o initiate trans ition to natural gasHalt increase of f oss il f uel subsidies and beginreallocation100% state IECC Building Code compliance(2016).Retrof it 10% of commercial and industrialbuildings35.5 minimum MPG standard for new carsand light trucks (2016)Increase nuclear power capacity

2020

Begin large- scale natural gas transition(incent iv ized)Use subsidy money to research and dev elopalgal fuel, renewable technologies and nuclearenergyIncrease nuclear power capacity, completereprocessing f acilit ies

2025

25% Natural Gas, 25% remains fossil fuels(oil/ coal)30% Nuclear

20% RenewablesContinue to promote and develop transition tonatural gasIncrease nuclear power capacity, completenational storage facilityOne million plug-in hy brids on the road35% net -zero buildings in U.S.Creation of the National CommissioningCollaborativ e to ov ersee building eff iciency

2030

No new coal operations can continue in formersites, no new mines openedPromote natural gas vehicle technology on a

large- scale30% renewables (20% wind, 5% solar, hy dro,5% geothermal)

2040

Natural gas, electric, electric hybridautomobile technology incorporated into theprivate sector75% net -zero buildings in U.S.

2050 15% natural gas, 5% oil, 40% renewable, 40%nuclear100% net-zero buildings in U.S.


9/58


F i n

al R

e c o m m en d a t i on s

Introduction

In this paper, we, the s tudents, present a s et of recommendations for energy

innovation in the United States for the next 40 years and beyond that will move the

country off of its dependence on oil and coal towards a more sustainable future. We

created a timeline to remake our countrys energy portfolio, which includes a transition

from coal and oil, using natural gas as a bridge fuel; emphasizes renewable and

nuclear energy for electricity; uses algal-based fuels and electrification for

transportation; and focuses on energy efficiency in the buildings sector. We will

encourage this transition with a redeployment of existing Federal subsidies in fossilfuels to renewable energy, and a large focus on education and public awareness.


10/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

10

Economics: Subsidy Reform

We carefully considered different mechanisms to reach our goals outlined in ourintroduction, including a gasoline tax, but rejected it as socially and politically

infeasible. However, we determined that our goals can be reached to a large extent

simply by reallocating existing subsidies for fossil fuels toward more preferable energy

sources.

Studies show that fossil fuel subsidies have no impact on the price of oil (The

Effects of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, pg. 37). Instead, a majority goes to non-

consumer affecting expenses, such as to pay the oil companys income taxes. As a

result, President Obama has already declared that he will reduce oil subsidies by

about $2.7 billion in 2011 (Obama Budget Aims). We recommend that these

deductions continue; increases in fossil fuel subsidies would be halted entirely by the

year 2015. During the same year,

ten percent of these subsidies would

be taken and redistributed. For every

year until 2025, an additional five

percent will be added to the previous

deduction. Therefore, assuming the

fossil fuel subsidies start at

approximately $12 billion in 2015, we

recommend reducing fossil fuel

subsidies to $10.8 billion and

reallocating $1.2 billion to renewable

energy (Estimating U.S. GovernmentSubsidies, p. 6). In 2016, the fossil

fuel subsidies will start at $10.8 billion and be reduced by 15 percent, with $2.8 billion

available to be reallocated. In 2017, there will be a 20 percent deduction and so forth

until 2025. From there and after, the annual subsidies taken from the original fossil

Year Plan for Year

Present day (June 2010)

Begin fiv e-year advisory period.

2015 Begin reduction of subsidies f or f oss il f uelsby 10 percent

2016 15 percent

2017 20 percent

2018 25 percent

2019 30 percent

2020 35 percent

2021 40 percent

2022 45 percent

2023 50 percent

2024 55 percent

2025 End of reduct ions for fossil fuels


11/58


1

F i n

al R


fuel subsidy amount of $12 billion would be $11.8 billion. This leaves a safety net of

$0.2 billion for the fossil fuel industry during the future transition to renewables.

We propose that the subsidies reduced from the fossil fuel sector should instead

be divided appropriately to the renewable sector, which currently receives less

than $500 million in subsidies; as well as to the Department of Education, Department

of Transportation, and to be given to

consumers for tax incentives (Solar

Financing, Subsidies and Incentives). We

recommend that the specific allocations of

these subsidies remain in Congress within the

jurisdiction of the House AppropriationsCommittee (Committee Jurisdiction).

Companies competing in the renewable

sector would be given at least 60 percent of

the appropriations. The Department of

Education would be given ten percent in early

years , not to exceed $500 million in later

years when the subsidies are largest. Thismoney would be used to educate the public and corporations on environmental

awareness and alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear energy. This could be

done through media announcements and informational conferences. The Department

of Transportation would receive at least 15 percent to additionally fund programs

similar to the Livable Communities Program. The Livable Communities Program

assists communities that increase choices for transportation users, provide affordable

connection from residences to employment centers and other key amenities, and

enhance economic opportunities and environmental sustainability (Fiscal Year 2011

Budget Highlights). About five to ten percent would be distributed as corporate tax

incentives. These would be used to s timulate investment in the transportation sector to

become more energy efficient and ecologically responsible. The incentives transferred

from fossil fuels would continue to be put into their new target areas until the transition


12/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

12

away from fossil fuels has been completed (between 2075-2100).

The idea behind the reduced subsidy proposal would be to encourage the fossil

fuel industry to begin diversifying their market. The plan is not to eliminate this crucial

division in the United States economy, but to integrate it. Corporations are focused on

making profits. It would be in the best interests of fossil fuel firms to begin adding

renewable branches to not only improve their public image, but to gain more income as

the demand for alternative energies increases.


13/58


13

F i n

al R


Education: Public Awareness and WorkforceTraining

We recommend a major campaign in the education and workforce sector to

promote public awareness, increase funding of research and development programs,

and educate a scientifically-minded workforce from the ground up through changes in

K-12 education as well as at the university level. We also recommend significant

investment in public workforce training programs, as well as specific training for the

transition from fossil fuel to renewable and nuclear industries.

Public Awareness

First steps in expanding renewable energys role in America begins with

education. In the first five years of this plan (2010-2015), public awareness through

media campaigns, energy ambassadors, and community sessions will expedite the

nations shift towards energy efficiency and decreased reliance on fossil fuels. These

include the creation of commercials and internet ads, and will cost roughly $100 millionannually. These ambassadors would come from non-governmental organizations and

will host workshops at schools and community events, touting the benefits of a green

lifestyle and simple changes the public can make to be "greener." Also, ambassadors

would educate s tudents on methods of energy efficiency in com munities and the best

sources of renewable energy regionally. Lastly, we suggest that mandated community

sessions be held. Led by town leaders and based on the community's support or

disdain for green energy, these sessions will be informal and

designed to cater to the average citizen and their

concerns. Ideally, such sessions would address issues such

as the widespread NIMBY 1 (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) syndrome

and other common misconceptions.

1 The term used to describe opposit ion to new dev elopment close to or within residential areas. This includes newpower plants, wind turbines, t ransport ation improvements. (Merriam-Webster 1980).


14/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

14

K-12 Schools and Universities

We recommend education changes on the K-12 level. An increased emphasison STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education will promote

continued energy innovation. Specific changes include the continued creation of

specialized STEM high schools and training programs for AP math and science

teachers. To increase the number of these teachers, 10,000 new STEM teachers must

be recruited and trained annually ("Rising Above the

Storm"). The American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of 2009 insured this endeavor's start by providing

funds for the Teacher Quality Enhancement

Recovery Plan, which aims to increase numbers of

teachers from quality teacher preparation programs

as well as improve curriculum ("Program Plan").

Education plays a vital role in the first few

years of this policy. If nuclear energy is to play a

larger role in the future, as we recommend, then a re-education of the public on

nuclear power and its true dangers and its true potential as an energy source is thekey to the success of this policy. In order to accomplish this, the industry should host

over 1,000 community and K-12 general education programs per year to educate the

general public, promoting safe, clean energy through a combination of nuclear and

renewable resources. The nuclear industry should also provide 1,000 scholarships for

nuclear engineering and other nuclear related fields through the Department of

Education. Funding for these scholarships could be offset from the portion of

subsidies the Department of Education receives annually for the advancement ofsustainable energy. The number of s cholarships may be subject to change depending

on the funding and the need of the industry. The scholarships are meant to provide

skilled workers for the nuclear industry. We recommend that this education program

remain in place annually until at least 2050.

In addition, a part of the education budget, about $50 million every year, will be


15/58


15

F i n

al R


allotted for clean energy scholarships, advancing education in renewable and nuclear

fields. The money will be allocated according to technological progress in the

respective fields. These projects will be funded by the Department of Education, which

will be responsible for providing information and dissemination. The purpose of this

initiative is to update the American public about advances in renewable energy.

Education and the encouragement for the expanding fields will remain crucial to

the success of our energy revolution. By 2030, we recommend that universities assess

a new value for total green energy scholarships and community involvement

provided, beyond the $50 million mark originally proposed.

Workforce Training

President Obama outlined a plan to increase the use of renewable energy in the

electric sector to 25 percent by 2025, implying a s ignificant increase in renewable

energy jobs ("Obama's Energy Plan"). To address this new demand for scientists,

engineers, and physicists, we recommend that new scholarship and internship

programs be developed. To train new technicians and electricians, which make up the

majority of the clean energy industry, community colleges and vocational schoolsshould also receive allotments to train those workers. These programs would put

students on the track for clean renewable and non-renewable energy degrees, and we

believe would cost about $50 million in the next five years . Scholarships for specific

energy areas, including nuclear energy and solar power,

would be based on demand calculated by colleges and

universities, and allocations should be reassessed every

five years.Though education of the public on these options

seems expensive over the short run, it will more than pay

itself back in reduced energy imports and potential net

renewable exports for states, a heightened public

awareness of energy concerns and green jobs.


16/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

16

Implementation of measures during this period would continue on into the long term as

the viability and promising output from these enactments would be in the best interest

of energy innovation progress.

The fossil fuel industry currently provides 9.2 million U.S. jobs, so there is a

huge concern about potential job loss as the industry is phased out ("Industry Jobs").

To combat this , extensive and wide-spread training programs will create a s trong,

"green-collar" workforce in renewable energy technology. Because of the

infrastructure similarity between coal power plants and nuclear power plants, the

nuclear power plants will be replacing the coal power plants. Therefore, we

recommend developing special transition programs for the training of workers in

nuclear power plants. Specifically, the coal industry will receive $5 million and thenuclear energy sector will receive $500 million over the next five years from federal

stimulus money to fund this transition every year. This is vital, as the need for nuclear

plant operators from 2008 to 2018 is expected to grow 19 percent, or about 1000 jobs

("Power Plant Operators").

Government Support

Along with focused education campaigns, we recommend Federal government

recognition of state- and community-based programs and initiatives. This action costs

little money to the government, but does serve to get the name of the organization out

into the open. There has already been a precedent

set for a government agency endorsing the work of

a nonprofit or private business; one example of a

Federal-state governmental partnership committedto renewable energy is the National Association of

State Energy Officials (NASEO) partnership with

EnergyStar. Another potential partnership that

would engage the social element would be a

partnership with public works organizations, such as


17/58


17

F i n

al R


American Youthworks, a nonprofit which employs at-risk youth and young adults and

teaches them job skills specifically for the sustainable housing and building sector

(americanyouthworks.org). The purpose of endorsing an organization like American

Youthworks would both engage the s ympathies of the public for a switch from fossil

fuels to renewable power and it would expand the base of support and knowledge

outside of the political and scientific circles.


18/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

18

Fossil Fuels: Transportation and Electricity

Our goal is to transition the country away from heavy reliance on fossil fuels for

both electricity and transportation, by using natural gas as a transitional fuel source

until we can rely heavily on renewable technologies. Electricity cons umption by the

U.S. is expected to grow 39 percent from 2005 to 2030, to 5.8 billion mega-watt hours

(Annual Energy Outlook 2010, 6).

Starting the Transition

In the year 2015, we recommend the fossil fuel industry jump-start the transition

from fossil fuels to renewable energies by initiating a five-year advisory period. This

period is to be used primarily for educating individual fossil fuel corporations by meansof stakeholder meetings where discussions will be held over which alternate energy

sources are the most economically beneficial for each specific corporation. This will

incorporate the pros and cons of investment in energy sources such as natural gas,

solar, wind, and nuclear, along with the governments business-oriented

Projected Fuel Use by Source (quadrillion Btu)

Source: U.S. Energy Informat ion Administration


19/58


19

F i n

al R


recommendation for combined investment in natural gas and renewable technologies.

Furthermore, companies will be thoroughly versed on the fossil fuel subsidy re-

allocation plan, which will gradually transition fossil fuel subsidies to renewable

technology, transportation, and education. Each corporation is required to attend at

least one of these mediated meetings in which scientists and other experts would

present information on the technologies that could eventually guarantee the

corporations economic viability in the future while staying mindful of the environment.

The corporations will be advised on which particular industry offers the greatest

potential and viability in the future, specifically in relation to each individual corporation.

For example, fossil fuel companies in the Southeast would likely most greatly benefit

from renewable energy in the form of biomass (Fitzpatrick, Cash).The information presented at the discussions could be immediately applied, and

companies could shift to largely invest in natural gas and renewable technology

because of the profitability, environmental viability, and benefit to the public image

provided by these two sources of energy. Because of our recommendation to switch

subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable energy, fossil fuel corporations would be more

likely to inves t in renewable technology because of the money available, as well as the

opportunity to lead a field that is currently relatively small. In contrast to renewabletechnology, nuclear

technology already has

major corporations of its

own, and by investing,

fossil fuel corporations

would merely become

shareholders.

Therefore, the

opportunity for

ownership of renewable

technology is an

incentive of its own. Source:The Pew Center


20/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

20

Shift to Natural Gas

We recommend oil corporations transition their investments toward natural gasas a temporary, transitional energy source in place of their current product. Natural gas

is the cleanest of all fossil fuels, releasing

about 117,000 pounds of emissions per

billion Btu 2 energy input, compared to the

208,000 pounds currently released by coal.

Additionally, natural gas exists in the

United States in much larger quantities

than oil, meaning that its use would entail

less importation of foreign oil (Resources

Naturalgas.org).

The transition away from oil to

natural gas would not run a higher risk of

endangering U.S. international relations

with oil producing countries, especially those related to the United States relationship

with OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). A switch to naturalgas would not cause a shift in the current international fuel-trade power structure

because although the United States is the 6 th largest producer of natural gas, it is

preceded by five OPEC nations who currently possess natural gas in larger quantities.

From an international standpoint, transitioning to natural gas in the short-term would

allow the U.S. to m ove away from the worst of the foss il fuels without upsetting current

oil-based relations, which are on the same path to natural gas (Natural Gas and

Technology).The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan in 2009 called

for a projected goal of obtaining 25 percent of our nations electricity from renewable

sources by the year 2025, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80

percent by 2050 (U.S. Department of Energy). In order to allow for this rise in energy

from alternative, cleaner resources and to best meet the Obama-Biden plan, the fossil2 British thermal unit- energy unit equal to approximately 1.06 kilojoules. (NaturalGas.org).

Source: EPA.gov


21/58


2

F i n

al R


fuel industry should initially aim to increase their natural gas percentage from 23

percent to 25 percent via continued promotion and development of the technological,

social, and economic aspects of natural gas (Thresher and Musial).

In order to encourage consumer spending on natural gas, fossil fuel industries

should begin investing in partnership with transportation industries to build new, easily

accessible infrastructures for electric and compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel stations.

There are currently 538 electric fuel stations and 838 CNG stations in the United

States (U.S. Department of Energy). Since a barrel equivalent of natural gas ($69.56/

barrel) is cheaper than a barrel of oil ($82.50/barrel), once more CNG pumps are built,

consumers will favor the less expensive natural gas (U.S. Energy Information

Administration ). The higher demand for CNG will directly raise the production of it.Meanwhile, with the shift towards producing natural gas, fossil fuel companies also

should have decreased the combined amount of oil and coal from about 60 percent to

25 percent by 2025 (Thresher and Musial).

Coal

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, coal accounts forapproximately 50 percent of electric power generation in the U.S. (EPA Energy

Trends). The consumption of coal accounts for around 40 percent of the countrys CO 2

emissions (Gardner).

We believe the American public will need to shift to a much more anti-coal

mindset. In order to reach the United

States responsibilities in combating

climate change by reducing carbonemissions by 80 percent in America,

the coal industry is going to be

drastically cut back ( America.gov). The

fossil fuel corporations will have known

about the upcoming changes and been


22/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

22

encouraged to conform to the new policies since the first five-year education phase of

our plan starting in 2010. Beginning in 2030, this cut will be fulfilled by a moratorium on

new mines to be constructed or approved; all formerly opened mines will be able to

continue being operational until they prove empty. As reallocated subsidy money is put

into renewable energy technologies to compensate for the shift, less energy demand

will fall to burning coal. We believe that the reduction in fossil fuel dependence created

by the halt of new coal operations will allow room for the renewable energy sector to

expand.

In addition, by limiting the supply of coal, we will encourage the switch from coal

to natural gas for electricity. Natural gas is an appropriate substitute and limits the CO 2

emissions of burning coal. These changes will require the above stated infrastructurechange, which should not be complicated as long as the public is educated

appropriately. These recommendations will also require the support of the coal industry

to shut down new mining operations. These changes can be extremely effective as

long as these ideas are followed.

Transportation

The transportation industry consumes about 29 percent of the total energy

usage in the United States (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

The backbone of Western society consists

of the use of cars, trucks, boats, planes, and

trains to transport people and goods, which rely

on oil for 98 percent of their transportation needs

(Americas Energy Future, p. 331). The las t fewdecades have seen a dramatic increase in

energy consumption. More than 19.5 million

barrels of oil are consumed in the United States

every day (CIA The World Factbook). Since 56

percent of petroleum to meet the U.S.s energy


23/58


23

F i n

al R


demands is imported, the United States would be faced with an energy crisis should oil

become a nonviable source of energy (Americas Energy Future, p. 211). In addition,

the threat of global warming has acted as a driver in promoting research of cleaner

transportation fuels and technologies. This has inspired many corporations and

organizations to look into new sources of energy and new technologies to fuel the

growing transportation industry. To catalyze this transformation, we recommend

enactment of new policies that are developed from governmental and industrial

cooperation.

Fossil Fuel Industry Regulation

In today's industry, it seems to be an acceptable truth that there will be safety

violations that will be followed by fines . However, the cos ts of fixing and stopped

production are less than paying the fines, so the problems are ignored and the fines

are paid, but money is still made. For example, before the mine disaster in the Upper

Big Branch mine 3, there had been 1,300 recorded safety violations (Roddy & Vivian).

When considering the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, British Petroleum (BP)

ignored its many safety violations for the simple reason that it was more profitable atthe time to be unsafe than safe (Despite Finding 200 Violations). The remedy is to

provide an incentive to make

the work space safer. We

propose fines be increased

in order to raise the level of

accountability undertaken by

corporations in energyendeavors.

The current system for

oil companies is that they

can be fined a max of

$35,000 dollars a day for a3 April, 2010 an explos ion on the Upper Big Branch Mine killed 29 people (Urbina, nyt imes.com).


24/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

24

single violation until it is fixed (Wang). A similar idea for a system that could go across

all industries would seem to be necessary. But in addition to the basic standard of

$35,000 dollars a day, we recommend that 1.1 times the cost of repairing the issue be

included, as well as the cost of evaluation of the safety violations.

Vehicles

Our group considered the issue of raising fuel efficiency standards. The issue

of raising the miles-per-gallon s tandard is difficult; no company wants to be forced to

do something, even if it may help them in the end. Over the short-term, we decided to

use the standard that President Obama set at 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 for all new

cars and light trucks (Voorhees). After 2016, we hope to encourage increasingly

efficient vehicles, so industry will raise their fuel efficiency as necessary as people

demand better gas mileage.

By 2025 we hope to see at least one million plug-in hybrids on the road, which

will significantly decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. The funding from the

subsidies and the plug-in charging stations should increase consumer demand and

pave the way for clean public and private sectors.Year 2040 will also bring in a new wave of automobile technology in the private

sector, especially in the fields of natural gas, electric and electric-hybrid (plug-in

hybrid). A natural gas vehicle currently reduces CO 2 emissions by 25 percent, while

also emitting lower numbers of toxic pollutants and particulate matter (Gable).

Compressed natural gas is also measured in gallons equivalent to that of gasoline

(Gable). Further, as oil becomes scarce and gets

more expensive, companies will have difficulty payingfor truck gas . In order to counter this economic and

ecologic hazard, we recommend that truckers switch

to natural gas as a fuel. Natural gas costs 40 percent

less than gasoline and has an 80 percent reduction in

emissions (Compressed Natural Gas).


25/58


25

F i n

al R


Plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV) are powered by both gasoline engines and

electrical sources and offer innovations like regenerative braking and electric motor

drive (CalCars). They currently produce 67 percent fewer greenhouse gases than

gasoline cars do, while continually getting cleaner as time progresses due to the

revolutions of the electric grid (CalCars). PHEVs can also potentially run on bio-diesel,

ethanol and other bio-fuels (CalCars).

Finally, an electric vehicle currently uses the electricity stored in a battery to

power an electric motor. Due to the use of electricity, there are no tailpipe emissionsand these cars are 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles, capable of cutting

emissions by 70 percent (Union of Concerned Scientists). These technologies lower oil

imports, greenhouse gases and pollution in the long run, and by the year 2040 we

recommend these technologies be incorporated into the private sector, with an

established infrastructure behind them.

Public Transportation

We recommend that a boost is given to further enhance the development of

public transportation: an E Prize. Modeled after an X prize 4 , the E Prize would be a

competition to judge the most innovative technological design for public transportation,

which includes boats, planes, buses, and trains. The challenge would be open to4 A $10 million plus grand prize given to the first team to achieve a goal set forth by the X PrizeFoundation. The goal is to benefit humanity in a new, innovative way. (X Prize Foundation, 2010).

CO2 Emissions


26/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

26

individuals, organizations, and companies with a reward of one to five million dollars

provided from the redistributed subsidy funds. The competition would be judged by a

panel of professional environmentalists, economists, and

engineers paid with the help of the registration fee. The criteria

for judging would be the ecological benefits, the energy

efficiency, the simplicity to integrate into current traffic systems,

and the costs to construct and maintain. However, if none of the

submissions are adequate, a prize would not be awarded.

Alternative Fuels for Aviation

One area of concern during the transition away from oil is aviation because of

the current lack of a viable alternative. Recent rises in jet fuel prices have resulted in

extreme stress on airline companies to find a dependable alternative fuel to power their

jets. This has raised interest in algal jet fuel research, which was briefly studied in the

1990s. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) promotes research,

development, and deployment of algal fuels in jets. Its goal is for all members is to usea minimum of ten percent alternative fuels in flight by 2017 (IATA). Several companies,

such as Air New Zealand, Continental Airlines, and Virgin Airlines are currently

conducting trials with algal fuel (Bisignani).

The price of research, development, and

start-up of algal fuels as an alternative fuel for flight

could be paid for through the use of the remaining

fossil fuel subsidies. In 2020, the amount of subsidiesnot transferred to renewable energy would average

out to $2.5 billion, which allows ample room for algal

fuel investment (Snathanam).


27/58


27

F i n

al R


Nuclear Power: New Technology andIncreased Production

Nuclear power is an emission-free form of energy formed by the splitting of

atoms in a nuclear reactor. Splitting just one atom produces ten million times the

energy of the combustion a carbon atom in coal would produce

(World Nuclear). Currently there are 104 nuclear power

reactors in the United States with 35 planned new reactors.

Nuclear power supplies approximately 20 percent of the

countrys current energy demand and is responsible for a 20percent reduction in electric utility emissions of greenhouse

gasses (Lipper and Stone).

Nuclear power plants have the lowest production cost of electricity. The average

production cost of nuclear generated electricity from existing plants is 2.03 cents per

kilowatt-hour including the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing

fuel and paying for the management of used fuel (Nuclear Energy Institute).

The nations nuclear power plants are among the safest and most secure

industrial facilities in the United States with 0.13 accidents per 200,000 worker hours

(Nuclear Industry Safety). Multiple layers of physical security, together with high

levels of operational

performance, protect plant

workers, the public and the

environment (Nuclear Energy

Institute).

Given these facts, werecommend by 2050 to

generate 45 percent of the

countrys energy demands

using nuclear power.


28/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

28

We also recommend a goal to have a production capacity of up to 50 percent to

account for fluctuations from renewable energy sources. In order to achieve this goal,

we propose that all 104 of the reactors in the United States be updated or refurbished

to newer generation reactors along with the production of 106 new and more advanced

reactors, as well as 50 fast breeder reactors and the corresponding infrastructure for

waste reprocessing. The plan includes the building of a national waste storage facility

for the remaining nuclear wastes generated in the U.S. in addition to the nuclear waste

accepted from around the world. Furthermore, we suggest that the construction of new

nuclear facilities take place near already existing nuclear infrastructure to avoid

unnecessary transportation and lower security costs, as well as theft risks. Funding for

these projects can be provided through industry and private investment, bank loans,and government subsidies.

Research

We recommend that during the next fifteen years, funding for research and

development of renewable and non-renewable energy sources increase. This can beaccomplished by an annual research allotment of $2.3 billion from the Department of

Energy, as outlined by the President's 2011 National Budget plan ("FY-11 Budget"). Of

the $2.3 billion total, we recommend that $1.5 billion should be allocated towards

nuclear energy research, which includes expanded research on current nuclear

technologies as well as the creation of strategies for the disposal of nuclear wastes.

The remaining $800 million can fund research for non-renewable energy sources and

basic energy-efficiency measures. We recommend a s imilar trend of increased research funding be seen in the

mid- and long-term future. Specifically, we hope to see a 25 percent increase in

research funding over 2015 levels by 2025. Similarly, we recommend an increase of 50

percent over 2015 levels by 2050. These research funds will continue to go towards

the promotion of nuclear and non-renewable energy, but will fluctuate with need. We


29/58


29

F i n

al R


expect a gradual decrease in the proportion of funds to nuclear energy and thus a

gradual increase in the proportion of funds for other renewable energies.

Timeline for Increased Nuclear Power Generation

2015

We suggest that by the year 2015 all thirteen reactors currently in the

decommissioning process 5 be upgraded to newer generation reactors (National

Regulatory Commission). At an average cos t of $1.9 billion per plant, this will increase

the production of each of these reactors by about 25 percent or enough energy to

power a minimum of 800,000 homes (Nuclear Energy Institute). In addition to the

updated reactors, we recommend construction of twelve newer generation reactors at

an estimated cost of $6 to $10 billion each. Every new plant can generate

approximately 1.5 gigawatts of electricity (GWe); this number will increase as the

technology is improved over time (World Nuclear Association). Each construction site

will create 3,500 jobs for a three to five year period while the plant is being

constructed, and about 800 permanent jobs for the operation of each plant. We alsorecommend building

ten advanced fast

reactors 6 that will use

reprocessed nuclear

waste along with the

appropriate s upporting

infrastructure such asfuel reprocessing

sites. Each fast-

breeder reactor will

generate

approximately 1.2

Fast Breeder Reactor Diagram. Source:reachingcriticalwill.org

5 Decommiss ioning is the act of saf ely remov ing the nuclear reactor from service and reducing residual radioactivityin the area ( USNRC). 6 Fast-breeder reactors: reactors that produce more plutonium than they consume (World Nuclear Association)


30/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

30

GWe; again this number is subject to change as technology is improved over time

(International Panel on Fissile Materials). Also in the works should be a fission-fusion

hybrid reactor that will be used to initiate research programs aiming to increase nuclear

efficiency.To accommodate waste, we recommend a site be selected for the location of a

national nuclear waste storage facility as well as the construction of reprocessing

infrastructure to produce fuel for fast-breeder reactors. Intensive government funded

research will be an ongoing process to find new ways to recycle and eliminate

radioactive waste produced by the nuclear power plants.

2020

We suggest that an additional twelve newer generation reactors be constructed,

in addition to four more fission-fusion hybrid research reactors. These hybrid reactors,

depending on the technological advancement, can either be used to continue and

increase the amount of research being done or will be able to be used commercially in

the future. An additional thirty older generation reactors should be upgraded to newer

Source: USNRC

Nuclear Reactors in the U.S.


31/58


3

F i n

al R


generation reactors. All reactors constructed will bear in mind all appropriate measures

and infrastructure for the maintenance, reuse and disposal of nuclear waste.

Reprocessing facilities should be fully operational at this time.

2025

By 2025 we recommend that thirty more reactors should have been upgraded to

the newer generation reactors. An additional twelve newer generation reactors would

be constructed along with thirty additional fast-breeder reactors. We recommend

construction of a national storage site for nuclear wastes by this date and will be ready

to begin accepting nuclear materials. Fast breeder reactors should be using

reprocessed fuel and nuclear waste management research funded by the Departmentof Energy should prove beneficial at this time.

2030

In 2030, nuclear energy should continue to expand its production capabilities.

An additional thirty old reactors should have been updated and twenty newer

generation reactors will have been constructed. At this time nuclear generated

electricity will be producing enough energy to account for approximately 30 percent ofthe nations energy needs.

2040

Twenty-five additional newer generation reactors and ten fast-breeder reactors

should be constructed. Additionally, we suggest all remaining older generation reactors

in the United States be upgraded to newer generation reactors.

2050

We recommend that by the year 2050 an additional twenty-five newer

generation reactors will have been completed creating a total of 210 reactors and fifty

fast breeder reactors in the United States. By this time between forty and fifty percent

of the electricity in the United States will be provided by nuclear energy.


32/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

32

Renewable Energy: Implementation andStorage

A competitive and diversified energy portfolio is vital to the development of

domestic industry and employment as well as national economic health. From a

technical standpoint, innovation and ingenuity give us the ability to constantly increase

the efficiency of renewable energy. Mos t renewable technologies are experiencing

annual growth rates in the double digits, many in the 20-50 percent range, easily

overtaking the current energy demand if harvested to their full potential (Sawin, 132).

In recent years, dramatic improvements in the performance and affordability of solarcells, wind turbines and biofuels have paved the way for mass commercialization

(Kammen, 87).

During the first ten months of 2009, renewable energy provided 10.5 percent of

U.S. electricity, showing the potential held by renewable energy to eventually take over

a large portion of the electricity sector (Energy Information Administration). Despite

this promising statistic, current energy policies cannot remain stagnant. In a study

conducted by the International Energy Agency, under a Business As Usual scenario,

the share of renewable sources in the worldwide energy consumption will only increase

by one percent until 2030, from 13

to 14 percent (International

Energy Agency).

Through reallocating

funding sources and providing

incentives for developing

renewable technologies, our goalis to ultimately transition the

country, and the world to an

economy based on renewable

energy. Despite current

Source: Energy Informat ion Administration


33/58


33

F i n

al R


limitations, renewable energy is the cleanest and most sustainable form of energy and

is ideal for our electricity-based global society. By the year 2050, we propose that the

renewable energy sector account for 40 percent of energy consumption in the U.S.

Creating Green Communities

We recommend that the Department of Energy set aside $1.9 billion of their $13

billion annual loan budget to support low-interest loans (at an interest rate ofapproximately 2.5 percent) for community projects designed to green their

communities. Initiatives s uch as these would empower citizens in the business s ector

to create their own sustainable projects, even before more massive action is

implemented.

Source: knowledge.allianz.com

Business as Usual


34/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

34

There are many projects and initiatives like the ones above that are relatively

low cost and spread support for renewable energy in a manner that is almost viral. We

also recommend a major effort in the short-term for renewable energy -- setting up a

pilot program of charging stations in an area that is dense in electric cars. The

Departments of Energy and Transportation could make a collaborative effort on this

beginning infrastructure. Private companies that helped create this system with the

government could be offered tax credits. It will serve to advance renewable technology

by expanding the convenience for the consumer.

Wind Power

To accomplish the goal we have set for renewable energy, several sectors of

renewable energy must be expanded, including wind, solar and

geothermal. Studies have shown that with sufficient funding, wind

power could account for 20 percent of energy consumption by

2030, through utilizing 30,000 square miles in the American

Southwest. (DOE, 20% Wind). This scenario is based on a number

of primary assumptions, namely wind turbine energy productionincreasing by 15 percent and wind turbine costs decreasing by

about ten percent. For one-fifth of the nations electricity to be

provided by wind, about 300 gigawatts (GW) would have to be generated by wind.

Estimates for the direct cost to society is about $43 billion, translating to roughly about

$0.50 monthly per consumer (DOE, 20% Wind) We recommend this target, which

would require annual installations to increase more than threefold. Indeed, achieving

20 percent wind will require the number of annual turbine installations to increase fromapproximately 2000 in 2006 to almost 7000 in 2017. Costs of integrating intermittent

wind power into the grid are modest; 20 percent wind can be reliably integrated into the

grid for less than 0.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (DOE, 20% Wind, p. 25).

No material constraints currently exist, although demand for copper, fiberglass

and other raw materials will increase. Clearly, achieving 20 percent wind is not limited


35/58


35

F i n

al R


by the availability of raw materials.

Despite the fact that raw materials

are available, the transmission and

distribution of the energy will be a

challenge. Issues related to siting and

cost allocation of new transmission

lines to access the nations best wind

resources will need to be resolved.

According to our plan, final benefits

would result in 150,000 direct jobs

and 500,000 total jobs created, and a total of $440 billion contribution to the USeconomy, as depicted below. Through this plan, an estimated 825 million tons of

carbon emissions will be reduced annually (DOE, 20% Wind, p. 34)

Job Estimates created by increasing wind power generation:

Source: DOE 20% Wind


36/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

36

Solar Power

The capability of solar power is enormous.Energy from the sun is virtually unlimited, says the

Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems which

declares that the ratio of the sunshine on the solid part

of the earth to the total power needs of the humans on

Earth in 2020 is 6:1 (Johnson, 34). In the U.S. alone,

only 2.5 percent of the solar radiation received by 250,000 square miles in the

American Southwest is necessary to match the countrys total energy consumption in

2006 (Zweibel, 64). The International Energy Agency (IEA) has reported that solar

photovoltaic and concentrated solar power together could account for about 22 percent

of global electricity production by 2050. Concentrated solar power would supply one

fifth of the solar energy. 7 The IEA also expects photovoltaic technology fitted on

residential and commercial buildings to reach grid parity by 2020. 8

Photovoltaic systems in particular show the potential for strong growth over the

next century, albeit with time and constant funding. Zweibel describes in one particular

study, solar energy could power 69 percent of the electricity demand by 2050 and 35percent of its total energy, but would require substantial investments in research and

the development of a radically different infrastructure. In this plan, 30,000 square miles

of photovoltaic arrays would be erected to provide almost 3,000 GW of power (Zweibel,

66). Compressed-air

energy storage would

be used to maintain

excess power for darkhours. A high-voltage

direct-current

transmission system

would be used to send

electricity to the7Producing c oncentrated solar power requires long, metallic mirrors to f ocus sunlight onto a fluid-f illed pipe, heatingit and then running the f luid through a heat exchanger, producing steam that t urns a turbine. Sixt een hours ofstorage would be needed for electricity to be generated f or 24 hours (Zweibel, 67).

8 Grid Parity : consistent cost-competit iveness with convent ional f oss il f uels and nuclear power (Internat ional EnergyAgency ).


37/58


37

F i n

al R


storage facilities throughout the country, which, at 2050, encompass 535 billion cubic ft

of s torage (p. 68). While this seems like an excellent solution, an exorbitant amount of

money is required to fulfill the solar grand plan within such a narrow time period. $420

billion is needed to completely over-haul the nations energy infrastructure, installing a

SmartGrid-reminiscent system suited for solar energy 9. However, if the plan were

adjusted to fit with the timeline we have created, solar power would receive enough

money from the redistribution of subsidies to easily supplement the existing renewable

energy by 2030.

9 The Smart Grid is an automated electric power system that monitors and controls grid activities, ensuring the two-way flow of electric ity and information between power plants and consumersand all points in between. Whatmakes this grid "smart" is the ability to sense, monitor, and, in some cases, control (automatically or remotely) how

the system operates or behav es under a given set of c onditions. (Smartgrid.gov).


38/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

38

Geothermal and Hydroelectric Power

As further research is completed in the area of renewable energy, newtechnologies will be created and improved. By 2030, geothermal power is expected to

provide five percent of the U.S. electricity, if not more (Mims). Geothermal accounts

for a large portion of the renewable energy base of the United States. As newer and

safer methods of drilling

are developed, geothermal

power is expected to

become a major power

player in the energy

industry, more than it

already is .

Currently, hydroelectric power is responsible

for about six percent of U.S. electricity, but over the

next fifty to one hundred years, that number will

decrease ("Electric 2008", p. 11). Due to the

controversial nature of hydroelectric power and the

adverse ecological impact of dams, hydroelectricpower will be slowly phased out of the electricity and

energy sectors. Another point of contention concerns

the impending water crisis. We believe the American

public should not have to choose between clean,

renewable energy and water.

Source: Green, p.3.


39/58


39

F i n

al R


Renewable Energy Storage and Transmission

Following the five year period dedicated to education (2010-2015), our subsidyreallocation plan dictates that renewable energy technology will begin to receive at

least 60 percent of a redistributed fossil fuel subsidies. Initially, this will mean a

subsidy of $600 million in 2015. This amount will increase steadily until 2025 when

renewable energy will receive roughly $7 billion annually out of the $11.8 billion fund,

starting that year.

We suggest that the $7 billion generated from the diminished fossil fuel

subsidies will also be used to research energy storage and transmission capabilities. In

the realm of innovative ways to ease the transition to renewable energy and to

diminish the intermittency of sustainable energy, gravel batteries have been shown by

an independent UK technology firm, Isentropic, to be useful in energy storage. These

batteries were used in a hydroelectric setting. Isentropic claims the round-trip energy

efficiency of up to eighty percent and the cost of a s ystem per kilowatt-hour of storage

to be between $10 and $55

(Isentropic). The issue of energy

storage after peak hours forsunlight could also come in the

form of solar-powered

electrolyzers, splitting water

molecules into hydrogen and

oxygen. Excess daytime electricity

from solar panels can power the

electrolyzer and the gases couldthen be recombined in a fuel cell

to yield electricity, with the only

by-product being water (Johnson,

p. 50). 10

10 Some additional energy storage technologies currently being researched, past the conv entional method pumpedstorage, are a large-scale energy island offshore energy storage system, testing advanced storage technologiesf or ancillary services, an adv anced high temperature superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) system, ahigh temperature superconducting f ault current limiter, a compact high-temperature superconductor hydropowergenerator, a small-scale electricity storage system and flexible storage for distributed generation. In the electricitysec tor, pressurized air storage and electrochemical storage in f uel cells will cont ribute to the enhancement of thesystem (EREC, p. 8).

Electrolyzer


40/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

40

In response to transmission and distribution concerns, we recommend that

money be funneled towards the research of high-temperature superconducting (HTS)

cables. Public resistance to the installation of new power lines is growing, even as the

need for more lines increases. HTS cables can carry three to five times more current

than conventional power lines can, while maintaining the diameter of the conventional

lines (American Superconductor). Composed of a ceramic-based superconducting wire

with little electrical impedance and virtually no resistive heat losses, an HTS cable is

also more environmentally friendly.

Its integration into a portion of the National Grid electric transmission system in

Albany, New York and across New England states shows promise for applications

countrywide (Moscovic).

By 2050, our renewable energy technology and production capabilities s hould

reach a level that they can account for 40 percent of all U.S. energy consumption. The

money spent on renewable energy will be used to develop these technologies, and

es tablish long-term s torage systems. These inves tments, in addition to an innovative

distribution system will make large movements towards a renewable society.

HTS CableSource: physicsworld.com


41/58


4

F i n

al R


Energy Efficiency: Commercial, Industrialand Residential Buildings

In 2008, the building sector, including residential, commercial, and industrial

structures, consumed over 70 percent of total electricity alone (Energy Information

Administration). The building sector has a vas t impact on the environment, accounting

for 38 percent of greenhouse gas emissions larger than any other sector. Buildings

also require heavy consumption of natural resources, including:

40 % of raw material use 30 % of waste output

14 % of total water consumption (USGBC).

Increasing the efficiency of buildings will not only have profoundly beneficial effects on

the environment, but can also be achieved through the process of green building.

Green building is the practice of creating and using healthier and more resource-

efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance and

demolition (U.S. EPA Green Building). According to the United States Green

Building Council (USGBC), green buildings in comparison with average buildings have:

26 % less energy needs

13 % lower maintenance costs

33% fewer greenhouse gas emissions (USGBC).

Green building

To encourage more green building practices, the United States Department of

Energy (DOE) implemented the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC).

These codes are guidelines that apply to new buildings to guarantee that newly built


42/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

42

structures are energy efficient, but are not implemented by every state. Currently,

these codes are encouraged, but nevertheless are voluntary. The baseline standard

for buildings energy efficiency is the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and

Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 Standard (DOE Building Energy Codes).

Even with this bare minimum, some s tates are s till not meeting these building codes.

Through enforcing regulations and promoting green building techniques, our goal is to

collectively make every building in the U.S. net-zero by 2050.

Government Funding and Loans

To avoid the excessive government spending that would normally be incurredby this sort of project, we s uggest that the government use performance contracting,

which government and other organizations already use for building renovation projects.

For example, the National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO) funds

70 percent of their building projects using performance contracting (ICF International).

Using this method, businesses take out a loan, which is then paid back over a period

Green Building


43/58


43

F i n

al R


of 2 20 years using the savings gained from the installation of the energy efficient

technology ("Missouri Energy $mart Schools," ICF International). In this particular

case, we recommend the government give out three year loans between $10,000 to

$50,000 per project with an interest rate of 2.5 percent (Retro- commissioning NEMI).

Conservative estimates show that if the quota is met, $57 million in profit will go to the

federal government every three years.

The federal government will then distribute the

profit, 40 percent will go to the states (40 percent of

the profit made from each state), 30 percent will go

toward the federal budget, and 30 percent will go

toward tax credits for non-profits that support greenhousing education such as Habitat for Humanity and

Casa Verde, as well as the Alliance to Save Energy.

Of the 40 percent that will go to the states, we

recommended that states distribute the funds to electric utilities, low-income housing

projects and research grants to further encourage energy efficiency. A state will

receive this federal money only after it can officially docum ent how it plans to spend

the money in its budget.The money received from this loan system would also be used to purchase

renewable energy systems, such as solar panels or wind turbines, to meet some of the

buildings energy needs. This presents a cost

effective way for the buyers to purchase and

install these systems onto their buildings and

also generates a small amount of revenue for

the federal and state governments from

payments on the 2.5 percent interest charge.

By 2025, we propose that 33 percent of the

potentially commissionable industrial and commercial buildings should be outfitted, a

conservative m inimum of $190 million profit will be allocated to the fifty states based on

the amount of buildings that take the loans to fund education, subsidies for energy


44/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

44

efficiency technologies for buildings, public education for building commissioners and

the renewable energy workforce, and grants for both on-grid and off-grid renewable

energy systems. This entire procedure could create new jobs amounting in the

thousands including building commissioners, renewable energy startup employees,

and energy efficiency technology development and distribution, all cost-neutral if not

cost-positive to the government.

Initially, we recommend the federal government give loans to each state. These

states would then distribute this fund to support the alternative energies and would

receive some revenue that would be redistributed again, creating a pool of funds to

allow continual support for the program. Eventually the revenue collected by these

loans would allow for funding into other sectors such as education and research intoalternative energy. The availability of alternative energy due to these loans will

advance the use of technologies like solar panels, as the loans make it viable for the

residential and commercial sectors to utilize them without having a lot of financial risk.

Residential, Commercial and Industrial Buildings

Based on the Department of Energys Save Energy Now program, by 2015, thegovernment needs to have converted 10 percent of all exis ting commercial and

industrial buildings to be at least 25 percent more energy efficient, (DOE Save Energy

Now). From this year forward, the federal government should be required to assist in

the renovation of 10% of the remaining commercial and industrial buildings in each

state every 3 years.

In the res idential sector, we recommend the 34 s tates that

have the ability to reach the IECC 2009 residential buildingstandard will be required to meet that standard by 2015. 11 The 16

states that are not predicted to be able to meet the IECC 2009

11 Some recommendations for states set to meet the 2009 IECC standards by 2016 South and North Dakota, Wyoming and Texas: These st ates (with the exception of Wyoming) are large agriculturalcenters and have strong potential wind energy (Agriculture receipts: Total, Wind Maps and Wind ResourcePotent ial Estimates). This can be used to help said stat es meet the 2003 IECC standards that will be the nationalminimum in 2015. Wind energy companies would rent out a portion of agricultural land (determined by the landowner and the company) for $3,000 to $5,000 per windmill (for the land required for one turbine) per year (WindPower's Cash Crop) . This would make citizens and developers more willing to build new buildings in compliancewith the IECC standards of 2003, which would allow these states to begin their required accelerated eff iciencyprograms by 2015.


45/58


45

F i n

al R


standard by 2012 should be required to develop accelerated programs that will get

these s tates to 20 percent compliance with the IECC 2009 standard by 2012, 40

percent compliance in 2013, 60 percent compliance in 2014, and so on, until they havereached 100 percent compliance with the IECC 2009 standard in 2016.

Eventually, all 50 states will be on the same minimum IECC standard, and we

recommend they also comply with the Green Points Program currently utilized in

Colorado. This program states that new residential buildings must be 30-75 percent

more efficient than the 2006 IECC levels , and have a Home Energy Rating System of

15-50 percent more efficient that IECC. New commercial buildings must increase

efficiency standards by 30 percent. (Database of State Incentives for Renewables and

Efficiency).

The National Commissioning Collaborative

To further advance and push for energy efficiency in buildings, we recommend

creating a National Commissioning Collaborative by 2025, based off of the California

Commissioning Collaborative (CCC), which follows the Department of Energys

strategy for building commissioning. 12 The CCC is a nonprofit public corporation that

advocates for and makes commissioning towards energy efficient buildings possible.

This organization makes training and education accessible so that California may

reach its goals in energy efficiency.

Through their efforts they have worked to

spread knowledge about commissioning and

make it a standardized process. Implementing

practices such as those piloted by the CCC, aNational Commissioning Collaborative will allow

for the government to observe the progress of the

nation with respect to energy efficiency in

12 Building commissioning is the process of ensuring that systems are designed, installed, functionally tested andcapable of being operated and maintained according to the owner's operational needs. Commissioning is performedin new construction projects and in major capital improvements or retrof its (California Commissioning Collaborative).


46/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

46

buildings. Buildings will undergo a standardized commissioning process that will

evaluate the efficiency of the building and create a database upon which more

information can be compiled, including particular areas that are doing well and areas

where building efficiency is poor. Such an organization would stress the importance of

energy efficiency of buildings as well as create thousands of jobs throughout the nation

for the commissioning process.

Tax Incentives

We feel that a great deal must be done to encourage on site energy production

in buildings. If buildings are self-sustainable or at least can provide for the majority of

their energy needs, they are investing in Americas burgeoning renewable energy

industry and taking another step toward sustainability. Several states, such as Illinois,

have adopted a policy that will not tax more for solar energy systems than conventional

energy systems on property taxes, incentivizing purchases dramatically (Special

Assessment for Solar Energy DSIRE). We recom mend that by 2025, each state must

develop a s tandardized code for property tax incentives regarding renewable energy

systems with a minimum baseline of dropping normal property taxes of renewableenergy systems by 50 percent.

Energy Credit Systems

By continuing efforts enacted in the short term as well as implementing new

measures in this range of 2025 onward, we believe it is a feasible goal for the entire

nation to be at 35 percent net-zero energy in existing buildings by 2025. Net-zero

means that these buildings would produce as

much energy as they consumed, or receive this

energy from renewable sources, as defined by

off-site net zero energy consumption (National


47/58


47

F i n

al R


Renewable Energy Laboratory). In order to enforce thes e measures, all 50 states must

consider implementation of a renewable energy credit system similar to Illinois

renewable energy credit system (Renewable Portfolio Standard DSIRE). In this

program, all investor-owned or retail utilities will be required to meet 50 percent of a

state-mandated renewable energy quota through utility owned renewable energy

generation systems, and the rest of the s tate quota either through renewable energy

generation systems or by buying renewable energy credits traded on a state-wide

exchange. This standard can create an incentive for commercial buildings to invest in

renewable energy technologies for their building with short pay-back times, and that is

compliant with standards set at the discretion of each state. There is a risk of this

program failing unless there is buy-in from fossil fuel-run utilities.As buildings continue to become more efficient, we recommend that utility

companies should be able to run 75 percent of all buildings as net-zero nationwide by

2040. Given some leniency, the utilities do not necessarily have to produce the

renewable energy themselves but can take advantage of the renewable energy credit

system. By 2050, all buildings in the United States will be collectively net-zero, as a

result of the continued conversion of utility companies to alternative energy sources

such as nuclear and renewable energy.


48/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

48

Conclusion: Looking Forward, 2050 andBeyond

By the year 2050, we will have effectivel y remodeled our nations energy

portfolio into a more sustainable and reliable one. We have effectively educated the

public, as well as fossil fuel companies, of the benefits of converting to renewable

energy. We have practically reduced the fossil fuel dependence from 75 percent to 20

percent (Greentechmedia.com). Fifteen percent of our energy will be derived from

natural gas. Another part of our final goal is to

devote five percent of our energy portfolio tooil. Renewable energy sources, especially

geothermal and solar, will account for 40

percent of our energy portfolio, and nuclear

power will conceivably account for the

remaining 40 percent of U.S. electricity

demand. With the incorporation of natural gas

and hybrid-electric vehicles into the existing

infrastructure, will continue to lesson our

dependence on foreign oil. In addition to

shifting the focus from non-renewable to more

sustainable energy sources, we will have

significantly decreased our energy consumption due to the goal of 100 percent

collectively net-zero buildings in the U.S. by this time.

Beyond 2050, we have placed other goals to secure the continued reliability and

sustainability of our nations energy. By the year 2075 we believe algal fuels will becompletely researched and implemented so that we may replace the five percent oil

sources with algal fuel sources. In addition, we will replace the 20 percent fossil fuel

sector that is comprised of natural gas and oil with renewables between 2080 and

2100, effectively eliminating fossil fuels and replacing it with sustainable, clean sources

Energy Goals 2050

Natural gas15%

Oil5%

Renew able40%

Nuclear40%


49/58


49

F i n

al R


of fuel. If current U.S. policy trends endure, more and more nuclear waste from other

nations will be transported to the U.S. for reprocessing, enabling fast breeder reactors

to reuse nuclear waste from not only the U.S. but als o from other nations to generate

electricity. In the near future a majority of the hot nuclear waste could be used as an

energy source. An example would be the use of excess heat to boil water or even

potentially using the fusion-fission hybrid nuclear waste to split water molecules to

produce hydrogen gas for use in fuel cells (NYSERDA).

After another thirty years , with roughly $200 billion from the fossil fuel subsidies,

renewable energy should be able to comfortably replace the remaining natural gas

sector, producing about 60 percent of American electricity. Again, photovoltaic power

and geothermal sources will account for the impending transition. The growth of solaras a promising source of energy is primarily policy-driven. As more policies are

implemented supporting the expansion of the renewable industry, production will

respond likewise. Eventually, the current energy transmission and distribution system

should be able to transition to a Smart Grid, utilizing distributed generation to relieve

intermittency. In conclusion, our recommendations created a system that will help our

country have a more sustainable, reliable, and healthy source of energy in the future.


50/58


F i n a

l R e c o m m e n

d a

t i o n s

50

Bibliography 20% Wind Energy by 2030. U.S. Department of Energy. May 2008. Print. Available

online ."Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors | Generation III Nuclear Reactors." World Nuclear

Association | Nuclea

Documents

2010 National Yps Energy Policy Recs Web Quality