How can you save money on your gas and electric bills and help solve the problem of global warming?

Did you know:

• Homes are huge energy consumers, accounting for one-fifth of the U.S.’s total annual energy demand?
• Heating and cooling costs account for about one-half of a typical home’s total energy bill?
• The average household will spend almost $2100 on home energy costs in 2007?
• Low-cost energy efficiency investments can reduce household energy bills by 30% or more?
• If every U.S. household replaced just one incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, it would save enough energy to light more than 8 million homes and save over $900 million in utility bills?
• Indiana ranks 1st in the nation for the amount of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) air emissions per person?
• Indiana is among the nation’s top five polluting states, primarily due to our heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants for our electricity?
• Making energy efficiency part of your everyday activities reduces demand for coal and other resources needed to produce electricity, meaning less greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner air for all, and costs savings for you?
• Reducing your energy consumption and making energy efficiency a priority is easy and fun when you have the basic tools to begin?

Continue reading to find out more about the simple tools that will reduce your energy consumption. While becoming more energy efficient to help solve the problem of global warming, you will also save money on your natural gas and electric bills.

Global warming

We can no longer afford to ignore global warming. Its consequences, including loss of life, economic disruption and population dislocation are growing each year. "As individuals living on the planet at this moment in time, we face a challenge no generation has ever had to face. We need to dramatically change the manner in which we use the Earth’s natural resources. And we need to do this soon or we will significantly increase the severity of climate-induced natural disasters."

The accumulation of greenhouse gases caused by everyday activities of modern life – driving our cars, heating and cooling our homes, and running our factories, is transforming our climate, acting like an extra blanket around the earth and trapping more heat than would otherwise be there. "Around the world, climate change is threatening not only individual species such as polar bears, tigers, salmon, penguins and corals, but it is also posing potentially catastrophic and long-term changes to the environment and people’s lives around the world."

"In addition to rising temperatures, climate change is resulting in sea level rise, increased hurricane intensity, glacier decline, increased drought, spread of disease, shifts in the timing of seasons, increased flooding, changes in freshwater supply, and an increase in extreme weather events."

References:

• David Gershon, Low Carbon Diet: A 30 Day Program to Lose 5000 Pounds, p.1 (2006).
• World Wildlife Fund: http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/basic.cfm

What are greenhouse gases?

Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as "greenhouse gases." These include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and water vapor. These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. However, as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases increase, more heat is trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere than is radiated back into space, causing the temperature of the Earth’s surface to rise.

Why are atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases increasing?


Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively know as the "carbon cycle." The movement ("flux") of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic [made or generated by a human or caused by human activity] carbon dioxide emissions produced each year, an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

With the beginning of large-scale industrialization around 150 years ago, human activities have been dramatically adding to the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil to power our cars, factories, businesses and homes, is increasing carbon dioxide beyond natural levels. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "today’s rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is already 27 percent higher than its highest recorded level during the last 650,000 years."

References:


• Energy Information Administration, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy ( modified 4/2/04), found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
• American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005. New Research in Science Shows Highest CO2 levels in 650,000 Years. (Press Release), found at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1128ice.shtml

Do scientists agree that recent increases in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are largely man-made?

In the last decade our understanding of climate change has vastly increased and the debate surrounding climate change has been settled. Notwithstanding the natural variability of the Earth’s climate, top scientists from all the major scientific bodies of the world are unanimous about this man-made phenomenon. They have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. All agree that we must take immediate action to avoid the most dire consequences of global warming.

• The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
• In February of 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") issued its report concluding that "[g]lobal atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. . . . The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture."

The IPCC report went on to state that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level . . . Among its findings:

• Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).
• The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
• The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.
• Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise.
• Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres. Widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps have contributed to sea level rise (ice caps do not include contributions from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets).
• New data now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003.
• Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 mm per year.

In terms of understanding and attributing climate change, the report stated that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s [Third Assessment Report’s] conclusion that 'most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.' Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns . . ."



The science of global warming is clear


While greenhouse gases occur naturally, scientists confirm that recent and relatively rapid increases in greenhouse gas emissions stem from human activity related to our energy use. In other words, the primary cause of global warming is carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels like gasoline, coal, oil and natural gas, which we use as energy to power our cars and homes and to produce the goods we consume.

Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from coal, petroleum and natural gas represent 82% of total U.S. human-made greenhouse gas emissions. Methane (from agriculture, landfills, coal mines, and oil and gas operations) represents another 9%. Nitrous oxide (emitted from burning fossil fuels and through the use of certain fertilizers and industrial processes) represents another 5% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Other human-made gases (released as byproducts of industrial processes and through leakage) account for another 2% of greenhouse gas emissions.

In summary, the science of global warming is clear. The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.


References:

• Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change,. 2005.
• Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Summary for Policymakers, February, 2007 (emphasis added).
• Energy Information Administration, Grenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy (modified 4/2/04), found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html.

Causes of global warming - some statistics



U.S. energy consumption


America is by far the world’s largest consumer of energy. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States consumed about 22% of all the energy used in the world in 2004. We use more energy each year than all the nations of Western Europe combined, and we use about two-thirds more energy than China, though China’s consumption of energy is rising fast.

Although the U.S. represents less than 5% of the world’s population, we produce about 25% of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, primarily because we meet 85% of our energy needs through burning fossil fuels. Of the over 85% of energy the U.S. uses from fossil fuels, 40% comes from petroleum and about 23% each from coal and natural gas. Nuclear electric power accounts for another 8% of the U.S.’s total energy consumption. Despite America’s vast potential for energy from the sun, wind, crops and other renewable sources, renewable energy currently accounts for a mere 6% of our total energy use. In 2005, hydroelectric power accounted for just under half (45%) of the total energy from renewable resources, followed by wood, waste, geothermal, alcohol fuels, wind and solar.

"While most people associate global warming primarily with vehicle exhaust, electricity generation is the leading source of U.S. carbon dioxide (C02) emissions – the most important heat-trapping gas. Our coal plants already emit more CO2 than all our cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, boats, trains, and airplanes combined, and the U.S. Department of Energy projects that CO2 emissions from coal, if left unchecked, will increase an additional 52 percent by 2030 (compared with 2003 levels)." "About 40 percent of it is used to fuel power plants that supply electricity to power our homes, businesses and industry. Another 28 percent is used to power our transportation system, with most of that energy used to fuel personal cars, light trucks and SUVs. Industry directly consumers about 21 percent of our energy, not counting electricity produced from electric power plants and consumed by industrial facilities. Home and business energy consumption round out the picture."



Electricity consumption – U.S. and Indiana


According to the EIA, coal is used to produce 50% of U.S. electric generation. In contrast, coal is used to produce almost 95% of electric generation in Indiana.

Though a mere 7% of the energy the U.S. uses comes from the sun, wind, crops and other renewable resources, even less - only 1.5% - of Indiana’s energy is produced from renewable resources, most of that from biomass for ethanol blend in gasoline. Indiana ranks 15th in the nation in terms of state population; however, it ranks 4th in the nation in terms of the number of megawatt hours¹ of electricity generated from coal as opposed to other energy sources (i.e., natural gas, petroleum, nuclear power, renewable resources), and 3rd in the nation in terms of the total number of megawatt hours of electricity generated from coal (surpassed only by Texas – ranked 2nd in the nation in terms of state population - and Ohio – ranked 7th in state population).

In terms of fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation, Indiana ranks 2nd in the nation in the number of short tons² of coal consumed on an annual basis, surpassed only by Texas.

Coal and greenhouse gas emissions


"In the 1950s, most coal was consumed in the industrial sector, many homes were still heated by coal, and the transportation sector consumed coal in steam-driven trains and ships. By the 1960s, most coal was used for generating electricity. In 2005, the electric power sector accounted for 92% of all coal consumption." According to the Environmental Law and Policy Center, "[t]he Midwest has the largest concentration of old, dirty coal plants that produce large amounts of CO2 which cause global warming, and the Midwest is the center of the United States' transportation industry. The Midwest is the most important region in the most important country in the world when it comes to solving our global warming problems."

Combined, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin account for 20% of the carbon dioxide pollution in the United States and 5% of the world’s total pollution. Indiana is the 5th largest producer of carbon dioxide air emissions from electric power plants in the United States (122,094,588 metric tons), almost 95% of which is produced from burning coal. Texas ranks 1st in CO2 air emissions from electric power plants (258,660,697), Ohio 2nd (131,831,144), Florida 3rd (130,324,815), and Pennsylvania 4th (126,712,616).

In addition, Indiana ranks 3rd in the nation in terms of the number of metric tons of sulfur dioxide air emissions (responsible for fine particle pollution and acid rain - neighboring Ohio ranks 1st), and 4th in terms of the number of metric tons of toxic nitrogen oxides emitted into the atmosphere (responsible for acid rain and smog - neighboring Ohio ranks 2nd). Most alarming, Indiana ranks 1st in the nation for the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per person from all Indiana energy sectors.

Major Indiana sources of CO2 emissions


Twenty-five coal-burning electric power plants provide the major source of CO2 emissions in Indiana, representing 77% of all such emissions (natural gas-burning sources produce just under 20% in additional CO2 air emissions, while major Indiana industries and institutions produce another 2.6%). The largest of Indiana’s coal-fired power plants is Duke Energy Indiana’s Gibson Plant in Southwestern Indiana (Gibson County), which accounts for almost 16% of total CO2 emissions for all coal-burning electric power plants in Indiana. Along with its coal-burning plants in Vermillion (Cayuga), Knox (Edwardsport), Floyd (R. Gallagher) and Vigo (Wabash River) Counties, Duke Energy contributes over 28% of total CO2 air emissions from electric power plants in Indiana each year.

Duke Energy’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in Indiana will grow by more than 3.5 million additional tons of CO2 per year should the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approve Duke Energy Indiana and Vectren’s petition to build a 630 megawatt (MW) Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power plant in Edwardsport, Indiana.³ Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., sister agency to the Citizens Action Coalition Education Fund, opposes construction of this plant, instead urging the IURC to direct Duke to begin investing in cleaner, more economic energy efficiency and renewable power alternatives.

38.4% of all CO2 air emissions in Indiana come from coal-fired power plants located in just five counties in Southwestern Indiana. This number increases to 42.9% when major natural gas-burning and industrial sources are included.⁴ Major sources of CO2 emissions in Central Indiana include Indianapolis Power & Light Company’s Harding Street coal-burning electric generation facility, which produces 3,687,128 tonnes⁵ of CO2 per year, Indianapolis-based industries including the Damler-Chrysler Corporation Foundry (5,486,660 tonnes/year) and the C.C. Perry K. Steam Plant (797,331 tonnes/year), Duke Energy-Noblesville’s natural gas-burning plant in Hamilton County (208,762 tonnes/year) and Steel Dynamics, Inc., (SDI) Bar Products natural gas-burning plant in Hendricks County (105,524 tonnes/year). Just under 10% of all CO2 air emissions in Indiana come from electric power plants and major industries in Lake, Porter and LaPorte Counties in Northwestern Indiana. Over 16% of all CO2 air emissions in Indiana come from electric generation facilities and major industries in Vermillion, Vigo and Sullivan Counties in West-Central Indiana.




---

¹A megawatt hour is a measure of energy production or consumption equal to one million watts, or one thousand kilowatts, produced or consumed for one hour.

²A "short ton" is how the U.S. has historically measured units of coal. A short ton equals 2,000 pounds, and is equivalent to .90719 metric tons. Most other nations use metric units of measure.

³While the IGCC technology will reduce some emissions, it will increase others because it will be operating much more frequently than the power plants that will be shut down. Carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 785%; lead emissions by 14,555%; carbon monoxide emissions by 1,480%; particulate matter by 297%; and volatile organic compounds by 678%. Complete information on CAC’s opposition to the IGCC plant is available at www.citact.org.

⁴The counties are Pike, Gibson, Spencer, Warrick and Posey.

⁵A tonne refers to a metric unit of measurement in wide use outside the U.S. One metric tonne of CO2 equals 1.102 short tons.




---

References:

• Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Duke/Vectren Proposed Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Plant: Poor Energy Planning for Indiana, March, 2007: http://www.citact.org/dukeigcc/pdfs/DukeVectrenIGCCReport.pdf
• Energy Information Administration, Grenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy (modified 4/2/04), found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html.
• Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2005 (July, 2006).
• Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/generation_state.xls, 2005 data.
• Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/emission_state.xls, 2005 data.
• Environmental Law and Policy Center: Midwest to Solve Our Global Warming Problems, Global Warming Solutions Campaign.
• Freese, Barbara; Deyette, Jeff, Cleaning Up Coal’s Act, Union of Concerned Scientists, Catalyst Magazine, Volume 5, Number 1 (Spring, 2006).
• Indiana Geological Survey Map, Major Point Sources of CO2 Emissions And Conceptual Geological Sequestration Strategies In Indiana, May 2007.
• INPIRG: A New Energy Future, Fall 2006.
• John Clark, Senior Advisor to the Governor, Director, Indiana Office of Energy & Defense Development; Chair, Interagency Council on Energy, The Indiana Utility Industry in 2007 and Beyond: Energy’s Role in Indiana’s Growing Economy, March 2007 slide presentation.
• State Utility Forecasting Group, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana: 2006 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study, pp. 2-3 (September, 2006).
• U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/tables/SC-EST2006-01.xls.

Environmental risks associated with coal-fired power plants

"Today, the nation is facing a health crisis from power plant pollution. Every year power plants spew billions of tons of pollution into our air. Nationally, 50% of electricity comes from coal [roughly 95% in Indiana], but coal-fired power plants are responsible for the lion’s share of dangerous pollution from the electric power industry. Within the electric power industry, these plants generate:

• 97% of deadly fine particle soot and sulfur dioxide emissions;
• 92% of smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions;
• 86% of emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary global warming pollutant; and
• Almost 100% of toxic mercury emissions.

Moreover, power plants are responsible for more than 68% of the total annual emissions of sulfur dioxide, the primary ingredient of deadly fine particle pollution, from all sources, including cars and trucks."

According to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for more effective enforcement of environmental laws: "When the original Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the electric utility industry persuaded Congress to not impose strict pollution controls on old power plants, because they would soon be replaced by newer state-of-the-art facilities. Yet despite the industry’s promises, many of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants continue to operate."

"Power plants provide electricity for our homes, businesses, and factories. But they also foul America’s air with dangerous pollution. Each year, power plants emit millions of tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), pollutants that trigger asthma attacks and contribute to lung and heart disease. Power plants area also major contributors to global warming, emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide (C02) each year. And power plants emit dangerous toxins like mercury, a neurotoxin especially harmful to children and developing fetuses."

Carbon dioxide, sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions from burning coal pollute our air and water. Sulfur mixes with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide (SO2), a chemical that can affect trees and water when it combines with moisture to produce acid rain. “Acid rain, formed primarily from power plant pollution, damages forests and causes lakes and streams to become acidic, killing fish. Acid rain also damages buildings, historical monuments and even cars."

Nitrogen oxide emissions cause other harmful environmental impacts, including forest and crop damage from ozone, nitrogen over-fertilization of estuaries, loss of fish and other aquatic species from acidification of streams and lakes, and reduced visibility due to regional haze.

"Power plants are responsible for 41% of the total mercury emitted by all known U.S. sources. Indiana has advised against consuming fish from ALL 35,673 miles of its rivers and 47,806 acres of its lakes due to the risks of mercury contamination. Mercury is a toxic heavy metal, which, when ingested, can cause serious neurological damage, particularly to developing fetuses, infants, and children. Children can be exposed to mercury in the womb or through breast milk if their mothers ingest mercury tainted fish or by consuming contaminated fish themselves. The neurotoxic effects of mercury exposure are similar to the effects of lead toxicity in children and include delayed development and cognitive defects, language difficulties, and problems with motor function, attention, and memory."


References:

• Clear the Air, Indiana’s Dirty Power Plants, available at http://www.cleartheair.org/regional/in/.
• Environmental Integrity Project, Dirty Kilowatts – America’s Most Polluting Power Plants, p. 1 (July, 2006).

Negative health effects from burning coal and other fossil fuels

Scientists working for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are able to predict how many premature deaths, heart attacks, and other impacts are caused by power plant pollution based on recent scientific studies by researchers affiliated with the American Cancer Society, the Harvard School of Public Health and other top universities and research institutions.

EPA consultants estimate that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of 887 Hoosiers each year. Hoosiers have the fifth highest risk of dying from power plant pollution in the country. "Fine particle pollution from power plants also causes 123,098 lost work days, 845 hospitalizations and 21,532 asthma attacks every year, 1,274 of which are so severe they require emergency room visits."

According to Stephen J. Jay, M.D., Chair of the Department of Public Health at Indiana University School of Medicine, "Indiana’s power plants place it among the nation’s top five polluting states in the country. . . . In April, 2005, the EPA identified 17 counties in Indiana that failed to meet the 1997 air quality standards for health protection regarding fine particles . . . . These counties are home to more than 2.5 million Hoosiers – more than 40% of the state’s total population."

The primary source of fine particle emissions comes from combustion of fossil fuels. "Because of their small size, fine particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs, and may enter the bloodstream. . . . There is broad scientific consensus that fine particle pollution endangers our health. These health effects range in severity from minor symptoms to chronic, serious and fatal outcomes."

Fine particle pollution:

• causes premature death in people with heart and lung disease, accounting for more deaths in the U.S. each year than either drunk driving or homicide (23,600);
• triggers thousands of heart attacks each year;
• worsens respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, triggering over 20,000 asthma attacks per year in Indiana;
• increases hospital admissions, emergency room visits and clinic visits for respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases;
• causes lung function changes, especially in children and people living with lung diseases such as asthma;
• causes changes in heart rate variability and irregular heartbeat;
• is associated with the development of chronic respiratory disease in children.

"Additionally, researchers have found that infants in areas with high levels of particulate matter pollution face a 26 percent increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and a 40 percent increased risk of respiratory death." "A recent scientific study by researchers affiliated with the American Cancer Society found that people living in the most polluted cities have approximately a 12% increased risk of cardiopulmonary death over those living in the cleanest areas of the country. Similarly, for lung cancer, there is approximately a 16% increase risk for those living in the more polluted cities. Based on EPA data, each year, 114 lung cancer deaths and 1491 heart attacks in Indiana are attributable to power plant pollution."

According to the American Lung Association’s "State of the Air: 2007" report, Indianapolis ranked 9th on the list of the most polluted cities across the nation.

"Children, the elderly, and people suffering from chronic illnesses are particularly vulnerable to the adverse health effects of air pollution. 'Poor and minority communities are also disproportionately affected by air pollution' because they often live closer to the emission sources. Well over 1 million children in Indiana live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant, the area associated with the highest health risks. Over 60,000 of these 1 million children have asthma."

As a result of fine particle pollution, the costs associated with premature mortality, illness, and lost productivity in Indiana exceed $5 billion each year."


References:

• Stephen J. Jay, MD, The Public Health Impact of a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) in Indiana, p. 3, testimony before the Indiana Regulatory Flexibility Committee, September, 2006.
• Clear the Air, Indiana’s Dirty Power Plants, available at http://www.cleartheair.org/regional/in/.

Controversial Solutions to the problem of global warming

	"Clean Coal" Technology: An imperfect option Over the years, pollution control laws have prompted the development of so-called "clean coal technologies" that can reduce the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot emanating from coal-fired power plants. In Indiana, "clean coal technology" is defined as a technology that directly or indirectly reduces airborne emissions of sulfur or nitrogen-based pollutants associated with the combustion or use of coal. Learn more...
	The cost of carbon dioxide regulation Unlike other air emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants are not currently regulated in the United States, meaning there is no limitation, nor cost to power plants, for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. However, this will likely change in the very near future. Most developed nations have responded to the overwhelming evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to global warming by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which requires them to reduce their CO2 emissions. The United States has thus far failed to do so, but as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is under increasing international pressure to act. Learn more...
	Nuclear power - A short-sited, costly and risky option With the emphasis on reducing carbon dioxide air emissions associated with coal-fired electric generation, recent discussions have included nuclear power as a solution to global climate change. The last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor came on-line over ten years ago. Nuclear power development has declined dramatically over the past several decades as rising economic costs (related to vastly extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation) falling fossil fuel prices and flat load growth made nuclear power plant construction less attractive. Learn more...

"Clean Coal" technology – an imperfect option

Over the years, pollution control laws have prompted the development of so-called "clean coal technologies" that can reduce the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and soot emanating from coal-fired power plants. In Indiana, "clean coal technology" is defined as a technology that directly or indirectly reduces airborne emissions of sulfur or nitrogen-based pollutants associated with the combustion or use of coal. Clean coal technologies generally fall into four main categories:

1. Coal washing involves grinding the coal into smaller pieces and passing it through a gravity separation process designed to lower the level of sulphur and minerals in the coal.

2. Pollution control devices are designed to reduce emissions of particulate matter (i.e., devices such as fabric filters, and electrostatic precipitators or ESPs, where flue gases are passed between collecting plates, attracting particles using an electric charge), nitrogen oxides (i.e., low NOx burners designed to reduce the formation of NOx by controlling the flame temperature and chemical environment in which the coal combusts), sulphur dioxide (i.e., flue gas desulphurization or FGD, also known as wet scrubbing, using a sulphur absorbing chemical such as lime to absorb SO2), and trace elements emissions such as mercury, cadmium and arsenic, which can be reduced by particulate controls, fluidized bed combustion and FGD equipment.

3. Efficient combustion technologies, which include:

• supercritical pulverized coal combustion (SPCC), which can increase the thermal efficiency of a power plant from 35% to 45%, thereby reducing emissions due to less coal being used;


• fluidized bed coal combustion (FBC), which allows coal combustion at relatively low temperatures to reduce NOx formation and uses a sorbent to absorb sulphur; and


• coal gasification, in which coal is reacted with steam and air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressure to form synthetic gas, or "syngas" (mostly carbon monoxide and hydrogen), which can be burned to produce electricity or processed to produce fuels such as diesel oil. Coal gasification technologies include:
  • Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) - a coal gasification technology in which coal is not combusted directly, but reacts with oxygen and steam to form a “syngas” (predominantly hydrogen and carbon monoxide), which is burned in gas turbines to produce electricity, and where exhaust heat from the turbine is used to produce steam to power a steam turbine (a second generation cycle) and provide steam to the gasification process.
  
  
  • Integrated Gasification Fuel Cells (IGFC) is another coal gasification technology that uses hydrogen from coal gasification in a solid fuel cell to produce electricity.
  In a general sense, coal gasification is similar to refining oil. Coal gasification takes a dirty coal package and refines it into cleaner hydrocarbons. "When coal gasification technology is used to produce SNG [substitute natural gas – pipeline quality gas that can serve end use consumers or can be used as fuel to produce electric power to supply electric utility service to end use consumers], emissions of regulated pollutants are very low because there is only limited combustion of already cleaned syngas." IGCC technology has the potential to take pollution control one step further, capturing CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere.

4. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) involves separating out or "capturing" the carbon dioxide, and storing it deep underground, in theory to prevent the greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere. Storage methods being considered include pumping CO2 into disused coal fields to displace methane which can be used as fuel, pumping CO2 into saline aquifers deep underground for long-term storage, and pumping CO2 into oil fields to help maintain pressure and make oil extraction easier.

"The few IGCC plants in existence emit large amounts of CO2, but this CO2 could be separated prior to combustion and then potentially captured and stored underground. It is much more cost-effective to incorporate carbon capture technology into and IGCC plant than it is to retrofit conventional coal plants with this technology." "Unfortunately, though nearly 20 new IGCC coal plants have been proposed, only one – a long-term Department of Energy demonstration project dubbed FutureGen – would be equipped with the technology needed to capture the millions of tons of CO2 these plants would produce every year. There is also no infrastructure in place for transporting the CO2 and storing it in a permanent location, and researchers have yet to determine whether large amounts of CO2 can be safely and reliably stored underground (in former oil and natural gas wells or deep saline aquifers) for long periods of time. Early studies have been encouraging, particularly when compared with the known risks of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere."

"There are no coal fired power stations in commercial production which capture all carbon dioxide emissions, so the process is theoretical and experimental and thus a subject of feasibility or pilot studies. It has been estimated that it will be 2020 to 2025 before any commercial scale clean coal power stations (coal burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) become commercially viable and widely adopted. This time frame is of concern because there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to protect the world economy according to the Stern report. Even when CO2 emissions can be caught, there is considerable debate over the necessary carbon capture and storage that must follow."


References:

• Indiana Code 8-1-8.7-1.
• Greenpeace Briefing, Climate, New Zealand, April, 2005, “Clean Coal” Technology, found at: www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdfs/CleanCoalBriefing.pdf, p.2.
• Prefiled Direct Testimony of William R. Rosenberg on Behalf of Indiana Gasification, LLC, in Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) Cause No. 43154, p. 3 (January 31, 2007).
• BBC News, Clean Coal Technology: How it Works, found at http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm
• Freese, Barbara; Deyette, Jeff, Cleaning Up Coal’s Act, Union of Concerned Scientists, Catalyst Magazine, Volume 5, Number 1, Spring, 2006.
• Answers.com, Clean Coal Technology, found on June 25, 2007 at: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?tname=clean%2Dcoal%2Dtechnology.

The cost of carbon dioxide regulation

Unlike other air emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants are not currently regulated in the United States, meaning there is no limitation, nor cost to power plants, for releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. However, this will likely change in the very near future. Most developed nations have responded to the overwhelming evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to global warming by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which requires them to reduce their CO2 emissions. The United States has thus far failed to do so, but as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it is under increasing international pressure to act.

"It is now virtually inevitable that America will adopt a federal law limiting global warming pollution from power plants. Indeed, given the momentum of emerging policy responses to global warming on the local, state and regional levels in the United States (as well as internationally), federal legislation will probably be adopted within the next five years."

"It is widely expected that future CO2 regulations will take the form of a 'cap-and-trade' system, similar to the national law for controlling sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions that cause acid rain. Such a system would establish a national cap on CO2 emissions, and power plant operators would have to own an ‘allowance’ for each ton of CO2 they emit. Operators could buy and sell these allowances for a price established by market forces. Economists believe such a cap-and-trade system would provide the flexibility and incentives to meet a given CO2 cap at the lowest cost."

Despite its advantages over traditional coal-fired electric generation, at present IGCC electric generation is an imperfect solution to the global warming crisis because:

• Without incorporating carbon capture and sequestration technology into the design, new IGCC plants will increase the level of greenhouse gas emissions significantly – an average of 4 million tons of CO2 per plant per year – beyond current, unacceptable levels.


• Indiana residents already face significant rate increases with impending CO2 regulations, as 95% of our electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, and any regulatory scheme is likely to pass these costs onto ratepayers. New electric generating plants that emit more CO2 into the atmosphere will only add to these costs.


• Retrofitting a conventional coal plant with carbon capture and storage technology is itself costly – it is estimated to increase the cost of electricity from the plant by at least 68%.


• Retrofitting an IGCC plant with carbon capture and storage technology is also significant – it is estimated to increase the cost of electricity from the plant by at least 30%.


• In view of the significant costs associated with carbon capture and storage, and the fact that its commercial viability is unknown and still 15 years away, it is imprudent to invest in IGCC technology when less expensive, and cleaner, technologies, such as renewable electricity resources, are available to meet any short term growth in electric demand.




References:

• Freese, Barbara; Clemmer, Steve, Union of Concerned Scientists, Gambling with Coal: How Future Climate Laws Will Make New Coal Power Plants More Expensive, p. 1 (September, 2006).
• Testimony of James E. Rogers, Volume I-Petitioner’s Case-In-Chief, IURC Cause No. 43114, p. 12-13 (October 24, 2006).

Nuclear power - A short-sited, costly and risky option

With the emphasis on reducing carbon dioxide air emissions associated with coal-fired electric generation, recent discussions have included nuclear power as a solution to global climate change. The last U.S. commercial nuclear reactor came on-line over ten years ago. Nuclear power development has declined dramatically over the past several decades as rising economic costs (related to vastly extended construction times largely due to regulatory changes and pressure-group litigation) falling fossil fuel prices and flat load growth made nuclear power plant construction less attractive.

Now, however, some are promoting nuclear power as a "solution" to global warming. Setting aside for a moment the issue of radioactivity and nuclear waste, nuclear power is by no means "carbon-free."

"A number of recent studies have found that when mining, processing, and extensive transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural gas to make electric power. Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially."

Claims that nuclear power provides a "clean" solution to coal-fired electric generation are also misleading.

"The vast majority of radioactivity in nuclear waste worldwide is from the production of electricity. Even in the United States, where for decades a robust nuclear weapons program operated, more than 95% of the total radioactivity is in waste from commercial nuclear power. Reactor waste contains materials with half-lives measured in tens of thousands, and some in millions of years. More than 12,000 human generations -- are required to reduce the hazard of these materials to acceptable levels. The most concentrated waste is irradiated fuel from electric power reactors, and the residual wastes from attempts to 'recycle' or reprocess the fuel. Other wastes include the entire massive reactor structure itself when the facility is shut down."

"In addition to radiological pollution, nuclear power also contributes massive thermal pollution to both our air and water. It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal energy – heat – that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb blast. In addition to horrendous direct impact of this heat on aquatic ecosystems, nuclear power contributes significantly to the thermal energy inside Earth’s atmosphere, making it contraindicated at this time of rapid global warming."

Despite nuclear power's emergence as an electric generating resource over half a century ago, the safe disposal of nuclear waste remains unsolved, and the number of new nuclear reactors that would have to be built to provide a meaningful reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would greatly exacerbate the problem.

"Nuclear power is not a clean energy source. In fact, it produces both low and high-level radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Generated throughout all parts of the fuel cycle, this waste poses a serious danger to human health. Currently, over 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually by the 103 operating reactors in the United States. No country in the world has found a solution for this waste. Building new nuclear plants would mean the production of much more of this dangerous waste with no where for it to go."

"Over 54,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel has accumulated at the sites of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States. There are several proposals to manage this highly radioactive waste, but none of them would satisfactorily deal with the material.

• Yucca Mountain – The Yucca Mountain project continues to be mired in controversy and may well never open. Numerous unresolved problems remain with the geologic and hydrologic suitability of the proposed site, and serious questions have been raised about its ability to contain highly radioactive waste for the time required.


• Private Fuel Storage – Private Fuel Storage (PFS) is a consortium of eight commercial nuclear utilities seeking to open an aboveground 'interim' storage site for 40,000 metric tons of irradiated fuel on Goshute land in Utah. After an eight year struggle, NRC granted the consortium a license in September, 2005, but the license still requires the approval of the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Three of the companies involved in the project have also recently withdrawn or decided to withhold funding for the consortium. If opened, PFS would not solve the waste problem, even temporarily. By transporting waste and storing it above ground in yet another part of the country, PFS will just make the existing waste problem worse. The ‘temporary’ nature of PFS is also questionable, because the project is completely dependent on the opening of Yucca Mountain.


• Reprocessing, Fast Reactors, and Transmutation – Fast reactors, in combination with reprocessing and transmutation, have also been proposed by the Bush Administration as a way to deal with the waste produced by nuclear power. . . . But fast neutron reactors have a terrible track record in safety and are incredibly expensive. These reactor designs also have many remaining technological problems . . . . Even if these problems were addressed, fast-neutron reactors would not eliminate the need for a repository.


• "Reprocessing, the chemical process of extracting uranium and plutonium from irradiated fuel after it is removed from a reactor, also has problems. Reprocessing technology, which is an essential component of the fast reactor cycle, is extremely expensive, poses a security threat, leads to environmental contamination, and also does not eliminate the need for a repository."

While no nuclear power reactor has experienced significant core damage since the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979, nuclear safety remains a significant problem.

In the 27 years since the TMI meltdown, 38 nuclear power reactors had to be shut down for at least a year while widespread problems within each plant were fixed and safety margins were restored to minimally acceptable levels. Including those prior to TMI, 51 reactor outages of a year or longer have occurred. While these reactors shut down before they experienced a major accident, we cannot assume our luck will continue."

"There is a strong link between economics and safety. Reactors in the United States have been badly managed and poorly regulated. As a direct consequence, their costs have been higher and their safety levels have been lower than necessary. Evidence supporting this conclusion comes from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, which have licensed a grand total of 130 nuclear power reactors in the United States. Fifty times during that period. A U.S. nuclear reactor had to be closed for a year or longer to restore safety levels. This is neither economical, nor safe. Yet we experience it again and again. U.S. reactors were badly managed and poorly regulated, and unless those two systemic problems are addressed, the future of nuclear power in the United States will probably be a replay of its troubled past."

A June 14, 2007 report sponsored by the Keystone Center and written by nuclear industry representatives, environmental and consumer advocates, academics and state officials illustrates the significant obstacles to nuclear expansion.

"Hypothetically, an aggressive scenario to achieve even modest global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would require building 21 large (1,000 megawatt) nuclear reactors worldwide every year for fifty years, and more than five per year (275 total) in the United States. Keystone participants could not agree on the feasibility of such an expansion, but the amount of resulting waste would fill '10 nuclear waste repositories the size of the statutory capacity of Yucca Mountain.' The report also notes many unresolved concerns about Yucca Mountain, and expresses 'little confidence' that the facility will open on schedule."

"The Keystone panelists projected that the cost of nuclear power would be from 8 to 11 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh)(in 2007 dollars). By comparison, UCS experts pointed out that the average U.S. price of wind energy was 4.9 cents per kWh in 2006 (after tax credits worth about 2 cents per kWh) and is projected to cost as much as 6.3 cents per kWh in the near term due to an increase in construction costs affecting all technologies. Energy efficiency improvements, meanwhile, cost less than 4 cents per kWh."

While it is true that nuclear reactors can suffer meltdowns from malfunctions or terrorist attacks, that they release radioactivity in all phases of the nuclear production cycle, that the problem of waste disposal remains unsolved, and that civilian nuclear programs can spur weapons proliferation, the strongest case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy stems from the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive.

"Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsidies over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power still costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it takes to get a nuclear plant up and running."

"The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative better energy efficiency . . . . For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion, or up to $5 billion with overruns. That money could be spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install superefficient light bulbs and clothes dryers. Such an investment would lead to seven times less carbon consumption than if that money were spent on a nuclear power plant. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power will divert money away from cheaper and faster responses to global warming, thus slowing the world’s withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential."


References:

• Olson Mary, Nuclear Information Resource Service, Confronting a False Myth of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change, Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations (citations omitted, May 3, 2006).
• Public Citizen, Nuclear’s Fatal Flaws, updated April, 2006, found at: www.citizen.org/print_article.cfm?ID=15422. Union of Concerned Scientists, Fact Sheet: Walking a Nuclear Tightrope: Unlearned Lessons of Year-plus Reactor Outages, (September 18, 2006), found at: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/20060918-nuclear-tightrope-fact-sheet.pdf.
• Lochbaum, David, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of Concerned Scientists; commentary at the end of an article found at: http://www.motherearthnews.com/article.aspx?id=114432.
• The Keystone Center’s report is found at: www.keystone.org.
• National Wildlife Federation, A Response to the Keystone Center’s Fact Finding on Nuclear Power, (released June 14, 2007), found at: http://www.nwf.org/news/story.cfm?pageId=3F8017D0-15C5-5FE8-B042791561108A00.
• Union of Concerned Scientists, New Report Underestimates Cost of Expanding Nuclear Capacity, Overstates Power Plant Safety and Security, Science Group Says; Report Correctly Concludes Reprocessing Poses Serious Proliferation, Terrorism Risks (June 14, 2007 Press Release).
• Hertsgaard, Mark, Mother Earth News, The True Costs of Nuclear Power, found at: http://www.motherearthnews.com/article.aspx?id=114432

Environmentally Sound Energy Solutions

Energy Efficiency "The findings of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], the consensus estimate of the world’s scientists, couldn’t be any clearer: human activities are altering our atmosphere, and the planet is warming. Unless we act now, with great urgency, costly and disruptive impacts all over the world are inevitable. We have no choice but to act. We need to change the way we produce, use, and conserve energy. It is just this simple: We must use less energy and release less carbon dioxide by being smarter about how we use energy, and that means energy efficiency. . . . Energy efficiency should be viewed as our 'first fuel.' Maximizing energy efficiency and conservation should be the 'fuel' of first choice." Learn more...		Renewable Energy Resources Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and biomass, play a small but significant role in our current energy policy, and will play a much larger role as the increasing financial, environmental and health costs of a "business as usual" approach make the move to a "low carbon" policy more attractive. Learn more...
Wind Energy "Wind is a clean, inexhaustible, indigenous energy resource that can generate enough electricity to power millions of homes and businesses. "The United States can currently generate more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the wind, which is enough to power 2.5 million average American homes. Industry experts predict that, with proper development, wind energy could provide 20% of this nation's energy needs." "The U.S. wind energy industry is on track to add well over 3,000 megawatts (MW) to the nation’s power generating capacity in 2007, thereby topping last year’s record of 2,454 MW . . . . One megawatt of wind power produces enough electricity on average to serve 250 to 300 homes." Learn more...		Biomass "To many people, the most familiar forms of renewable energy are the wind and the sun. But biomass (plant material and animal waste) supplies almost 15 times as much energy in the United States as wind and solar power combined – and has the potential to supply much more." Biomass "is the oldest source of renewable energy known to humans, used since our ancestors learned the secret of fire." Learn more...
Solar Energy "In the broadest sense, solar energy supports all life on Earth and is the basis for almost every form of energy we use. The sun makes plants grow, which can be burned as 'biomass' fuel or, if left to rot in swamps and compressed underground for millions of years, in the form of coal and oil. Heat from the sun causes temperature differences between areas, producing wind that can power turbines. Water evaporates because of the sun, falls on high elevations, and rushes down to the seas, spinning hydroelectric turbines as it passes. But solar energy usually refers to ways the sun's energy can be used to directly generate heat, lighting and electricity." Learn more...		Geothermal Energy "Heat from the earth can be used as an energy source in many ways, from large and complex power stations to small and relatively simple pumping systems. This heat energy, know as geothermal energy, can be found almost anywhere – as far away as remote deep wells in Indonesia and as close as the dirt in our backyards. Tapping geothermal energy is an affordable and sustainable solution to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and the global warming and public health risks that result from their use." Learn more...
Hydroelectric Energy "Water is currently the leading renewable energy source used by electric utilities to generate electric power. Hydroelectric plants operate where suitable waterways are available; many of the best of these sites have already been developed. Generating electricity using water has several advantages. The major advantage is that water is a source of cheap power. In addition, because there is no fuel combustion, there is little air pollution in comparison with fossil fuel plants and limited thermal pollution compared with nuclear plants. Like other energy sources, the use of water for generation has limitations, including environmental impacts caused by damming rivers and streams, which affects the habitats of the local plant, fish, and animal life." Learn more...

Energy Efficiency - "The First Fuel"

"The findings of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], the consensus estimate of the world’s scientists, couldn’t be any clearer: human activities are altering our atmosphere, and the planet is warming. Unless we act now, with great urgency, costly and disruptive impacts all over the world are inevitable. We have no choice but to act. We need to change the way we produce, use, and conserve energy. It is just this simple: We must use less energy and release less carbon dioxide by being smarter about how we use energy, and that means energy efficiency. . . . Energy efficiency should be viewed as our 'first fuel.' Maximizing energy efficiency and conservation should be the 'fuel' of first choice."

Simply speaking, energy efficiency means doing more (and often better) with less. It refers to using less energy to provide the same or improved level of service to the energy consumer in an economically efficient way. Examples of energy efficient products include appliances bearing the ENERGY STAR label, such as furnaces, air conditioners, refrigerators and dish washers. ENERGY STAR appliances are designed to use less energy than their counterparts, saving money and reducing the amount of CO2 being produced with their usage. Energy efficient systems include things such as schools, office buildings and factories, designed to use less energy to reduce economic costs and environmental impacts.

• "Making homes, vehicles, and businesses more energy efficient is seen as a largely untapped solution to addressing global warming and energy security. Many of these ideas have been discussed for years, since the 1973 oil crisis brought energy issues to the forefront. In the late 1970s, physicist Amory Lovins popularized the notion of a 'soft path' on energy, with a strong focus on energy efficiency. Among other things, Lovins popularized the notion of negawatts – the idea of meeting energy needs by increasing efficiency instead of increasing energy production."
• "Lovins' Rocky Mountain Institute points out that in industrial settings, 'there are abundant opportunities to save 70% to 90% of the energy and cost for lighting, fan, and pump systems; 50% for electric motors; and 60% in areas such as heating, cooling, office equipment and appliances.' In general, up to 75% of the electricity used in the U.S. today could be saved with efficiency measures that cost less than the electricity itself."
• "Energy efficiency has proved to be a cost-effective strategy for building economies without necessarily growing energy consumption . . . . For example, the state of California began implementing energy-efficiency measures in the mid-1970s, including building code and appliance standards with strict efficiency requirements. As a result, the state's energy consumption has remained flat over 30 years while the national U.S. consumption doubled. As part of its strategy, California implemented a three-step plan for new energy resources that puts energy efficiency first, renewable electricity supplies second, and new fossil-fired power plants last."
• "More and more states are turning to energy efficiency as the 'first fuel' in the race for clean and secure energy resources. . . . States now spend about three times as much on energy efficiency programs as the federal government, and are leading the way on appliance standards, building codes, energy efficiency resource standards, and other key policies that drive energy efficiency investment."

Regrettably, Indiana lags far behind other states in terms of its energy efficiency investments. A June, 2007 report published by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked state energy efficiency policies based on their progress in a number of categories, such as spending on utility and public benefits energy efficiency programs, building codes, appliance and equipment efficiency standards and tax incentives, to name a few.

The report ranked Indiana 41st among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, receiving only 5 out of 44 total points, seriously lagging behind other states in having strong energy efficiency policies and programs. The report concluded: "As fossil fuel prices continue to rise and show increased volatility, as the difficulties and costs of building major new supply projects mount, and as environmental 'trump cards' such as global warming begin to place a heavier burden on the burning of fossil fuels, we expect more states up and down our ranking scale to turn to energy efficiency as a hedge as well as a good investment in its own right."

An investigation before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) confirms Indiana’s below average ranking in spending for energy efficiency and in savings attained. An April, 2007 report commissioned by the IURC as part of the investigation characterizes Indiana as a state with low energy prices but high consumption compared to other states, resulting in moderate per-capita spending for electricity and high spending on energy overall compared to the rest of the country.

Concerning the energy efficiency opportunities for Indiana based on various statewide program models examined, the report concludes: "Fundamentally, it is more important for Indiana to initiate an effective statewide effort with explicit goals and objectives than to debate over how the effort is structured. States have had proven success under all versions of the models reviewed in this paper."

Recognizing that energy efficiency remains a critically underutilized resource in our national energy portfolio, more than 50 electric and gas utilities, state utility commissioners, state air and energy agencies, energy service providers, energy consumers, and energy efficiency and consumer advocates formed a Leadership Group, together with the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to address the issue.

The group's stated goal is "to create a sustainable, aggressive national commitment to energy efficiency through gas and electric utilities, utility regulators, and partner organizations." The Leadership Group released its recommendations on July 31, 2006 in the form of a National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, and continues to report on its progress and identify next steps for the action plan. Its five key recommendations are as follows:

• Recognize energy efficiency as a high priority energy resource;
• Make a strong, long-term commitment to cost-effective energy efficiency as a resource;
• Broadly communicate the benefits of and opportunities for energy efficiency;
• Promote sufficient, timely, and stable program funding to deliver energy efficiency where cost-effective;
• Modify policies to align utility incentives with the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency and modify ratemaking practices to promote energy efficiency investments.

With serious debate in Congress leading to federal caps on CO2 emissions within the next several years, states that are the highest producers of CO2 air emissions, such as Indiana, are well advised to develop comprehensive energy efficiency policies and programs to "hedge" against the significant cost increases ratepayers will face as the costs associated with CO2 emissions are passed on to them by investor-owned electric utilities. The good news is that investments in energy efficiency have the potential to significantly reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

• "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that increasing energy efficiency throughout the economy could cut national energy use by 10% or more in 2010 and about 20% in 2020, with net economic benefits for consumers and businesses."
• The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) predicts energy savings of even greater magnitude. "ACEEE estimates that adopting a comprehensive set of policies for advancing energy efficiency could lower national energy use by 18% in 2010 and 33% in 2020. These policies, along with policies to advance renewable energy, could dramatically lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions while saving consumers and business $500 billion net during 2000-2020."

Investments in energy efficiency programs and services are also cost-effective, and provide economic development opportunities throughout the region.

• "At a cost of $0.03 per kilowatt-hour saves (a realistic assumption based on research of recent program practices), efficiency improvements are significantly less expensive than building new plants and power lines and burning more fuel. Increasing energy efficiency also reduces the harm to public health and the environment from air and water pollution, mining, and other aspects of power production. In addition, efficiency improvements enhance the reliability of electricity supplies by reducing system loads and stresses."
• Duke Energy Indiana’s own President and CEO agrees: "Efficiency programs can deliver at a lower cost than new power plants, we can deploy them faster than new power plants and they can provide savings over relatively short periods of one to three years, as well as over the longer term. From an environmental perspective, we should view energy efficiency as a basic building block in reducing the industry's emissions profile. In 2004 alone, efficiency programs in place saved more than 29 million metric tons of carbon equivalent greenhouse gas emissions."
• "From a state's perspective, energy efficiency can be a key to economic development activities. Greater efficiency investments can build jobs and improve state economics. These programs can also create long lasting infrastructure changes to buildings, and property improvements delivering long-term economic value."

Energy efficiency has been characterized as one of the "twin pillars of sustainable energy." The other, discussed in the next chapter, is renewable energy (i.e., wind, solar and biomass). Together, development of these resources can lead the way to a lasting and cost-effective "low carbon policy" future for Indiana and the nation.

"Energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) are the 'twin pillars' of sustainable energy policy. Both resources must be developed aggressively if we are to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our lifetimes. Efficiency is essential to slowing the energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too fast, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total emissions; reducing the carbon content of energy sources is also needed. Any serious vision of a sustainable energy economy thus requires major commitment to both efficiency and renewables."


References:

• Remarks of Reid Detchon, Executive Director, Energy Future Coalition, Alliance to Save Energy’s Great Energy Efficiency Day (February 14, 2007), found at: www.ase.org/uploaded_files/geed_2007/detchon_efutures.pdf.
• Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Energy Efficiency and Global Warming, found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency.
• Eldridge, Maggie; Prindle, Bill; York, Dan; and Nadel, Steve, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, The State Energy Efficiency Scorecard for 2006, Report Number E075, (June, 2007), found at: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e075.htm.
• IURC Cause No. 42693 (July 28, 2004). Documents can be found by visiting http://www.in.gov/iurc/portal/Guest.aspx?tabid=22. Enter Cause Number 42693 and click "Search".
• Prefiled Verified Testimony of Susan E. Stratton and Submission of Staff Report On Behalf of Designated Testimonial of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, Exhibit 1, Stratton, etal., Indiana DSM Investigation Report: Report on Current Programs and Future Directions, IURC Cause No. 42693 (April 16, 2007), found at: http://www.in.gov/iurc/portal/Modules/IURC/CategorySearch/viewfile.aspx?contentid=0900b631800d1faa.
• National Acton Plan for Energy Efficiency, p. 6-7 (July, 2006), found at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/pdf/napee/napee_report.pdf.
• American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Efficiency Progress and Potential, found at www.aceee.org/energy/effact.htm.
• American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, The Energy Efficiency Performance Standard: A Fair and Effective Way to Realize the Economic and Environment Benefits of Greater Energy Efficiency, found at: www.aceee.org/energy/eestndrd.htm.
• Testimony of James E. Rogers, Chairman, CEO and President, Duke Energy, On behalf of the Edison Electric Institute, Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources (February 12, 2007), found 2/07 at: http://www.cchrc.org/SenateEnergyTestimony/RogersTestimony.pdf.
• Prindle, Bill, Eldridge, Maggie, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; Eckhart, Mike, Frederick, Alyssa, American Council on Renewable Energy, The Twin Pillars of Sustainable Energy: Synergies Between Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technology and Policy, ACEEE Report Number E074 (May, 2007), found at: http://www.aceee.org/pubs/e074.htm.

Renewable Energy Resources

The harnessing of water was the only widely used renewable electricity technology before the 1980s. Hydropower is still one of the most significant sources of renewable energy, producing 20% of the world’s electricity and 10% of that of the United States. "The 1973 oil crisis awoke the country to its vulnerability through dependence on foreign oil. Subsequent changes in federal policy spurred the development of renewable technologies other than hydro."

Renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and biomass, play a small but significant role in our current energy policy, and will play a much larger role as the increasing financial, environmental and health costs of a "business as usual" approach make the move to a "low carbon" policy more attractive.

• Renewable energy resources represented 7% of the total energy consumed in the United States in 2006. "Consistent with historical patterns, the electric power sector consumed the majority (56%) of renewable energy. . . . The industrial sector consumer 28%, with the transportation and commercial sectors using the remainder."
• Of the total renewable energy consumption, biomass represented 48%, followed by hydroelectric (42%), geothermal (5%), wind (4%) and solar (1%).

"Current levels of renewables development represent only a tiny fraction of what could be developed. Many regions of the world and the United States are rich in renewable resources. Winds in the United States contain energy equivalent to 40 times the amount of energy the nation uses. The total sunlight falling on the country is equivalent to 500 times America’s energy demand. And accessible geothermal energy adds up to 15,000 times national demand. Of course, there are limits to how much of this potential can be used, because of competing land uses, competing costs from other energy sources, and limits to the transmission system needed to bring energy to end users."

References:

• Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy, Increasing Renewables:Costs and Benefits, (last revised 8/10/05), found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/increasing-renewables-costs-and-benefits.html.
• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity, Preliminary 2006 Statistics, (August, 2007), found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/pretrends.pdf.

Wind Energy

"Wind power is both old and new. From the sailing ships of the ancient Greeks, to the grain mills of pre-industrial Holland, to the latest high-tech wind turbines rising over the Minnesota prairie, humans have used the power of the wind for millennia." During the late 1800s and early 1900s, American farmers harnessed the power of wind to pump water. "Small electric wind turbines were used in rural areas as far back as the 1920s, and prototypes of larger machines were built in the 1940s. When the New Deal brought grid-connected electricity to the countryside, however, windmills lost out."

Modern day interest in wind power resurfaced during the energy crisis of the 1970s, with commercial development beginning in earnest in California at the start of the 1980s. As fossil-fuel prices declined again in the mid-1980s, so did investments in wind power. Another boost in wind development occurred in the early 1990s. However, not until 1998 did the wind industry begin to experience continued growth in the United States, "thanks in large part to federal tax incentives, state-level renewable energy requirements and incentives, and – beginning in 2001 – rising fossil fuel prices."

"Wind is a clean, inexhaustible, indigenous energy resource that can generate enough electricity to power millions of homes and businesses. Wind energy is one of the fastest-growing forms of electricity generation in the world." "Global installations in 2005 reached more than 11,500 megawatts (MW) – a 40.5 percent increase in annual additions compared with 2004 – representing $14 billion in new investments."

"The United States can currently generate more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the wind, which is enough to power 2.5 million average American homes. Industry experts predict that, with proper development, wind energy could provide 20% of this nation's energy needs." "The U.S. wind energy industry is on track to add well over 3,000 megawatts (MW) to the nation’s power generating capacity in 2007, thereby topping last year’s record of 2,454 MW . . . . One megawatt of wind power produces enough electricity on average to serve 250 to 300 homes."

"Installed wind energy generating capacity now totals over 12,600 MW, and is expected to generate about 31 billion kWh of electricity in 2007. However, that is still less than 1% of U.S. electricity generation. By contrast, the total amount of electricity that could potentially be generated from wind in the United States has been estimated at 10,777 billion kWh annually – more than twice the electricity generated in the U.S. today." "Texas now has over 3,000 MW installed, strengthening its position as the state with the most wind power capacity. The ranking for the top five states remains Texas (3,352 MW), California (2,376 MW), Iowa (967 MW), Minnesota (897 MW), and Washington (818 MW)."

Wind power also creates economic development opportunities and jobs across the U.S., often in areas that have lost manufacturing jobs over the past years. "Manufacturing plants announced or opened this year [2007] include:

• DMI: planning a tower production facility in Tulsa, Okla.;
• Knight & Carver: opened a blade manufacturing facility in Howard, S.D;
• LM Glasfiber: will open a blade manufacturing facility in Little Rock, Ark.;
• PPG Industries: adapting a facility to produce high-tech fiberglass for blades near Shelby, N.C.;
• Trinity Structural Towers: opening a facility in Clinton, Ill.;
• Vestas: opening a wind turbine facility in Windsor, Colo."

"The wind resource – how fast it blows, how often, and when – plays a significant role in its power generation cost. The power output from a wind turbine rises as a cube of wind speed. In other words, if wind speed doubles, the power output increases eight times. Therefore, higher-speed winds are more easily and inexpensively captured."

"Wind speeds are divided into seven classes – with class one being the lowest, and class seven being the highest. A wind resource assessment evaluates the average wind speeds above a section of land . . . and assigns that area a wind class. Wind turbines operate over a limited range of wind speeds. If the wind is too slow, they won’t be able to turn, and if too fast, they shut down to avoid being damaged." "Wind speeds in class three (6.7 – 7.4 meters per second (m/s)) and above are typically needed to economically generate power. Ideally, a wind turbine should be matched to the speed and frequency of the resource to maximize power production."

Skeptics point to the variability of wind as a problem in integrating wind power into the electricity grid. However, recent studies demonstrate that this has not been a problem. "In a large utility system, the variations in power output from wind turbines are absorbed in the constant variation in electrical demand. The electric system is designed to handle unexpected swings in energy supply and demand, such as significant changes in consumer demand or even the failure of a large power plant or transmission line. . . . several recent U.S. based utility studies confirm that a significant amount of wind energy can be integrated into the electricity grid without large cost or reliability impacts."

Wind is an intermittent source of energy, because wind is not always blowing when the energy is needed. The variability of wind is known as the "capacity factor," "which is simply the amount of power a turbine actually produces over a period of time divided by the amount of power it could have produced if it had run at its full rated capacity over that time period." "A conventional utility power plant uses fuel, so it will normally run much of the time unless it is idled by equipment problems or for maintenance. A capacity factor of 40% to 80% is typical for conventional plants."

"A wind plant is 'fueled' by the wind, which blows steadily at times and not at all at other times. Although modern utility-scale wind turbines typically operate 65% to 90% of the time, they often run at less than full capacity. Therefore, a capacity factor of 25% to 40% is common, although they may achieve higher capacity factors during windy weeks or months." "It is important to note that while capacity factor is almost entirely a matter of reliability for a fueled power plant, it is not for a wind plant—for a wind plant, it is a matter of economical turbine design. With a very large rotor and a very small generator, a wind turbine would run at full capacity whenever the wind blew and would have a 60-80% capacity factor—but it would produce very little electricity. The most electricity per dollar of investment is gained by using a larger generator and accepting the fact that the capacity factor will be lower as a result. Wind turbines are fundamentally different from fueled power plants in this respect."

"Since the late 1990s, the DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been working with state governments to produce and validate high-resolution wind resource potential assessments on a state-by-state basis." Updated wind resource maps for Indiana released by NREL in January, 2006 reveal that Indiana has at least 40,000 MW of wind energy potential. This estimate is more than double the entire generation capacity of Indiana. The estimate of wind power potential in Indiana takes into account a number of factors. They include:

• Wind class – the above estimate is based on summing up wind power potential for class 3, class 4 and class 5 winds;
• Energy loss – the estimate assumes that 12% of the power generated is lost (due to down time, icing losses, transmission losses);
• Tower height – 80 meters is the current industry norm. The estimate above is based on wind turbines at 70 meters;
• Power potential per square kilometer – the study assumes that 5 MW of turbines are installed per square kilometer in areas determined to be windy. This is a standard assumption.
• Land area – the study excludes environmentally sensitive land as well as developed land such as urban areas, airports, wetlands, etc. It also excludes high sloping areas and areas with small, isolated pockets of wind resources.

NREL’s updated wind resource maps dispel the long-held notion by many that Indiana lacks sufficient wind resources for electricity generation. This has helped to spur wind development in Indiana.

Construction began in late July, 2007 on the first commercial-scale wind farm in Indiana. Expected to be completed in May, 2008 (less than a year later), the Benton County Wind Farm’s 87 wind turbines will produce a total of 130 MW of power. A second wind farm under development is the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm, located in Benton and Tippecanoe Counties. It has recently been approved by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and the project is expected to be built, start to finish, in 2008 and to produce 200 MW or more of power. However, despite recent wind development initiatives, reflected in agreements by investor-owned utilities to purchase the power generated from these wind farms, wind development in Indiana is spotty, and will likely remain so unless Indiana joins twenty-one other states and the District of Columbia that have passed renewable electricity standards.

While the design varies from state to state, a renewable electricity standard (RES), sometimes referred to as a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), requires electric utilities to source a certain percentage of electricity from renewable resources. "Initially, state RPS policies were generally incorporated into much broader state electricity restructuring legislation. More recently, however, state RPS policies have been adopted through stand-alone legislation." "The RPS is sometimes viewed by policy-makers as a 'market-friendly' way of ensuring that a minimum amount of renewable energy development will be achieved, and is a widely used policy (relative to other renewable energy policy mechanisms) in part because an RPS does not typically require an explicit allocation of government funding."

"State renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have emerged as one of the most important policy drivers of renewable energy capacity expansion in the U.S. Collectively, these policies now apply to roughly 40% of U.S. electricity load, and may have substantial impacts on electricity markets, ratepayers, and local economies." "State-level renewable electricity standards . . . are also working as a primary driver of U.S. wind development. Nearly half of all wind power capacity built from 2001-2005 was attributable to state standards, according to the DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory." Cost has often been raised as a barrier to enactment of a state-level or federal RPS. However, numerous studies have shown that an RPS is generally expected to have minimal rate impacts.

A March, 2007 study of 28 distinct state or utility-level RPS cost impact analyses, conducted by the DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, concludes: "Seventy percent of the state RPS cost studies in our sample project base-case retail electricity rate increases of no greater than one percent in the year that each modeled RPS policy reaches its peak percentage target." The report continues: "In six of those studies, electricity consumers are expected to experience cost savings as a result of the state RPS policies being modeled. On the other extreme, nine studies predict rate increases above 1%, and two of these studies predict rate increases of more than 5%. . . . the median bill impact across all of the studies in our sample is an increase of only $0.38 per month."

A November, 2006 study analyzed the rate impact of an Indiana RES, beginning with a 2% requirement in 2009 and rising to a 10% requirement in 2017 and following. "The study finds that the RES will have a cumulative impact of 2.00% in 2017 (i.e., rates would be 2% higher than they would be in the absence of an RES) . . . ."

Wind power is an environmentally friendly, renewable resource. While earlier experiments in wind development raised some concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic impacts, and that sometimes birds and bats have been killed by flying into the rotors, "[m]ost of these problems have been resolved or greatly reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind plants." "With increasingly competitive prices, growing environmental concerns, and the call to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, a strong future for wind power seems certain. . . . As with any industry that experiences rapid growth, there will be occasional challenges along the way. . . . But new manufacturing facilities, careful siting and management practices, and increased public understanding of the significant and diverse benefits of wind energy will help overcome these obstacles."


References:

• Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy, How Wind Energy Works, (last revised 5/7/07), found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-wind-energy-works.html.
• U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab, Wind Research, found at: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/.
• American Wind Energy Association Quarterly Market Report, U.S. Wind Power Industry Looks at Record Year, Supply Chain Constraints (August 8, 2007), found at: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Quarterly_Market_Report_080807.html.
• American Wind Energy Association, Top 20 States with Wind Energy Resource Potential, found at: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Top_20_States_with_Wind_Energy_Potential.pdf.
• American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy Basics, found at: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html#What%20is%20capacity%20factor.
• Indiana Coalition for Renewable Energy and Economic Development, Indiana’s Renewable Energy Resources, found at: http://www.indianacleanpower.org/renewableresources.html.
• Indiana Office of Economic Development, Division of Energy and Defense, power point presentation to the Regulatory Flexibility Committee, August 14, 2007.
• Wiser, R., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Namovicz, C., Gielecki, M. and R. Smith, Energy Information Association, Renewable Portfolio Standards: A Factual Introduction to Experience from the United States, (April, 2007), found at: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/62569.pdf.
• Chen, C., Wiser, R. and M. Bolinger, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Weighing the Costs and Benefits of State Renewables Portfolio Standards: A Comparative Analysis of State-Level Policy Impact Projections, (March, 2007). P. Boerger, Engineering Economic Associates, LLC, Rate Impact of a Renewable Electricity Standard in Indiana (November, 2006). Indiana Coalition for Renewable Energy and Economic Development, Rate Impact of a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) for Indiana: A Brief (October 2006-modified).
• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind, found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html.

Biomass

"To many people, the most familiar forms of renewable energy are the wind and the sun. But biomass (plant material and animal waste) supplies almost 15 times as much energy in the United States as wind and solar power combined – and has the potential to supply much more." Biomass "is the oldest source of renewable energy known to humans, used since our ancestors learned the secret of fire."

"Biomass is a renewable energy source because the energy it contains comes from the sun. Through the process of photosynthesis, chlorophyll in plants captures the sun’s energy by converting carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground into carbohydrates, complex compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. When these carbohydrates are burned, they turn back into carbon dioxide and water and release the sun’s energy they contain. In this way, biomass functions as a sort of natural battery for storing solar energy. As long as biomass is produced sustainably – with only as much used as is grown – the battery will last indefinitely."

Biomass energy is derived from three distinct energy sources - wood, waste, and alcohol fuels or biofuels. "Wood energy is derived both from direct use of harvested wood as a fuel and from wood waste streams. The largest source of energy from wood is pulping liquor or 'black liquor,' a waste product from processes of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. Waste energy is the second-largest source of biomass energy. The main contributors of waste energy are municipal solid waste (MSW), manufacturing waste, and landfill gas. Biomass alcohol fuel, or ethanol, is derived almost exclusively from corn. Its principal use is as an oxygenate in gasoline."

One of the more economically viable ways to increase biomass power generation today is to use biomass as a feedstock to co-fire with coal. "Biomass feedstock can substitute up to 20% of the coal used in a boiler. The benefits associated with biomass co-firing include lower operating costs, reductions of harmful emissions, and greater energy security." Other methods for converting biomass to energy do not require combustion. "These processes convert raw biomass into a variety of gaseous, liquid, or solid fuels that can then be used directly in a power plant for energy generation. The carbohydrates in biomass, which are comprised of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, can be broken down into a variety of chemicals, some of which are useful in fuels." A fermentation process similar to making wine is used to turn corn into grain alcohol or ethanol, which can be mixed with gasoline.

"Biomass oils, like soybean and canola oil, can be chemically converted into a liquid fuel similar to diesel fuel, and into gasoline additives. Cooking oil from restaurants, for example, has been used as a source to make 'biodiesel' for trucks. (A better way to produce biodiesel is to use algae as a source of oils)." In recent years corn has become a valuable commodity for producing ethanol. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 14% of corn use in the 2005-2006 crop year went for production of ethanol, up from 11% in the 2004-2005 crop year and 6% in 1999-2000. "Furthermore, the price of corn hit nearly $4 per bushel during 2006, the highest price seen in the last two decades and considerably higher than the average price of $2.40 seen over that twenty-year-period. Increased ethanol production in the U.S., coupled with increased demand from Asian countries for meat from corn-fed livestock, is contributing to the increased demand for corn."

Current debate centers on developing ethanol using energy crops other than corn. "Corn is one of the most energy-intensive crops, and current corn-based ethanol production uses just the kernels from the corn plant, and not even the entire kernel. By making ethanol from energy crops [i.e., switchgrass and fast-growing trees], we could obtain between four and five times the energy that we put in, and by making electricity we could get perhaps 10 times or more." "Estimates of the ultimate potential for biomass energy vary, and depend on agricultural forecasts, waste reduction by industry, and paper recycling. The Department of Energy believes that we could produce 4% of our transportation fuels from biomass by 2010, and as much as 20% by 2030. For electricity, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that energy crops and crop residues alone could supply as much as 14% of our power needs."

In 2003, only 0.4% of Indiana’s electric generation came from renewable resources. "Moreover, only 0.1% of the total energy generated came from biomass sources." The promising news is that Indiana has a large agricultural residue biomass resource potential. "It is estimated that over 16 million dry tons of agricultural residues, mainly from corn stover, are available each year within Indiana." "An estimated 27,100 GWh of electricity could be generated using renewable biomass fuels in Indiana. This is enough electricity to fully supply the annual needs of 2,706,000 average homes, or 100% of the residential electricity in Indiana. These biomass resource supply figures are based on estimates for five general categories of biomass: urban residues, mill residues, forest residues, agricultural residues, and energy crops."

"Overall, Indiana’s greatest potential for biomass is corn stover. Crop residues production in the state is significantly higher than the rest of biomass sources; such as logging residue, other removal residue, fuel treatment thinnings (from timberlands), mill residue and urban wood residues. . . . Central Indiana has the higher potential of producing crop residues . . . , accounting for the 45% of the total production of Indiana. The northwest, north central and northeast regions also produce significant amount of crop residues accounting for 18%, 14% and 13%, respectively."

Increasing reliance on biomass for our energy also brings numerous environmental benefits. "Biomass reduces air pollution by being part of the carbon cycle . . . , reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90% compared with fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are also reduced substantially. Water pollution is reduced because fewer fertilizers and pesticides are used to grow energy crops, and erosion is reduced. . . . In contrast to high-yield food crops that pull nutrients from the soil, energy crops actually improve soil quality. . . . Finally, biomass crops can create better wildlife habitat than food crops. Since they are native plants, they attract a greater variety of birds and small mammals. They improve the habitat for fish by increasing water quality in nearby streams and ponds. And since they have a wider window of time to be harvested, energy crop harvests can be timed to avoid critical nesting or breeding seasons."

"In addition to the many environmental benefits, biomass offers many economic and energy security benefits. By growing our fuels at home, we reduce the need to import oil and reduce our exposure to disruptions in that supply. Farmers and rural areas gain a valuable new outlet for their products. Biomass already supports 66,000 jobs in the United States; if the DOE’s goal is realized, the industry would support three times as many jobs."


References:

• Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy, How Biomass Energy Works, (last revised 8/25/06), found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-biomass-energy-works.html.
• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Biomass, found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/biomass/biomass.html.
• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity, Preliminary 2006 Statistics, (citations omitted, August, 2007), found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/pretrends.pdf.
• State Utility Forecasting Group, 2006 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study, (September, 2006), found at: http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/pdfs/SUFG/publications/Renewables_Report_2006.pdf.

Solar Energy

"In the broadest sense, solar energy supports all life on Earth and is the basis for almost every form of energy we use. The sun makes plants grow, which can be burned as 'biomass' fuel or, if left to rot in swamps and compressed underground for millions of years, in the form of coal and oil. Heat from the sun causes temperature differences between areas, producing wind that can power turbines. Water evaporates because of the sun, falls on high elevations, and rushes down to the seas, spinning hydroelectric turbines as it passes. But solar energy usually refers to ways the sun's energy can be used to directly generate heat, lighting and electricity."

"The amount of energy from the sun that falls on Earth's surface is enormous. All the energy stored in Earth's reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas is matched by the energy from just 20 days of sunshine."

Passive solar design is a simple way to use sunlight for residential and commercial structures. Passive solar design does not require any mechanical means to help heat, cool or light a building, making it an extremely cost-effective way to utilize the sun's energy. "Residential and commercial buildings account for more than one-third of U.S. energy use. Solar design, better insulation, and more efficient appliances could reduce this demand by 60 to 80% . . . . Simple design features such as properly orienting a house toward the south, putting most windows on the south side of the building, and taking advantage of cooling breezes in the summer are inexpensive yet improve the comfort and efficiency of a home."

"Besides using design features to maximize their use of the sun, some buildings have systems that actively gather and store solar energy. Solar collectors, for example, sit on the rooftops of buildings to collect solar energy for space heating, water heating, and space cooling. Most are large, flat boxes painted black in the inside and covered with glass. In the most common design, pipes in the box carry liquids that transfer the heat from the box into the building. This heated liquid – usually a water-alcohol mixture to prevent freezing – is used to heat water in a tank or is passed through radiators that heat the air." Solar heat can also power a cooling system. "In desiccant evaporators, heat from a solar collector is used to pull moisture out of the air. When the air becomes drier, it also becomes cooler. The hot moist air is separated from the cooler air and vented to the outside. Another approach is an absorption chiller. Solar energy is used to heat a refrigerant under pressure; when the pressure is released, it expands, cooling the air around it. This is how conventional refrigerators and air conditioners work, and it’s a particularly efficient approach for home or office cooling since buildings need cooling during the hottest part of the day." "Today, about 1.5 million U.S. homes and businesses use solar water heaters – still less than 1% nationwide."

In addition to using the sun's energy to provide hot water, and to heat, cool, and light buildings, "solar energy can be converted either directly or indirectly into other forms of energy, such as heat or electricity." "Solar thermal energy is usually captured using a solar-energy collector. These collectors could either have fixed or variable orientation and could either be concentrating or non-concentrating. Variable orientation collectors track the position of the sun during the day whereas the fixed orientation collectors remain static." "The fixed flat-plate collectors (non-concentrating) are usually used in applications that have low temperature requirements (200ºF), such as heating swimming pools, heating water for domestic use and spatial heating for buildings." "Variable orientation, concentrating collectors are usually utilized in higher energy requirement applications, such as solar thermal power plants where they use the sun’s rays to heat a fluid, from which heat transfer systems may be used to produce steam, which in turn is used together with a turbine-generator set to generate electricity." Solar thermal concentrating power systems come in three main designs:

• "The most common is parabolic troughs – long, curved mirrors that concentrate sunlight on a liquid inside a tube that runs parallel to the mirror. The liquid, at about 300 degrees Celsius, runs to a central collector, where it produces steam that drives an electric turbine."
• "Parabolic dish concentrators are similar to trough concentrators, but focus the sunlight on a single point. Dishes can produce much higher temperatures, and so, in principle, should produce electricity more efficiently. But because they are more complicated, they have not succeeded outside of demonstration projects. A more promising variation uses a stirling engine^* to produce power."
• "The third type of concentrator system is a central receiver. One such plant in California features a 'power tower' design in which a 17-acre field of mirrors concentrates sunlight on the top of an 80-meter tower. The intense heat boils water, producing steam that drives a 10-megawatt generator at the base of the tower. The first version of this facility, Solar One, . . . had a number of problems. Reconfigured as Solar Two during the early to mid-1990s, the facility is successfully demonstrating the ability to collect and store solar energy efficiently."

"To date, the parabolic trough has had the greatest commercial success of the three solar concentrator designs, in large part due to the nine Solar Electric Generating Stations (SEGS) built in California’s Mojave Desert from 1985 to 1991. Ranging from 14 to 80 megawatts and with a total capacity of 354 megawatts, each of these plants is still operating effectively. As a result of state and federal policies and incentives, more commercial-scale solar concentrator projects are under development."

In contrast to solar thermal systems, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells allow the conversion of photons in sunlight into electricity. "The most important components of a PV cell are two layers of semiconductor material composed of silicon crystals. On its own, crystallized silicon is not a very good conductor of electricity, but when impurities are intentionally added – a process called doping – the stage is set for creating an electric current." "When sunlight enters the cell, its energy knocks electrons loose in both layers. . . . The presence of an external circuit . . . provides the necessary path for electrons . . . to travel . . . and electrons flowing through this circuit provide the cell’s owner with a supply of electricity." "Most PV systems consist of individual square cells averaging about four inches on a side. Alone, each cell generates very little power (less than two watts), so they are often grouped together as modules. Modules can then be grouped into larger panels encased in glass or plastic to provide protection from the weather, and these panels, in turn, are either used as separate units or grouped into even larger arrays." "The three basic types of solar cells made from silicon are single-crystal, polycrystalline, and amorphous."

• "Single-crystal cells are made in long cylinders and sliced into round or hexagonal wafers. While this process is energy-intensive and wasteful of materials, it produces the highest-efficiency cells – as high as 25% in some laboratory tests. Because these high-efficiency cells are more expensive, they are sometimes used in combination with concentrators such as mirrors or lenses. Concentrating systems can boost efficiency to almost 30%. Single-crystal accounts for 29% of the global market for PV.
• "Polycrystalline cells are made of molten silicon cast into ingots or drawn into sheets, then sliced into squares. While production costs are lower, the efficiency of the cell is lower too – around 15%. Because the cells are square, they can be packed more closely together. Polycrystalline cells make up 62% of the global PV market.
• "Amorphous silicon (a-Si) is a radically different approach. Silicon is essentially sprayed onto a glass or metal surface in thin films, making the whole module in one step. This approach is by far the least expensive, but it results in very low efficiencies – only about 5%."

"A number of exotic materials other than silicon are under development . . . . These materials offer higher efficiencies and other interesting properties, including the ability to manufacture amorphous cells that are sensitive to different parts of the light spectrum. By stacking cells into multiple layers, they can capture more of the available light." "In late July, 2007, a consortium led by the University of Delaware (UD) announced that it has created a solar cell that can convert 42.8% of the sunlight that hits it into electricity, besting a record set by Spectrolab and DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in December 2007 [sic]. . . . [T]he UD-led consortium employed a novel optical system that splits sunlight into three components while concentrating it by about a factor of 20. . . . Unlike typical concentrating solar cells, the new device features optics that are less than one centimeter thick and that accept sunlight coming from a wide range of angles, allowing the solar device to be mounted in a fixed position."

Since the rise in popularity of PV systems in the 1970s, serious efforts have been underway to produce PV panels to provide solar power more cheaply. "Innovative processes and designs are continually reaching the market and helping drive down costs, including string ribbon cell production, photovoltaic roof tiles, and windows with a translucent film of a-Si. Economies of scale from a booming global PV market are also helping to reduce costs." "Historically, most PV panels have been used for off-grid purposes, powering homes in remote locations, cellular phone transmitters, road signs, water pumps, and millions of solar watches and calculators. Developing nations see PV as a way to avoid building long and expensive power lines to remote areas. And every year, experimental solar-powered cars race across Australia and North America in heated competitions." "More recently, thanks to lower costs, strong incentives, and net metering policies, the PV industry has placed more focus on home, business, and utility-scale systems that are attached to the power grid. . . . As the PV market continues to expand, the trend toward grid-connected applications will continue."

Indiana utilities have not invested in any commercial-scale solar installations in Indiana to date. Utilities, homeowners and schools have, however, installed small-scale solar projects. "As of 2002, Indiana had grid-connected photovoltaic installations with a total installed capacity of 21.8 kW at several locations within the state. . . . These range from providing electricity to schools and other commercial buildings to residential applications." Other states in the Midwest fare better. For example, Illinois has 2000 KW of solar installations, Minnesota has 900 KW, and Wisconsin has 600 KW. A major reason why Indiana lags so far behind in solar development opportunities is lack of a renewable electricity standard (RES) driving market-based development.

"Solar energy technologies are poised for significant growth in the 21st century. More and more architects and contractors are recognizing the value of passive solar and learning how to effectively incorporate it into building designs. Solar hot water systems can compete economically with conventional systems in some areas. And as the cost of solar PV continues to decline, these systems will penetrate increasingly larger markets. In fact, the solar PV industry aims to provide half of all new U.S. electricity generation by 2025."

"Aggressive financial incentives in Germany and Japan have made these countries global leaders in solar deployment for years. But the United States is catching up thanks particularly to strong state-level policy support." "As the solar industry continues to expand, there will be occasional bumps in the road. For example, demand for manufacturing-quality silicon from the solar energy and semiconductor industries has led to shortages that have temporarily driven up PV costs. In addition, some utilities continue to put up roadblocks for grid-connected PV systems. But these problems will be overcome, and solar energy will play an increasingly integral role in ending our national dependence on fossil fuels, combating the threat of global warming, and securing a future based on clean and sustainable energy."




---

^*"The Stirling engine works by the repeated heating and cooling of a sealed amount of working gas, usually air or other gases such as hydrogen or helium. When the gas is heated, because it is in a sealed chamber, the pressure rises and this then acts on the power piston to produce a power stroke. When the gas is cooled the pressure drops and this means that less work needs to be done by the piston to recompress the gas on the return stroke, giving a net gain in power available on the shaft. The working gas flows cyclically between the hot and cold heat exchangers. The working gas is sealed within the piston cylinders, so there is no exhaust gas, (other than that incidental to heat production if combustion is used as the heat source). No valves are required, unlike other types of piston engines." Wikipedia, found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine.


References:

• Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy, How Solar Energy Works, (last revised 1/3/07), found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-solar-energy-works.html.
• State Utility Forecasting Group, 2006 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study, (September, 2006), found at: http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/pdfs/SUFG/publications/Renewables_Report_2006.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter, DARPA-Funded Effort Achieves New Record Solar Cell Efficiency (August 15, 2007), found at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11176.
• Indiana Coalition for Renewable Energy and Economic Development, The Business Case for a Low-Carbon Energy Policy (August, 2007), found at: http://www.indianacleanpower.org/TheBusinessCaseforaLowCarbonEnergyPolicy-ICREED-8-14-2007-final.pdf.

Geothermal Energy

"Heat from the earth can be used as an energy source in many ways, from large and complex power stations to small and relatively simple pumping systems. This heat energy, know as geothermal energy, can be found almost anywhere – as far away as remote deep wells in Indonesia and as close as the dirt in our backyards. Tapping geothermal energy is an affordable and sustainable solution to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and the global warming and public health risks that result from their use."

"Under the Earth's crust, there is a layer of hot and molten rock called magma. Heat is continually produced there, mostly from the decay of naturally radioactive materials such as uranium and potassium. The amount of heat within 10,000 meters (about 33,000 feet) of the Earth's surface contains 50,000 times more energy than all the oil and natural gas resources in the world." "Geothermal energy is contained in underground reservoirs of steam, hot water, and hot dry rocks. As used at electric generating facilities, hot water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs in the Earth's crust is supplied to steam turbines at electric utilities that drive generators to produce electricity. Moderate-to-low temperature geothermal resources are used for direct-use applications such as district and space heating. Lower temperature, shallow ground, geothermal resources are used by geothermal heat pumps to heat and cool buildings."

"There are three designs for geothermal power plants, all of which pull hot water and steam from the ground, use it, and then return it as warm water to prolong the life of the heat source.

• In the simplest design, the steam goes directly through the turbine, then into a condenser where the steam is condensed into water.
• In a second approach, very hot water is depressurized or 'flashed' into steam which can then be used to drive the turbine.
• In the third approach, called a binary system, the hot water is passed through a heat exchanger, where it heats a second liquid – such as isobutane – in a closed loop. The isobutane boils at a lower temperature than water, so it is more easily converted into steam to run the turbine.

"The largest geothermal system now in operation is a steam-driven plant in an area called the Geysers, north of San Francisco, California. . . . Today, the Geysers has a capacity of 850 MW, which still meets nearly 70 percent of the average electrical demand for California's North Coast region." "The plants at the Geysers use an evaporative water-cooling process that pulls the steam through the turbine, producing power more efficiently. But this process loses 60 to 80% of the steam to the air, not reinjecting it underground. . . . . Some efforts are underway to remedy the situation, including the Santa Rosa Geysers Recharge Project, which involves injecting treated wastewater from neighboring communities through a 40-mile pipeline. Recharging the existing reservoirs is estimated to increase output by 85 MW, providing enough electricity for approximately 85,000 homes."

"One concern with open systems like the Geysers is that they emit some air pollutants. Hydrogen sulfide – a toxic gas with a highly recognizable 'rotten egg' odor – along with trace amounts of arsenic and minerals, is released in the steam. In addition, at a power plant at the Salton Sea reservoir in Southern California, a significant amount of salt builds up in the pipes and must be removed. . . . With closed-loop systems, such as the binary system, there are no emissions; everything brought to the surface is returned underground."

There are a number of advantages for using geothermal energy to generate electricity:

• "Clean. Geothermal power plants, like wind and solar power plants, do not have to burn fuels to manufacture steam to turn the turbines. Generating electricity with geothermal energy helps to conserve nonrenewable fossil fuels, and by decreasing the use of these fuels, we reduce emissions that harm our atmosphere.
• Easy on the land. The land area required for geothermal power plants is smaller per megawatt than for almost every other type of power plant. Geothermal installations don't require damming of rivers or harvesting of forests -- and there are no mine shafts, tunnels, open pits, waste heaps or oil spills.
• Reliable. Geothermal power plants are designed to run 24 hours a day, all year. A geothermal power plant sits right on top of its fuel source. It is resistant to interruptions of power generation due to weather, natural disasters or political rifts that can interrupt transportation of fuels.
• Flexible. Geothermal power plants can have modular designs, with additional units installed in increments when needed to fit growing demand for electricity.
• Keeps Dollars at Home. Money does not have to be exported to import fuel for geothermal power plants. Geothermal 'fuel' - like the sun and the wind - is always where the power plant is; economic benefits remain in the region and there are no fuel price shocks.
• Helps Developing Countries Grow. Geothermal projects can offer all of the above benefits to help developing countries grow without pollution. And installations in remote locations can raise the standard of living and quality of life by bringing electricity to people far from 'electrified' population centers."

"In 2003, geothermal was the third largest source of renewable energy in the United States." "As the world's largest producer of geothermal energy, the U.S. generates a yearly average of 15 billion kilowatt hours of power, comparable to burning about 25 million barrels of oil or 6 million short tons of coal per year or 150 billion cubic feet of natural gas." "The availability of renewable resources in the U.S. varies significantly by region. In areas where geothermal resources are available, such as California, the percentage of electricity derived from geothermal sources can exceed 7 times the national electricity average. Most geothermal production is concentrated in the western states." "In California, the state with the largest amount of geothermal power on-line, electricity from geothermal resources accounted for 5 percent of the state's electricity generation in 2003 on a per kilowatt hour basis."

"The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the geothermal resource base in the United States to be between 95,000 and 150,000 MW, of which about 22,000 MW have been identified as suitable for electric power generation. Unfortunately, only a fraction of this resource is currently utilized, with an installed capacity of 2,800 MW (worldwide capacity is approximately 8,000 MW)."

Geothermal energy is gaining in popularity for heating and cooling buildings and homes. Geothermal heat pumps, also known as ground-source heat pumps, tap into the constant year-round temperature of 50ºF that is just 5-10 feet underground. "Either air or an antifreeze liquid is pumped through pipes that are buried underground, and recirculated into the building. In the summer, the liquid moves heat from the building into the ground. In the winter, it does the opposite, providing pre-warmed air and water to the heating system of the building." In the simplest use of ground-source heating and cooling, a tube runs from the outside air, under the ground, and into a house's ventilation system. More complicated, but more effective systems use compressors and pumps – as in electric air conditioning systems – to maximize the heat transfer." "In regions with temperature extremes, such as the northern United States in the winter and the southern United States in the summer, ground-source heat pumps are the most energy-efficient and environmentally clean heating and cooling system available." "A study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that they are as much as 72% more efficient than electric heating and air conditioning systems. The U.S. Department of Energy found that heat pumps can save a typical home hundreds of dollars in energy costs each year, with the system paying for itself in 2 to 10 years."

"By the end of 2005, more than 600,000 ground-source heat pumps were installed in the United States, with new installations occurring at a rate of 50,000 to 60,000 per year. While this is significant, it is still only a small fraction of the U.S. heating and cooling market, and several barriers to greater penetration into the market remain." "For example, despite their long-term savings, geothermal heat pumps have higher up-front costs. In addition, installing them in existing buildings can be difficult, since it involves digging up the yard around a house (provided it has a yard). Finally, many heating and cooling installers are just not familiar with the technology." Nevertheless, ground-source heat pumps are growing in popularity in some areas. "In rural areas without access to natural gas pipelines, homes must use propane or electricity for heating and cooling. Heat pumps are much less expensive to operate, and since buildings are widely spread out, installing underground loops is not an issue."

"Geothermal energy has the potential to play a significant role in moving the United States (and other regions of the world) toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy system." "It is one of the few renewable energy technologies that – like fossil fuels – can supply continuous, base load power." "The costs for electricity from geothermal facilities are also declining. Some geothermal facilities have realized at least 50% reductions in the price of electricity since 1980. New facilities can produce electricity for between 4.5 and 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with new conventional fossil fuel-fired power plants." "Over the next decade, new geothermal projects are expected to come online to increase U.S. capacity to between 8,000 and 15,000 MW. . . . In addition to electric power generation, which is focused primarily in the western United States, there is a bright future for the direct use of geothermal resources as a heating source for homes and businesses everywhere."


References:

• Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy, How Geothermal Energy Works, (last revised 12/22/06), found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-geothermal-energy-works.html.
• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Geothermal Energy, found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/geothermal/geothermal.html.
• Geothermal Education Office, How Do We Use Geothermal Energy Today?, found at: http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html#Q5.
• Geothermal Energy Association, All About Geothermal Energy-Current Use, found at: http://www.geo-energy.org/aboutGE/currentUse.asp.

Hydroelectric Energy

"Water is currently the leading renewable energy source used by electric utilities to generate electric power. Hydroelectric plants operate where suitable waterways are available; many of the best of these sites have already been developed. Generating electricity using water has several advantages. The major advantage is that water is a source of cheap power. In addition, because there is no fuel combustion, there is little air pollution in comparison with fossil fuel plants and limited thermal pollution compared with nuclear plants. Like other energy sources, the use of water for generation has limitations, including environmental impacts caused by damming rivers and streams, which affects the habitats of the local plant, fish, and animal life."

"Hydroelectric energy is produced by converting the kinetic energy of falling water to electrical energy. The moving water rotates a turbine, which in turn spins an electric generator to produce electricity." Different types of hydropower facilities include:

• Impoundment hydropower, using a dam to store the water and releasing it through turbines to meet electricity demand or maintain a desired reservoir level;
• Pumped storage, where water is pumped from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir when electricity demand is low, and water is released through the turbines to generate electricity when demand is higher;
• Diversion projects, where some of the water is channeled through a canal or penstock;
• Run-of-river projects, where the natural flow of river water is utilized to generate electricity; and
• Microhydro projects, relatively small in size and typically used in remote locations to provide power to a single home or business.

"Hydropower provides one-fifth of the world’s electricity, second only to fossil fuels. Worldwide capacity is 776 gigawatts (GW)^*, with 12% in the United States, 9% in Canada, and 8% in Brazil. When completed, China’s Three Gorges Dam, poised to become the largest hydroelectric project in the world with 18.2 GW of capacity, will move China ahead of Brazil."

"In the United States, hydropower has grown steadily, from 56 GW in 1970 to more than 95 GW today. As a percentage of the U.S. electricity supply mix, however, it has fallen to 10%, down from 14% 20 years ago, largely as a result of the rapid growth in natural gas power plants. In terms of electricity production, hydropower plants account for about 7% of America's current power needs." Hydroelectric power is more important in some parts of the country than others. "For example, the Pacific Northwest generates more than two-thirds of its electricity from 55 hydroelectric dams. The Grand Coulee dam on the Columbia River is one of the largest dams in the world, with a capacity of nearly 6,500 megawatts (MW)."

"[T]here are currently 2,378 hydro plants (not including pumped storage) in operation. These plants account for only a tiny fraction of the 80,000 dams that block and divert our rivers. As a result, there is a significant opportunity for growth according to the National Hydropower Association, which estimates that more than 4,300 MW of additional hydropower capacity can be brought online by upgrading existing facilities." "Although there are substantial undeveloped resources for hydropower, its share of the nation's total generation is predicted to decline through 2020 with almost no new hydropower capacity additions during this time. The reason for this is due to a combination of environmental concerns, regulatory complexities and pressures, and changes in economics. Due to environmental concerns, the most currently viable of the available hydropower potential is the 4.3 GW of 'incremental' capacity available at existing hydropower facilities."

"Although an inexpensive and nonpolluting energy resource, the environmental damage caused by hydropower can be serious. The most obvious effect is that fish are blocked from moving up and down the river . . . . In the Pacific Northwest, large federally owned dams have blocked the migration of coho, chinook and sockeye salmon from the ocean to their upstream spawning grounds. The number of salmon making the journey upstream has fallen 90% since the construction of four dams on the lower Snake River." "Dams can create large reservoirs submerging what used to be dry land, producing many problems. . . . This land is often composed of wetlands, which are important wildlife habitats, and low-lying flood plains, usually the most fertile crop land in the area. Population density is typically higher along rivers, leading to mass dislocation of urban centers. The Three Gorges Dam in China is expected to dislocate up to 1.9 million people."

"Another problem can occur when the land area behind the dam is flooded without proper preparation. In Brazil, the Tucurui dam was built creating a reservoir in a rain forest region, without the forest first being cleared. Later, as the plants and trees that were submerged began to rot, they reduced the oxygen content of the water, killing off the plants and fish in the water. Moreover, the rotting plants gave off large quantities of methane, a powerful global warming gas." "A similar problem has occurred in Canada, in hydro projects built by Hydro Quebec. The stones and soil in the flooded area contain naturally occurring mercury and other metals. When the land was flooded, the mercury dissolved into the water, and then into the local fish populations. The creatures that eat the fish – from bears and eagles, to the native Cree people – are suffering from mercury poisoning. Mercury poisoning can cause brain damage, birth defects, liver disorders, and other ailments."

Of course it is important to consider the environmental effects of hydropower with other alternatives. "The damage to aquatic habitat from dams may be significant, but acid rain, nitrogen deposition, and thermal pollution from coal plants also lead to aquatic damage, as well as to air pollution and global warming. Provided we dismantle the worst hydropower facilities, and improve the sustainability of others, we will be better off."

"Hydroelectric power contributed only 0.3% . . . of the total electricity generated in Indiana in 2004 . . . . Indiana has 91.4 MW of hydroelectric generation capacity . . . . Thus it can be seen that hydropower currently plays a very small role in Indiana’s generation mix."




---

^*1GW = 1000 MW


References:

• U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Association, Hydroelectric, found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/hydroelec/hydroelec.html.
• State Utility Forecasting Group, 2006 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study, (September, 2006), found at: http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/pdfs/SUFG/publications/Renewables_Report_2006.pdf.
• Union of Concerned Scientists, Clean Energy, How Hydroelectric Energy Works, (last revised 6/11/07), found at: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-hydroelectric-energy-works.html.