Coal vs. Gas: Electrical Generation Fuel Mix Is A Big Deal
Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009
Discussions of CO2 reduction tend to start from a presumption of near-term economic disruption coupled to long-term investment in green technology. The presumption isn’t right. The U.S. could reduce its total CO2 footprint by 14-20 percent tomorrow with no disruption in our access to energy services, without investing in any new infrastructure. The Waxman-Markey proposal to reduce CO2 emissions by 17 percent over 10 years is constrained only by its ambition.
This near-term opportunity would be realized by ramping up our nation’s generation of electricity from gas and ramping down our generation from coal, taking advantage only of existing assets. Its scale and potential for immediate impact deserves consideration; even partial action towards this goal would have dramatic political and environmental consequences, establishing U.S. leadership and credibility in global climate negotiations.

In the dark of night yesterday—OK, at 8:02 p.m.—Slate published a piece by Anne Applebaum that calls out the “anti-human prejudices of the climate change movement.” Specifically, she is worried that the news coming from Copenhagen is turning her nine-year-old son into a nihilist. Because her son used apocalyptic climate change as an excuse to not do his homework: “By the time I’m grown up, the polar ice caps will have melted and everyone will have drowned.”
Today Hawaii has by far the highest electrical rates in the nation. The major reason its electricity costs are so high us that imported oil accounts for 90 percent of the remote state’s energy needs. The state’s ambitious goal is to generate 70 percent of its power from clean energy sources by 2030, and it is looking everywhere.
In Copenhagen late last week, world leaders at the UN Climate Change Conference were haggling over who will pick up the enormous tab for saving the human species from extinction.