The Way It Should Be: Clean, Cheap, and Practical
Abstract
Few areas of government policy affect so much of our lives as
energy, yet it is given so little attention by the public.
Whether it’s gasoline for the car (or SUV), electricity for the home
or office, or natural gas for a factory, energy is just something consum-
ers, large and small, expect to be able to count on. It should always be
there when we want it, and should always work reliably. It should be
cheap, or at least not expensive, and it should be safe, clean (at least at
the end use), quiet, and unobtrusive. Energy has now come to permeate
nearly all aspects of our economy and lifestyles, but we don’t want to
have to think about it.
In fact, when Americans do consider energy policy, it’s usually for
negative reasons. Sometimes it’s a rise in gasoline prices due to conflict
in the Middle East, other times, a sweltering summer sprinkled with
news stories about global climate change. Or it could be a persistent feel-
ing that natural gas or electricity prices are being manipulated by large
corporations, or the anxiety that comes with the announcement that a
new power plant is being built nearby. It could be wondering whether a
California-style crisis will come to their homes and workplaces. Or the
news stories of security problems at a nuclear power plant... of a refinery
explosion or coal mine accident... of terrorists or tyrants thriving on oil
riches. The list of negatives goes on and on.
Downloads
References
The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, govern-
ment, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient
and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environ-
ment, economy, and national security. The views expressed herein are the
author’s own.
The few notable exceptions of energy services directly provided by gov-
ernment include the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, municipal and other
public electric power, and low-income weatherization and fuel assis-
tance.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory has estimated losses to the United States
due to oil market turmoil—and the subsequent macroeconomic losses—
at $7 trillion as of 1998.
Alternatively, “balance” is sought between traditional energy resources
and sustainable resources, such as energy efficiency, and solar, wind,
biofuels, and other renewable resources.
Energy Innovations: A Prosperous Path to a Clean Environment, a report by the Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Tellus Institute, Union of
Concerned Scientists, 1997.
Due to normal turnover of capital stock, approximately 60 percent of U.S.
carbon emissions in 2013 will come from equipment not yet purchased,
according to EPA estimates.
Unfortunately, California cut back drastically on its world-class effi-
ciency programs in the late ‘90s, in part leading to the state’s electricity
crisis. In turn, restoring and expanding efficiency and conservation ef-
forts became a key element in California’s emerging from its power
shortfalls.
Certainly the most prominent recent criticism of energy efficiency came
in 2001 when Vice President Dick Cheney criticized efficiency as not
being worthwhile energy policy (while complementing it as a “personal
virtue”). After a maelstrom of criticism, from Republicans and Demo-
crats alike, the Vice President avoided public criticism of energy effi-
ciency per se.
Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School,
edited by Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yergin, 1979, Random House,
page 136.
This analysis was conducted by Dr. Douglas L. Norland of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
This analysis was initially performed by William R. Prindle, then with
the Alliance to Save Energy and now deputy director of the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
The technologies are low-emissivity windows, electronic ballasts, ad-
vanced refrigerator compressors, flame retention head oil burner, and
DOE-II building design software.
Two major studies released in 1995—the Galvin Commission, which
studied the national laboratories, and DOE’s Yergin Task Force, which
looked at energy research and development—concluded that foregone
federal research and development in energy technologies would not
likely be replaced in kind by the private sector. Among the barriers to
corporate efforts cited were high R&D costs, internal cost-cutting which
has resulted in widespread downsizing of companies, uncertainty of
intellectual property rights and the ability to capture all the benefits of
R&D, and high initial investment in R&D capability.
https://aeeeuropeenergy.com/
