US Energy Plan

1

Debjani Chakravarty, Sunny Livingston,

Lewis Wilson, Caleb Wild

A Comprehensive Energy

Plan for the United States

To Year 2065

2

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 3

Objectives

Mission Statement

Keys to Success

II. SWOT Analysis of the existing U.S Energy Policy ............................................. 4

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

III. Goals .................................................................................................................. 6

Agency

Education Agenda

Environmental Agenda

Infrastructure Agenda

Electricity supply goals

Transportation supply goals

IV. Supply (2015—2065) ........................................................................................ 34

Oil

Natural Gas

Coal

Nuclear Energy

Wind Energy

Solar Power

Hydroelectricity

Biofuels

3

Executive Summary

Why is this topic important: Economic (conditions, financial incentives, and budget for energy),

political, social, oil crises, blackouts, shortages, Important because competing for resources, need

for good leaders with integrity, public understanding and appreciation of projects with long term

benefits.

Objectives

Within the first ten years we intend to focus on the Education and Public Awareness Agenda in

order to increase awareness of the current problems facing US energy policy. We will be

attempting to make small policy changes through the traditional legislative process while gaining

support and consensus for the restructuring of energy policy governance. Some of these policy

changes will include appropriate increases on environmental regulation pertaining to energy

production, the utilization of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, small adjustments

to the energy mix, an incentive plan for car manufacturers to begin making flex fuel available,

and the increase in percentage of electric vehicles.

By 2040, we hope that our new independent Energy & Environment Commission will be fully

implemented and operating effectively. This will allow for increased efficiency and productivity

pertaining to energy policy. We will have made real change to the US energy mix. Our flex fuel

and electric vehicle goals will have had a significant impact on fuel consumption by this time.

By 2065, our energy mix will be highly diversified due to a large shift of the transportation

consumption to electricity.

4

Mission Statement

Our mission is to decrease the vulnerability of the United States Energy Supply Portfolio. We

plan to achieve this by diversifying our supply and increasing efficiency wherever possible. We

are also separating consumption into two groups: Transportation and Electricity. This is to ensure

that we implement appropriate policy that takes into account the limitations and opportunities of

both sectors. We believe it is possible and probable for the United States to have an energy

policy that provides an affordable, efficient, and available energy supply.

Keys to Success

We want to create an Independent Agency that will allow for efficient and productive

governance. We have a robust Education Agenda that will empower the public to make informed

decisions and be conducive to fruitful debate. We have a strong Environmental Agenda that puts

us on a path of sustainable coexistence with our surroundings. We have Infrastructure Goals that

will enable and support our energy supply goals. We have Transportation Energy Supply Goals

that will empower consumers to drive the market for fuel choice. All of these things tie together

to support our Electricity Energy Supply Goals which diversify our supply in order to decrease

vulnerability.

SWOT Analysis of the existing U.S Energy Policy

Strengths

In the United States, there are several factors that have contributed to the success of our energy

industry. One of these factors are private property. An example is the somewhat recent success

of natural gas production in the US. Some of the reasons for the success of producing these shale

5

formations are the technology of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the availability of

credit, and private ownership of minerals.

Weaknesses

The current system has no comprehensive long-term plan and there is a lack of energy education

among the public. The policies are highly politicized mainly due to campaign funding

influencing policy. Short term policies undermine infrastructure planning. We have an overall

fragmented and dysfunctional energy policy.

Opportunities

We have a vast domestic supply that is underutilized. Many changes can be made to processes by

which funds are appropriated to different projects. Due to misinformation and the fragmented

natured of different energy related and regulatory departments, we fail to reach maximum

efficiency in execution of our current energy plans.

Threats

We are too reliant on one fuel source especially in transportation. There is geopolitical volatility

that could disrupt our supply. There is an increasing middle class population in China and India

that will drive up demand too quickly for us to respond creating a shortage.

6

Goals

Agency

The Independent Energy and Environment Commission

Before any progress can be made towards securing a prosperous energy future for the United

States we must accept two contradicting realities. Firstly, the current governmental structure is

both inadequate and consistently unable to manage energy, energy related policy and

enforcement. Secondly, the government, or a governmental body, is the only institution that is

able to manage energy, energy related policy and enforcement.1

It is hard to disagree with the above statement, so we are therefore left with quite the conundrum,

how do we as a nation manage energy, when the only body that would be able to do so

consistently fails? Moreover, there is no real evidence to suggest that this pattern of shortcoming

is due to change. There clearly needs to be a drastic change in order for us to be able to

effectively manage energy as a nation, and to allow us to move forward towards goals that would

benefit all of us. The question then, is what change will be most effective to meet our aims.

As is so often the case, the most effective way to plan for the future is to study the past. This

brings us to 1913. This may seem unusual, as in 1913 there was no energy issue, cars were

uncommon and most homes were only beginning to become electrified. Obviously the coal that

1 Original quote

7

was used to fuel progress was causing a great deal of harm, but no one was aware of this, so why

1913? Whilst it is true that 1913 was not a year of energy concern, it was a year of financial

concern. America was beginning to emerge as an economic world power, and the operation of an

ever growing economy was become a headache for those in Washington. The solution was the

creation of the Federal Reserve System, by act of congress on December 23rd 1913. Over 100

years ago, the leaders of the nation realized that the economy was too important to be left to the

will of political infighting and indecision, and the result was a body separate from government to

oversee America’s most vital asset, the economy.

The Federal Reserve has proven a great success, and it is a model that has been replicated

globally, although European central banks predated the Fed, many global banks such as the

World Bank, and IMF have been modelled on the Feds success. Today however, we live in a

different, almost every aspect of our daily lives, including the economy, hinges on energy. This

is perhaps the most important issue of our time, and as the economy required in 1913, 100 years

later it seems only fitting that energy, with all of its components, deserves the same specialized

treatment.

What is different about the Fed?

The most obvious difference between the Federal Reserve and any other government body is,

that within its very design, autonomy. The Federal Reserve was created to be isolated from the

turmoil of capitol hill, the first and perhaps most important aspect that was written in to its

creation, was the appointment of the board.

8

There are 7 positions on the board, each position holds a 14 year tenure. A board member can

only serve once, and appointments are structured leading to one position opening every other

year. This means that there is only one appointment per political cycle, and two per presidency.

A board member sitting through their full term will outlast 3 presidencies, and as a result they are

able to operate in the way they see best for the nation, regardless of political pressure. This is

strengthened by the fact they can only sit once, so need not be popular as they could never be

reappointed.

The autonomous nature of the Fed allows it to operate in the way it views best, regardless of how

popular or not that may be. The Fed has control over fiscal policy, and recently that has seen the

Fed implement fiscal stimulus programs, and interest rate controls to guide the US economy

through a turbulent market led collapse. If the Fed was control within the normal governmental

structure, they would not have the ability to react as is necessary to overcome economics issues

as they have been able to do.

This structure seems the only real option to overcome the issues that now grip our nation and

economy, the issue of energy and the environment. An issue this complex and this politicized

can only be effectively managed by a body of government that is separated and protected from

the turmoil of Washington. The Federal Reserve model is ideal for this.

Creation of the IEEC

Our proposal is the creation of the Independent Energy and Environment Commission. This body

would have the roles of the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, the Energy Information Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rolled

9

into it. The IEEC would operate separately from government, and would have the power to make

and enforce energy and environmental policy without the political pressures of Washington. The

IEEC, much like the Fed, will have regional branches, which will be able to monitor and report

on energy and environmental issue specific to their region. These seven branches will have a

representative each on the board, these board members will be appointed, and will serve 14 year

terms, that will be staggered biannually, again like the Fed.

Structuring the board so that each region is equally represented will ensure that the policies

passed are neither biased nor unrealistic. As a consensus amongst the board will be necessary to

pass legislation. This will ensure that a policy passed is not attainable in one region but

unattainable in another, thus nullifying the usefulness of the IEEC. Much like the Fed, the board

members and employees of the IEEC will be academics and experts in the world of energy and

environment, and will not be from business. This will ensure that the decisions of the individual

within the IEEC are us unbiased as can be possible, as there will be no financial influences on

their decisions. Much like the Fed is a rotating door between the higher offices and the

classrooms of top institutions, such as Georgetown, Harvard, MIT, Columbia etc. The IEEC will

be structured in a similar way. With this, the IEEC should be a hub of intellectuals and research,

with a goal to attain the most sensible and promising outcomes for the nation, away from politics

and business. Working for the IEEC should be a goal for anyone in energy or environment

related fields, just like working for the Federal Reserve is a goal on many economics and finance

students.

10

Regional Boards

Atlantic North

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont.

Atlantic South

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia.

Gulf Central

Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas.

Great Lakes and Midwest

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin.

Mountain

Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming

Desert

Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Idaho

Pacific

California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington

Funding

The question of how to find the IEEC is the most simple to answer. The IEEC will be a number

of pre-existing governmental bodies rolled into one entity. The pre-existing bodies already have

11

their own budgets and funding. The IEEC would simply inherit the funding from the

governmental bodies that are rolled into it. Below is a table that illustrates the level of funding

the IEEC would inherit, with the figures being taken from the respective governmental

organizations own websites. It is clear to see that there is a great deal of funding available upon

the creation of the IEEC.

Department

2015 Budget

(Millions)

Department of Energy $27,0002

Environmental Protection Agency $10,0003

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission $1754

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration $5,5005

Energy Information Administration $1176

Nuclear Regulatory Commission $10607

IEEC Inherited Budget $43,852

2 Budget information from the Department of Energy 3 Budget information from the EPA 4 Budget information from the FERC 5 Budget information from NOAA 6 Budget information from the EIA 7 Budget information from the NRC

12

Economics Efficiency

One of the key issue in politics today is excessive government spending. A government that is

not being ran economically efficiently is causing a great kick back from the public, and is

causing a movement calling for smaller government. With the creation of the IEEC there would

be great savings to the government and to tax payers. Many roles are repeated across agencies,

this is an inefficiency that the IEEC would eradicate, and in turn there would be financial

savings. Communication between energy and environment agencies would also be no longer

necessary. As a result, this time consuming and inefficient bureaucratic headache would be

avoided all together, this dramatic increase in efficiency will save a great deal of time, which

ultimately saves a great deal of money.

In a time where government spending is under such scrutiny, the idea of an efficient

hybridized government body may prove very appealing to the American voters. The impact of

cost saving measure on public opinion should not be underestimated.

The Process of Creating the IEEC

There is a cone of possibility regarding the creation of the IEEC. The two key approaches

however are one short term approach and one medium term approach. The short term approach

requires events to occur that are completely out of our control that will force the hand of the

voting public and congress. The medium term approach is completely within our control, and is a

realistic timely approach towards building momentum for the creation of the IEEC.

Short term

Over the next year the US will see the closure of around 200 coal power plants, this is going to

put an extreme strain on the grid, to the point where many expect black and brown outs all across

13

the country next winter. The regions that are expected to be worst hit include New York and

Washington DC, this will be very unpopular indeed, especially in those politically influential

areas.

Today as this is being written, tensions in the Middle East are at an all-time high, and this

is the Middle East we are talking about so that really is saying something. ISIS, and Al Qaeda are

struggling to remain the premium brand in Islamic terrorism, and this publicity battle is being

fought amongst the richest oil reserves in the world. Meanwhile tensions between Saudi Arabia

and Iran have never been greater, and a proxy war currently being fought in Yemen is the last

step in a path that leads toward a conflict that would not only interrupt oils supply from two of

the world largest suppliers, but would also likely close the Arabian gulf and straits of Hormuz.

This doesn’t take into account the continuing unrest in Libya, although not in the Middle East,

their troubles are incredibly similar. Finally the impact of Boko Haram in Nigeria is threatening

to disrupt the oil supply from Nigeria, one of the fastest growing export markets globally.

What we are proposing for our short term creation plan is not too farfetched. The closure

of coal plants create black outs and brown out over a cold winter. Also we see electricity prices

increase as supply is strained. This is coupled with an oil shock caused by an eruption in one of

the many potential conflict zones in the Middle East. The combination of a lack of supply for oil

and electricity, as well as high prices for both, will bring to the iattention of the American voter

the inadequacies of the current model towards energy and the environment. This tide of

frustration and political will should be enough to push through the creation of the IEEC, with the

promise to the American people of more efficient and reliable energy management, and the

promise to deliver reliable energy at a consistent price. This is not an unfeasible scenario, and if

14

it presents itself the nation would be primes for a major change in energy and environment

management at a governmental level.

Medium Term

The medium term approach is completely within our control. Through robust education of the

population we can encourage discussion that will ultimately lead to a consensus toward the need

to create an independent body to oversee energy and the environment. As people are made aware

of the reality surrounding the situation of our current energy and environmental management, as

well as educated regarding the alternative approaches towards managing energy and the

environment, there will be a natural progression towards an independent body to manage the

nation’s most vital resource.

Our focus on energy and environmental education through schooling will also pay

dividends when it comes to the creation of the IEEC. The students that are educated by this

program will all be of voting age by the medium term period of this plan. As a result the

momentum will be heavily in favour of creating an independent body to manage energy and the

environment, this will be due to the large numbers of voters who are educated regarding the

problems and solutions that face the energy and environment sectors.

15

Education Agenda

We believe that education and public awareness will play a necessary and important role in

achieving the goals in our energy plan. A more educated and energy cautious population will

drive changes in energy and environmental policy. It will create more jobs in energy efficiency

and environmental sector and in turn boost our nation’s economy.

Education Middle/High School, Colleges and Vocational Training:

Why we need to educate our current population?

Many jobs are going unfilled simply for lack of people with the right skill sets. Even with

more than 13 million Americans unemployed, the manufacturing sector cannot find

people with the skills to take nearly 600,000 unfilled jobs, according to a study last fall

by the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte.

In a recent study by the Lemselson-MIT Invention Index, which gauges innovation

aptitude among young adults, 60 percent of young adults (ages 16 to 25) named at least

one factor that prevented them from pursuing further education or work in the STEM

fields. Thirty-four percent said they don't know much about the fields, a third said they

were too challenging, and 28 percent said they were not well-prepared at school to seek

further education in these areas.

The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 113th Congress

was 57.0 years; of Senators, 62.0 years in 2014

Only 38% of young eligible adults vote. Only approximately 50% of the working

population (25-50 years) vote. Both numbers have been declining. Highest percentage of

votes held by ages 65 and over. This subgroup is unlikely to be open to radical reform in

16

the way our nation perceives energy. Thus energy awareness should be directed to the

young adult and working population to drive policy changes through greater and more

educated voter turnout.

The current employment-to-population ratio stands at 58.7 – far below pre-recession

levels. This is a statistical ratio that measures the proportion of the country's working-age

population (ages 15 to 64 in most OECD countries) that is employed. This includes

people that have stopped looking for work. Current unemployment rate – 5.5%. Also

16% of Americans below poverty thresholdfor family of 4 around 20k annual income.

Low-income families also tend to be most energy in-efficient. Need vocational training in

energy related technical or field jobs to attract this population. Will increase employment

to population ratio and decrease tax burden on the group.

17

Educated middle school and high school students will go on to pursue energy related

careers or majors in college. Will be more aware of their energy consumption, energy

supply and energy future of the nation. They will drive policy changes as they come of

voting age.

What can we do?

Public School and Private Company partnership: The president's STEM campaign

leverages mostly private-sector funding. A nongovernmental organization, Change the

Equation was set up by more than 100 CEOs, with the cooperation of state governments

and educational organizations and foundations to align corporate efforts in STEM

education.

Interdisciplinary Energy and Sustainability curriculum with all STEM courses or fulfill

an Energy and Sustainability core with specific number of credit hours required for

graduation

Middle School and High School Outreach by private companies

While there is no national curriculum in the United States, states, school districts and

national associations do require or recommend that certain standards be used to guide

school instruction – No Child Left Behind Act

Public school curricula, funding, teaching, employment, and other policies are set

through locally elected school boards, who have jurisdiction over individual school

districts. State governments set educational standards and mandate standardized tests for

public school systems.

Postsecondary standards are the primary responsibility of individual institutions of higher

education. However, institutions develop and enforce their standards with reference to

18

the policies administered by state agencies, the requirements of accrediting agencies, the

expectations of professional associations and employers, and the practices of peer

institutions.

Should offer Energy and Sustainability minor in all colleges if possible.

Public Awareness Agenda:

It is always more economic to use less energy than generate it even from renewable sources,

therefore a household should always start by saving energy. Ever increasing energy prices

provide an economic incentive whilst limiting climate change provides a societal incentive.

Incentivizing and creating energy awareness in Working/Voting Age Population by:

Reduce Electricity use: Smart Home system-Real Time Energy Consumption Report

A smart home may be defined as a well-designed structure with sufficient access to

assets, communication, controls, data, and information technologies for enhancing the

occupants’ quality of life through comfort, convenience, reduced costs, and increased

connectivity. A commonly cited reason for this slow growth has been the exorbitant

cost associated with upgrading existing building stock to include “smart”

technologies such as network connected appliances. However, consumers have

historically been willing to incur significant costs for new communication

technologies, such as cellular telephones, broadband internet connections, and

television services. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the average

homeowner spent approximately 11% more on entertainment (including cell phone

and internet services) in 2010 than 25 years ago. Data indicate that consumers are

willing to spend more on hybrid vehicles than on similarly sized traditional vehicles

for reasons other than economic payback.

19

Looking inward, a smart home employs automated home energy management

(AHEM), an elegant network that self manages end-use systems based on information

flowing from the occupants and the smart meter. The value of AHEM is in

reconciliation of the energy use of connected systems in a house with the occupant’s

objectives of comfort and cost as well as the information received from the service

provider. Sensors and controls work together via a wireless home area network

(HAN) to gather relevant data, process the information using effective algorithms,

and implement control strategies that simultaneously co-optimize several objectives:

comfort and convenience at minimal cost to the occupant, efficiency in energy

consumption, and timely response to the request of the service provider

Changes to the end-user electricity pricing structures – from fixed tariffs to dynamic

prices that may change several times over a day – that reflect the use of the assets on

the grid at any given time. If these structures are implemented to provide a tangible

financial incentive for customers to respond to the requests of the service providers

for demand reduction, the customers can receive measurable monetary value for their

participation, in addition to the increased reliability of their service. Financial

incentives are but one motivating factor for the adoption of smart homes.

Changes to energy policies and available subsidies for retrofitting existing homes

with smart appliances as well as building new homes with smart technologies are

viewed as non-technological enablers. In the US, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 have all provided tax incentives, credits or deductions for

residential energy efficiency upgrades.

20

Lack of industry-accepted device communication and interoperability standards is a

critical barrier to more wide-spread adoption of smart home technologies. Several

ISO and IEEE standards activities are underway or recently completed to begin

addressing this barrier. Key among them are ISO/IEC 15045, 15067, 18012, and

IEEE 2030.

Feedback and automation are essential features of achieving this in a smart home.

However, an optimal energy efficiency strategy requires both features be designed

with the end-user in mind.

Reduce Heat losses: Home insulation system -The average U.S. family spends

$1,900 a year on home utility bills. Heating and cooling your home account for the

largest portion (54 percent) of your utility bills.

Ways your house is losing heat:

o Poorly insulated attics – heat escapes from the top

o Wrong-sized heating systems – Depending on your house’s square footage,

your furnace could be producing more heat than you need

o Holes in exterior walls – gaps where windows, doors or walls weren’t joined

together let heat seep out

o Leaky ducts – leaky ducts mean heat that is intended to keep you toasty in

your living room escapes into walls instead, never making it in not the rooms

you need to heat.

How can insulation help?

o Proper insulation lets you save more and makes better use of the energy and

heat in your house

21

o As much as 20 percent of your energy bill can be saved by good roof

insulation

o Insulation reduces the costs of heating and cooling by over 40 percent

o Wall insulation can reduce this loss by 2/3 and make your home more

comfortable

o You can lose as much as 10 percent of heat through uninsulated floors

o Insulation pays for itself in around five to six years

22

Environmental Agenda

Under the Independent Agency more communication between

EPA,DOI,USDA,NOAA,NRAC,DOE: Pooling of resources, experts from all areas

coming together, faster reaction time and formulating and implementing fair regulation

and standards.

Implement Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the short term- Since currently

storage of CO2 has been an issue for most Coal Power plants due to lack of verified

storage sites or huge upfront costs, we believe CO2 should be used for EOR as much as

possible. Much of the easy-to-produce oil already recovered from U.S. oil fields,

producers have attempted several tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery (EOR), techniques

that offer prospects for ultimately producing 30 to 60 percent, or more, of the reservoir's

original oil in place. CO2-EOR works most commonly by injecting CO2 into already

developed oil fields where it mixes with and “releases” the oil from the formation,

thereby freeing it to move to production wells. CO2 that emerges with the oil is separated

in above-ground facilities and re-injected into the formation. CO2-EOR projects resemble

a closed-loop system where the CO2 is injected, produces oil, is stored in the formation,

or is recycled back into the injection well. Federal and state-level incentives can foster

the initial, large-scale CCS projects that are needed to fully demonstrate the technology.

At the federal level, Section 45Q tax credits provide $10 per metric ton of CO2 stored

through enhanced oil recovery and $20 per metric ton of CO2 stored through deep saline

formations. The National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative recommends an expansion of

the existing 45Q tax credit for capturing carbon dioxide for use in EOR, as well as

modifications to improve the functionality and financial certainty of 45Q tax credits. The

23

Initiative also recommends U.S. states to consider incentives such as allowing cost

recovery through the electricity rate base for CCS power projects; including CCS under

electricity portfolio standards; offering long-term off-take agreements for the products of

a CCS project; and providing supportive tax policy for CCS or CO2-EOR projects. For

the long and medium term a fair, sustainable and effective Cap and Trade Program

needs to be implemented to reach new target to cut net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28

percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon

pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to

2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025.

Recycling and Waste Management: Over the last few decades, the generation,

recycling, composting, and disposal of MSW have changed substantially. Solid waste

generation per person per day peaked in 2000 while the 4.38 pounds per person per day is

the lowest since the 1980’s. The recycling rate has increased–from less than 10 percent of

MSW generated in 1980 to over 34 percent in 2012. Disposal of waste to a landfill has

decreased from 89 percent of the amount generated in 1980 to under 54 percent of MSW

in 2012.No U.S National Recycling Law. Responsibility given to States. America’s very

first federal solid waste law, 1965’s Solid Waste Disposal Act—itself an amendment to

the original Clean Air Act—didn’t even mention recycling. “Eleven years later, Congress

passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which remains the

cornerstone of federal solid waste and recycling legislation,” reports Miller. RCRA

abolished open dumps and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to

create guidelines for solid waste disposal and regulations for hazardous waste

management, but had little to say about recycling except to call for an increase in federal

24

purchases of products made with recycled content. Resource Management Issue since

they are limited. More population leads to more waste generated. In 2012, Americans

generated about 251 million tons1 of trash and recycled and composted almost 87 million

tons of this material, equivalent to a 34.5 percent recycling rate. Glass, PET bottles and

jars and selected consumer electronics have lowest rate of recycling in the U.S- about

30% for each in 2012. We need innovative ways to separate our waste more effectively.

Reduce and regulate nitrogen use by using radioactive markers and sensors to

measure different chemical concentrations in water: Minimizing nitrogen fertilizer

rates while maintaining crop yields is essential both for improving agricultural

profitability and reducing environmental consequences of farming, such as leaching and

runoff from agricultural crop fields, which can be major sources of nitrogen to streams,

rivers, and estuaries in the Southeast. Two-thirds of U.S. coastal systems are moderately

to severely impaired due to nutrient loading; there are now approximately 300 hypoxic

(low oxygen) zones along the U.S. coastline and the number is growing. One third of

U.S. streams and two fifths of U.S. lakes are impaired by high nitrogen concentrations.

More than 1.5 million Americans drink well water contaminated with too much (or close

to too much) nitrate (a regulated drinking water pollutant), potentially placing them at

increased risk of birth defects and cancer. More research is needed to deepen

understanding of these health risks. Several pathogenic infections, including coral

diseases, bird die-offs, fish diseases, and human diarrheal diseases and vector-borne

infections are associated with nutrient losses from agriculture and from sewage entering

ecosystems. Nitrogen is intimately linked with the carbon cycle and has both warming

and cooling effects on the climate. Regulation of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from

25

energy and transportation sectors has greatly improved air quality, especially in the

eastern U.S. Nitrogen oxide is expected to decline further as stronger regulations take

effect, but ammonia remains mostly unregulated and is expected to increase unless better

controls on ammonia emissions from livestock operations are implemented. Nitrogen loss

from farm and livestock operations can be reduced 30-50% using current practices and

technologies and up to 70-90% with innovative applications of existing methods. Current

U.S. agricultural policies and support systems, as well as declining investments in

agricultural extension, impede the adoption of these practices.

Restoration Liability: EPA has not implemented a 1980 statutory mandate under

Superfund to require businesses handling hazardous substances to demonstrate their

ability to pay for potential environmental cleanups--that is, to provide financial

assurances. EPA has cited competing priorities and lack of funds as reasons for not

implementing this mandate, but its inaction has exposed the Superfund program and U.S.

taxpayers to potentially enormous cleanup costs at gold, lead, and other mining sites and

at other industrial operations, such as metal-plating businesses. Also, EPA has done little

to ensure that businesses comply with its existing financial assurance requirements in

cleanup agreements and orders. Greater oversight and enforcement of financial

assurances would better guarantee that cleanup funds will be available if needed. Also,

greater use of other existing authorities--such as tax offsets, which allow the government

to redirect tax refunds it owes businesses to agencies with claims against them--could

produce additional payments for cleanups from financially distressed businesses.

26

Infrastructure Agenda

Our primary reason for transitioning to a nuclear fueled electricity sector are the benefits that come

from a power generation station that is low in emissions and high in energy density. We would

like to have Generation IV nuclear facilities built, preferably with the capability to reuse spent

fuel.8 By the time we reach our 50th year in our timeline, there is the hope that thorium has begun

to replace uranium as the fuel of choice, due to it being cheaper, safer, and more plentiful. If

facilities are not built to reuse spent fuel, with Harry Reid now retiring, we fully expect Yucca

Mountain to finally be approved.9

Having a nuclear fueled energy grid would also allow us to reach the goal of 60% of the

transportation sector being run on batteries. The possibility of blackouts or brownouts should be a

concern of the past, as our energy grid would be less centralized, and more distributed, with the

energy being generated and consumed right at the limits of the grid. Having an energy grid supplied

by nuclear facilities would also be beneficial to our goal of having a more extensive smart grid.

Nuclear generation stations are highly reliable, as they are always on and can quickly ramp up to

supply energy during peak usage times. They also allow for more flexibility in network topology,

demand-side management, and load adjustment/load balancing. These facilities would, in real-

time, “talk” to connected devices (like televisions, air conditioners, dishwashers, etc.) in order to

more efficiently monitor voltage usage through Voltage/VAR Optimization (monitors usage along

the lines than just at the distribution center). A smart grid would also allow for mathematical

prediction models to be utilized, which determines when more energy is about to be needed,

8 "Generation IV Nuclear Reactors: WNA." World Nuclear Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May

2015. 9 Northey, Hannah. "GAO: Death of Yucca Mountain Caused by Political Maneuvering." The

New York Times. N.p., 11 May 2011. Web. 09 May 2015.

27

allowing for a smooth process of bringing extra power online, instead of always having some spare

generators in a dissipative standby mode.10

To help ease the loads on the nation’s highways and byways, we also propose a more extensive

public transportation system based on high speed rail. We would like to first connect major cities

with their outlying suburbs, with bus systems that can ferry people from the main hubs to specific

business districts. Eventually, we would like most cities in the US to have systems that more

readily match those in Europe, China, or Japan.

But, we know that our roads and bridges are not going anywhere anytime soon. We would also

like to propose a new hybrid system to fund the needed maintenance that much of the country’s

roads need. The way we think this can be done is to implement a more extensive tollway program,

or some sort of hybrid program, that focuses on funneling tax money to the most used roads and

bridges. Potentially, sensors would be placed at intersections and along roadways to monitor usage,

allowing municipalities, cities, and states to better monitor which roads are being used most, and

what projects are most deserving of money.

As we all know, this country is basically broke, and does not realistically have the money to fix an

infrastructure system that has a D rating from ASCE. So, to solve this funding issue, we would

propose a variety of revenue options. Private/public ownership of new infrastructure (roads,

bridges, rail lines) would probably be the best bet, with something like a 20/20/30/30

(federal/state/local/private) split, with ownership and maintenance responsibilities turning over to

the local and private interests once the investment has been paid off. We would want to structure

government loans in such a way that the taxpayers are paid back with interest, so that they are not

10 "Smart Grid." Energy.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

28

double taxed. We would also recommend the federal government finally raise the gas tax to meet

current funding needs, and to withhold funding from the states until they do the same also.

Electricity supply goals

Our goals for electricity are to diversify our supply as much as possible. Therefore it is

inevitable that we will be shifting some of the supply from hydrocarbons to renewables. This is

not due to a bias for renewables. It is simply because any resource will have vulnerabilities. We

need to spread that risk to as many resources as possible in order to prepare for a disruption in

supply. There are two considerations that we have to keep in mind when determining supply

goals – the economy and the environment. If I am unemployed, I am less likely to care about the

level of CO2 emissions. Similarly, if my environment is so damaged that I am experiencing

health problems and increased healthcare cost, the savings on energy may not seem worth it.

Therefore neither aspect can be neglected. We have to find a balance that is economically and

environmentally sustainable.

Total Energy % changes by sector

Current (2015) 2025 2040 2065

E T E T E T E T

Coal 35% -- 33% -- 23% -- 15% --

Oil -- 93% -- 80% -- 48% -- 25%

Natural Gas 35% 1% 33% 5% 23% 18% 15% 25%

Hydroelectric 4.50% -- 4.50% -- 4.50% -- 4.50% --

Nuclear 18% -- 18% -- 26% -- 34% --

Wind 2% -- 5% -- 11% -- 15% --

29

Solar 2% -- 5% -- 11% -- 15% --

Bio 1% 5% 1% 10% 1% 18% 1% 25%

Hydrogen -- -- -- 5% -- 15% -- 25%

Sector totals 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100%

Quadrillion BTUs by sector

Current (2015) 2025 2040 2065

E T E T E T E T

Coal 24.7 -- 24.3 -- 20 -- 15 --

Oil -- 25.3 -- 21.8 -- 9.2 -- 2.5

Natural Gas 24.7 0.97 24.3 -- 20 -- 15 2.5

Hydroelectric 3.17 -- 3.17 -- 3.17 -- 3.17 --

Nuclear 12.7 -- 13 -- 22.5 -- 34 --

Wind 1.4 -- 3.7 -- 9.5 -- 15 --

Solar 1.4 -- 3.7 -- 9.5 -- 15 --

Bio 0.7 1.4 0.7 2.8 0.8 3.5 1 2.5

Hydrogen -- -- -- 1.4 -- 2.8 -- 2.5

sector totals 68.77 27.67 72.87 26 85.47 15.5 98.17 10

total check 96.44 98.87 100.97 108.17

Total Energy 97.83 101 106 110

30

Overall Quadrillion BTUs

Current (2015) 2025 2040 2065

Coal 24.7 24.3 20 15

Oil 25.3 21.8 9.2 2.5

Natural Gas 25.67 24.3 20 17.5

Hydroelectric 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17

Nuclear 12.7 13 22.5 34

Wind 1.4 3.7 9.5 15

Solar 1.4 3.7 9.5 15

Bio 2.1 3.5 4.3 3.5

Hydrogen 0 1.4 2.8 2.5

Total check 96.44 98.87 100.97 108.17

Total Energy 97.83 101 106 110

Overall Percentage Changes

Current (2015) 2025 2040 2065

Coal 26% 25% 20% 14%

Oil 26% 22% 9% 2%

Natural Gas 27% 25% 20% 16%

Hydroelectric 3% 3% 3% 3%

Nuclear 13% 13% 22% 31%

Wind 1% 4% 9% 14%

31

Solar 1% 4% 9% 14%

Bio 2% 4% 4% 3%

Hydrogen 0% 1% 3% 2%

Total check 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Electricity

Current (2015) 2025 2040 2065

m Households

137 m

Households 138.6 m Households

140.3 m

Households

25.1m Electric

vehicles

57 m Electric

vehicles

114.8 m Electric

vehicles

174 m Electric

vehicles

Electricity supply: Electricity supply: Electricity supply: Electricity supply:

35% Coal 33% Coal 23% Coal 15% Coal

35% Natural Gas 33% Natural Gas 23% Natural Gas 15% Natural Gas

4.5% Hydroelectric

4.5%

Hydroelectric

4.5% Hydroelectric 4.5% Hydroelectric

18% Nuclear 18% Nuclear 26% Nuclear 34% Nuclear

2% Wind 5% Wind 11% Wind 15% Wind

2% Solar 5% Solar 11% Solar 15% Solar

1% Bio 1% Bio 1% Bio 1% Bio

32

Transportation supply goals

One of the goals for the transportation sector is to increase fuel competition. There are

two objectives that will help in achieving this goal. The first is the minimum required percentage

of all light-duty vehicles sold in the US to be powered by electricity. This will open up a much

more diverse supply source with the medium being electricity. The second only applies to the

remaining non-electric vehicles. It is the requirement for all light-duty, non-electric vehicles sold

in the US to have a minimum of three fuel options that are readily available for consumers to

utilize. This will provide more certainty for business owners who want to make capital

investments in alternative fueling stations. Investors and business owners will react quickly to

such a significant number of flex fuel vehicles. It will also empower consumers to guide the

market for transportation fuel. To incentivize manufacturers to install flex fuel, we will offer to

lower their required emission standards. Not only will this give them the power to choose in

order to decrease resistance for flex fuel and the emission standards, it will also further validate

the enforceability of the emission standards. It will also include localized pilot projects to try

new methods for public transportation. Some of which will include adding a monorail system

above the inside shoulder lanes or HOV lanes to existing highways. There was a proposed

project in China for a bus project that was elevated. It allowed for the free flow of traffic

underneath. If we could do a monorail along the highway where the majority of people already

travel, it is likely that it would have a significant impact on the flow of traffic.

33

Transportation

Current (2015) 2025 2040 2065

319m Population 351.5m Population 393.8m Population 426m Population

121m Households 137m Households 138.6m Households 140.3m Households

2.07

Vehicles/household

2.07

Vehicles/household

2.07

Vehicles/household

2.07

Vehicles/household

251m Cars on the

road

284m Cars on the

road

287m Cars on the

road

290m Cars on the

road

10% EV (25.1 m)

20% Electric (57

m)

40% Electric (114.8

m)

60% Electric

225.9m Non-

Electric

227 m Non-

Electric

172 m Non-Electric 116 m Non-Electric

Non-electric fuel

supply:

Non-electric fuel

supply:

Non-electric fuel

supply:

Non-electric fuel

supply:

93% Oil (210m

cars)

80% Oil (181 m

cars)

48% Oil (82 m cars) 25% Oil (29 m cars)

1% Natural Gas

(2.3m cars)

5% Natural Gas

(11 m cars)

15% Natural Gas

(26 m cars)

25% Natural Gas

(29 m cars)

5% Biofuel (22 m

cars)

10% Biofuel (22 m

cars)

18% Biofuel (31 m

cars)

25% Biofuel (29 m

cars)

0% Hydrogen

5% Hydrogen (11

m cars)

15% Hydrogen (26

m cars)

25% Hydrogen (29

m cars)

34

Supply (2015—2065)

Oil

Black Gold, the most sought after commodity in the world. It transformed the way we live our

lives, revolutionized transport, made the world a small place and even managed to save the

whale. We will stop at nothing as a society to obtain oil, and that includes damaging our

environment and even going to war, but what does the future hold for the largest industry on

earth?

Since the 1860s when John D. Rockefeller opened his first refinery, oil has been a staple in the

energy mix for the US and now the world. Oil, of course, pre dates the combustion engine, and

was first used for heating and lighting, replacing whale oil as the primary source of lighting fuel.

As the combustion engine took hold of transportation, oil became ever more in demand. Oil then

fuelled world wars one and two, by the end of which the combustion engine dominated the globe

as the primary source of transportation.

Oil and politics have a habit of going hand in hand, in the Second World War, the allies relied

heavily on oil from Venezuela, which allowed the Venezuelan government to pressure Great

Britain and the United States into paying a higher rate for their oil. Mexico was both the first

ever nation to nationalize oil production, and the first nation to declare bankruptcy as a result of

their poor commodities management. In Nigeria, since independence from the British, there has

been constant conflicts, the most notable of these is the Biafra war, which have been fought for

oil. Nigeria itself went from a nation of 3 states to a nation of 36 states, so that smaller

communities could access the oil wealth of the south western region.

Today, oil and conflict are, unfortunately, tied together. The Middle East, North and West Africa

and even some Asian states, are engulfed by conflict that has at its core the control of oil. This

35

greed for oil is understandable, as the demand for oil is ever increasing, and only seems set to

increase over the upcoming years as China and India continue to grow their middle class. The

graph below, from BP, illustrates the upward trend in oil consumption.

11

For all the talk of peak oil, as it stands, we are finding more and more oil each year. The higher

the demand for oil is, the more oil we will continue to find. As there are many more resources

out there, they are just currently uneconomical to extract. However there is always some

uncertainty surrounding oil, as the nations with the largest reserves are very coy when it comes

to revealing how much oil they truly have. It must also be said that the oil industry is a

11 Graph from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013

36

vulnerable one. A major conflict around the Arabian Gulf would destroy supply, and rocket oil

prices at the same time, and the damage to supply may be irreversible.

Oil in the USA

For this plan we are looking at oil in the US, both from a supply and demand perspective, as this

is what we can realistically control and alter. Policy in the US may be able to alter prices

globally, but it will not dictate to the OPEC nations how to operate their oil businesses.

Supply in the US has been revolutionized by the shale boom. Fracking has unlocked vast

reserves, and as a result since 2010 supply has rocketed domestically. However, it must be noted

that US shale oil is very expensive to extract, as a result the recent low oil prices have hit US

producer hard, with many wells closing down due to being uneconomical. The US also has vast

reserves in Alaska, however this oil is difficult to extract, especially in such an environmentally

sensitive region. The graph below, courtesy of Fuelfix, illustrates the US racking boom, and its

impact on supply.

37

12

The US consumption of oil has actually decreased over the last decade. This is in part due to

improvements in vehicle efficiency, and part due to the high gasoline prices in 2007-2012

altering American buying habits, shifting tastes towards smaller vehicles. Although production

has increased dramatically, it still does not come close to consumption. The US currently

consumes between 17-19 million barrels of oil a day, and sources only 9-12 million barrels of

this domestically, the gap is made up by imported oil. The below graph, from the Energy

Tribune, illustrates this and shows how this has changed in recent years.

12 Graph from Fuel fix

38

13

As long as price can support production, there is a great deal of oil on US soil. There is also a

continuing trend towards efficiency in transport, and industry movement away from the

combustion engine. It may not, therefore, be long before US production can meet domestic

demand.

10 Year Plan

As domestic demand stabilizes due to the continued introduction of electric vehicles to the

market, and production of US oil reserves continues to develop as prices recover from their

current slump, we will approach an equilibrium of supply and demand. A majority of US oil

demand will be met by US oil supply as prices will stabilize at around $80 per barrel, and around

$3 per gallon.

25 Year Plan

13 Graph from Energy Tribune

39

Oil production will stabilize over this period, at around 12-14 million barrels per day

domestically. This supply will begin to outstrip the domestic demand. Oil prices will remain

constant, at around $3 per gallon, adjusted for inflation, and some of US oil production will be

exported to developing nations who have higher oil demand. This exported oil will be sold at a

higher price on the international market. For this to occur legislation would have to change to

allow the export of crude oil, but as we are predicting that supply will out do demand, the

decision to allow export should be a simple one.

50 Year Plan

By this stage oil will account for only 10% of the fuel used for transportation in the US. As a

result demand will be much lower than it is today. Oil production will taper down, as it will not

be economically sensible to drill new wells. Prices for oil will stay at around $3 per gallon,

adjusted for inflation, and will be available and affordable for those who still decide to use this

fuel source.

Natural Gas

As with any supply source, there are pros and cons. The pros of natural gas include: the

ability to use it for electricity and transportation - making it a comparable substitute for oil, our

vast domestic supply, and relatively low prices. The cons include: the fact that there is a finite

supply, it is a hydrocarbon which means it has relatively higher emissions than some other

sources, US exporting has the potential to increase prices making it less economical as a

substitute, larger storage capacity required compared to oil as a transportation fuel source,

compression or liquefaction required for some transport and storage, increased fueling times, the

increased cost to retrofit vehicles to accept it as a fuel source and the environmental concerns

related to extraction.

40

Our goal for 2025 is to decrease our use of natural gas for electricity generation from

35% to 33 % and to increase our use of natural gas in transportation from 1% to 5%. This may

seem counterintuitive. However, the goal is to enable a more level playing field for energy

competition. We need to take gradual steps to allow for more flex fuel options, which include

CNG, in order to decrease the reliance on oil as the primary transportation source. It also

includes a more diversified energy mix for electricity generation. Over the three phases, the

natural gas consumption will change from 24 to 18 quadrillion BTU’s. Currently, the price of

natural gas is fairly cheap because of a vast domestic supply. However, the cost will be

increasing in the near future because of a gradual increase in the export of natural gas. This

increase in cost will have a ripple effect through the economy. It will effect feedstock for the

petrochemical industry which will extend to almost every product that we manufacture or export.

It will also increase the cost per kilowatt hour from natural gas electricity plants.

We currently have estimated reserves of about 353,994 billion cubic feet as of December

31, 2014.14 The energy density is 0.0364 MJ/L.15 According to the Open EI Cost Database, a

Natural Gas Combined Cycle produces electricity at $.05 per kilowatt-hour. Electricity from a

combustion turbine is $.07 per kilowatt-hour.16 At an average price of $3.52 per gallon of

gasoline, CNG costs 5.6 cents per mile. This is compared to 8 cents per mile of gasoline.17

“LNG's cost per mile is generally less than or equal to the price of diesel” (EPA). The average

cost to build a plant is $330 million which is relatively attractive compared to other energy

sources.18 By 2025, we should see 25% of all vehicles with two fuel options. This means that

14 Form EIA-23, "Annual Survey of Domestic Oil and Gas Reserves" 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density. Accessed May 2015.

16 OpenEI Transparent Cost Database. 17 http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-honda-civic-natural-gas-test-review. Accessed May 2015

18 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/. Table 1 and 2. Accessed May 2015.

41

there will likely be an increase in vehicles using natural gas. The degree to which the automakers

opt for natural gas instead of other alternative fuels will determine the widespread capital

investment made in fueling stations. We will also be experiencing higher prices due to US

natural gas exports. Asia’s consumption and OPEC’s production will play major roles in the

price of our natural gas. We may see a slight increase or we may see a dramatic increase due to a

shortage.

Included in the education agenda will be information on why we have a history of using

hydrocarbons as a fuel source. The next generation needs to be aware that the reason we use

hydrocarbons is because of cost and energy density. They also need to understand the importance

of balancing these benefits with the environmental consequences. Future generations need to be

more cognizant of their daily use of energy resources. Simple things on a large scale can make a

difference. The public needs to be better informed about the issues surrounding natural gas.

There have been videos of people setting their faucets on fire because of water contamination. If

a water source is suspected to be contaminated, people need to be aware of who to contact, how

to have their water tested by the agency for a comparison, how to petition the entity responsible

for a solution, the extent to which they can use the water, etc.

The extraction and production of natural gas poses a few different environmental

concerns. In extraction, fracking which has increased production dramatically, has been accused

of causing water table and well contamination. We propose that any new lease contract include a

pre-drilling sample of any existing water sources so that it can be compared to post-drilling

samples in order to protect the drilling company from liability. If it is found that drilling

operations have contaminated any water supply, the population effected by the contaminated

supply would have legal rights to pursue damages. Chemical marker to identify companies,

42

People have also claimed that fracking or drilling mud contains potentially toxic

materials and chemicals that are being left in the ground. However, currently there is no way to

mitigate these effects because companies are protected from disclosing the chemicals used by

claiming that it is proprietary information. We support the recent rule that requires that drilling

companies disclose the chemicals used on federal land. It will take effect in June 2015.19 In

addition, we propose that on non-federal land, pre-drilling soil samples be taken by the new

regulatory agency in order to compare to post-drilling samples. These should be audited

regularly to ensure that the companies are not using any chemicals on a list of toxic or hazardous

chemicals which will be created by the new regulatory agency. The use of water for drilling

should be capped at a certain percentage per barrel recovered. We need to create an incentive for

drilling companies to recycle the water used for drilling or find better methods for secondary and

tertiary recovery. There have been attempts to use captured CO2. The process is called CO2-

EOR. It uses CO2 that has been purchased from coal plants with CCS. It injects the CO2 into

existing wells to recover additional barrels. Canada’s SaskPower's Boundary Dam project has

been successful as well as the US Kemper Project.20 21 These projects increase the efficiency of

natural gas wells by decreasing water use and increasing production, whilst increasing the

efficiency of coal plants by decreasing the coal plant’s net cost and managing its CO2 waste.

This is one solution to the environmental problems caused by hydrocarbons. Another is the use

of natural gas as a vehicle fuel substitute. According to the DOE, “Based on this model, natural

gas emits approximately 6%-11% lower levels of GHGs than gasoline throughout the fuel life

19 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/20/394282086/interior-dept-issues-new-fracking-rules-for-federal-lands.

Accessed May 2015. 20 Boundary Dam integrated CCS project". www.zeroco2.no. ZeroCO2. 21 CO2 Capture at the Kemper County IGCC Project" (PDF). www.netl.doe.gov. DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory.

43

cycle.”22 This is why we intend for CNG and LNG to gain a significant share of the vehicle fuel

source mix. While building consensus in support for our agency, we will attempt to pass small

pieces of legislation to tighten the restrictions on water used in drilling projects by 2025. By

2065, the agency will implement the mandatory recycling of any water used in the drilling

process.

Before the natural gas boom, we were building import or regasification facilities to

prepare for a shortage of natural gas. After the boom, we are building export or liquefaction

facilities to prepare for an increase in exports. It is very likely that Asia’s energy consumption

will cause prices of natural gas to skyrocket. We need to be prepared for a depletion of our own

natural gas supplies in the future. The ideal situation is for us to maintain two-way capacity so

that we are able to react quickly to changes in the market. Pipeline leaks are a concern but can be

addressed by increasing the quality and frequency of routine inspections. Currently we are

experiencing a shortage of talent and knowledge on the regulatory side of energy. This is where

vocational programs can play a role. Along with coal, any natural gas plants that are eventually

taken offline will not be demolished. Incentives will be put in place to freeze property taxes for

decommissioned plants with the stipulation that the tax savings be used for emission reduction

R&D in other areas of the company. As soon as the flex fuel option includes natural gas, we will

see fueling stations begin to include natural gas.

After US begins to increase exports, prices of natural gas only vehicles may not be as

attractive. Currently there are a few options when considering a natural gas vehicle. They are

natural gas only, natural gas and diesel ignition, and a traditional fueling system combined with a

22 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html. Accessed May 2015.

44

natural gas fueling system. Our goal would be to gravitate toward a dual or multi-fueling system.

We do not simply want to switch sources. We want to provide the opportunity to choose.

According to the DOE, there are approximately 150,000 natural gas vehicles on the

road.23 These vehicles may be using compressed natural gas CNG or liquefied natural gas LNG.

CNG is more appropriate for light duty vehicles because of the relatively short distances and

limited storage capacity. LNG can be used for vehicles that are going to be traveling much

longer distances and that have more capacity for storage such as semi-trucks. It is preferable to

use LNG because the energy density of LNG is 22.2 MJ/L which is more than double that of

CNG at 9MJ/L.24 Either one can be used as a substitute for oil which is the most important

attribute. A CNG tank is more expensive than a typical gasoline tank.

It is possible to retrofit a vehicle to run on natural gas. These kits cost about $5,000 to

$10,000. The kit itself is only about $1,000. The $2,000 tank plus the labor to install bring it to

about $5,000 minimum.25 However, manufacturers are providing additional options as well. For

example, Ford will install a CNG fueling system as an option at purchasing so that it is installed

by a certified installer and will not invalidate the warranty. They have seen an increase in sales

over the last five years.26

23 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas.html. Accessed May 2015. 24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density. Accessed May 2015.

25 http://www.skycng.com/FAQpage.php. Accessed May 2015.

26 https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/05/04/2016-f150-alternative-

fuel-leadership.html. Accessed May 2015.

45

Figure 1 Ford sales of commercial vehicles with CNG/propane gaseous engine-prep packages27

Many other car manufactures have produced models that accept natural gas. These

include Honda, Ford, BMW, Volvo, Chevrolet and Volkswagen. By 2065, if natural gas supplies

25% of transportation needs excluding electric vehicles, and 15% of our electricity needs, we

will require 17.5 quadrillion BTUs. That is 15 quadrillion BTUs for electricity and 2.5

quadrillion BTUs for transportation as a fuel. Semi-trucks should almost all be converted over to

a flex fuel system that includes LNG. By this time, it is highly likely that the demand from Asia

will have driven up the price for natural gas. However, all non-electric vehicles will have flex

fuel options. This means that not only are the vehicles flexible in that they can use a variety of

fuels. They are also flexible pertaining to pricing. If natural gas prices have become

uneconomical to even consider, drivers will have a minimum of two other fuel options.

27 https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/05/04/2016-f150-alternative-

fuel-leadership.html. Accessed May 2015.

46

Coal

According to the IEA “Coal currently provides 40% of the world’s electricity needs. It is

the second source of primary energy in the world after oil, and the first source of electricity

generation.” In the US, we used 924.4 million short tons in 2013 which was an increase of 4%

from the previous year. The electric power sector consumed about 92.8% of the total U.S. coal

consumption in 2013. (EIA) Coal is so widely used because it is cheaper and more readily

available. However, there are significant environmental side effects from the use of coal. These

are primarily related to emissions. These emissions can be mitigated with new technology that

either captures the CO2 before it can escape into the atmosphere or gasifying the coal and

separating the components. We do not believe that we should discontinue the use of coal any

time soon. Instead, we should implement the technology that is available to target the unwanted

environmental consequences.

Figure 1: EIA Coal Reserves

47

In the US, the demonstrated reserve base DRB was estimated to contain 480 billion short

tons (EIA 2014). According to the Open EI Transparent Cost Database, pulverized, unscrubbed

coal is $.04 per kilowatt-hour. Pulverized scrubbed coal is $.05 per kilowatt-hour. And the

electricity from an integrated gasification combined cycle coal plant is $.08 per kilowatt-hour.

The cost to build a coal plant is significantly higher than most other power plants. According to

the EIA, the average cost of an upgraded coal plant is around $3 billion. Compare this to its

replacement, natural gas, whose average cost to build a new plant is around $330 million.28

People have a general bad perception of coal. They call it dirty energy. Therefore, coal

has been stigmatized. If people were more educated on the new technology available for “clean

coal” they may be less zealous about its demise. People do not know to seek out this information.

This problem can only be solved with a focus on education and public awareness.

Emissions from coal are the worst of all the energy technologies. A typical coal plant

emits 820 g CO2/kWhe. However, an upgraded plant with emission-cutting technology can emit

anywhere from 160 to 220 g CO2/kWhe (IPCC 2014).29 This is an opportunity to continue our

use of coal which we have an overabundance of.

28 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/. Table 1 and 2. Accessed May 2015. 29 "IPCC Working Group III – Mitigation of Climate Change, Annex II I: Technology - specific cost and performance parameters" (PDF). IPCC. 2014.

48

Nuclear Energy

Current State 2015:

Nuclear power plants split uranium atoms inside a reactor in a process called fission. At a

nuclear energy facility, the heat from fission is used to produce steam, which spins a turbine to

generate electricity. A single uranium fuel pellet the size of a pencil eraser contains the same

amount of energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of

oil.30 There are no emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide during the

production of electricity at nuclear energy facilities. Nuclear energy is the only clean-air source

of energy that produces electricity 24 hours a day, every day. A renewable energy source uses an

essentially limitless supply of fuel, whether wind, the sun or water. Nuclear energy is often

called a sustainable energy source, because there is enough uranium in the world to fuel reactors

for 100 years or more. Compared to other non-emitting sources, nuclear energy facilities are

relatively compact. The U.S. has its most prominent uranium reserves in New Mexico, Texas,

and Wyoming. The U.S. Department of Energy has approximated there to be at least 300 million

pounds of uranium in these areas.31

A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. The

nuclear industry generates a total of about 2,000 - 2,300 metric tons of used fuel per year. High-

30 "STP Nuclear Operating Company / Welcome / Welcome." STP Nuclear Operating Company

/ Welcome / Welcome. Web. 11 May 2015. 31 Union of Concerned Scientists. "How Nuclear Power Works". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 29

April 2014.

49

level radioactive waste is the byproduct of recycling used nuclear fuel, which in its final form

will be disposed of in a permanent disposal facility.

Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) consists of items that have come in contact with

radioactive materials, such as gloves, personal protective clothing, tools, water purification filters

and resins, plant hardware, and wastes from reactor cooling-water cleanup systems. It generally

has levels of radioactivity that decay to background radioactivity levels in less than 500 years.

About 95 percent decays to background levels within 100 years or less. The United States has the

4th largest uranium reserves in the world.32

In 2013, the US electricity generation was 4294 billion kWh gross, 1717 billion

kWh(40%) of it from coal-fired plant, 1150 billion kWh (27%) from gas, 822 billion kWh (18%)

nuclear, 291 billion kWh from hydro, 170 billion kWh from wind, 12 billion kWh from solar and

18 billion kWh from geothermal (IEA data). Annual electricity demand is projected to increase

to 5,000 billion kWh in 2030.Annual per capita electricity consumption in 2012 was 11,900

kWh. Total capacity is 1068 GWe, less than one- tenth of which is nuclear. The country's 100

nuclear reactors produced 798 billion kWh in 2014, over 19% of total electrical output. There are

now 99 units operable (98.7 GWe) and five under construction.33

According to the EIA, there are currently 61 commercially operating nuclear power

plants with 99 nuclear reactors in 30 states in the United States. Thirty-five of these plants have

two or more reactors. The Palo Verde plant in Arizona has 3 reactors and had the largest

combined net summer generating capacity of 3,937 megawatts (MW) in 2012. Fort Calhoun in

Nebraska with a single reactor had the smallest net summer capacity at 479 megawatts (MW) in

32 The Sierra Club of Southeastern PA And CCP Coalition for a Sustainable Future 33 "World Nuclear Association." Nuclear Power in the USA. Web. 11 May 2015.

50

2012.Four reactors were taken out of service in 2013: the Crystal River plant in Florida with one

reactor in February; the Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin with one reactor in April; and the San

Onofre plant in California with two reactors in June. The Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont,

with a single reactor, was taken out of service in December 2014.

Figure 2: Current U.S Nuclear Power Plants (EIA)

Nuclear energy is one of America’s lowest-cost “round the clock” electricity sources,

with national average production costs at 2.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2012. Similarly, the

average cost of electricity produced by coal was 3.27 cents per kilowatt-hour, natural gas 3.4

cents. The average production cost for nuclear energy has remained well below three cents per

kilowatt-hour for the past 18 years. Nuclear and coal plants, in fact, have consistently been the

51

most stable and predictable source of low-priced power among all base load or always-on

generators for decades. Nuclear energy can maintain this long-term price stability because only

31 percent of the production cost is fuel cost. By way of comparison, fuel accounts for 80 to 90

percent of the cost of electricity produced by coal- or gas-fired electric generation, both of which

have low production costs today because of the current abundance — and therefore low cost —

of fuel.34

Figure 3: U.S Electricity Production Costs

Dry cask storage is a method of storing high-level radioactive waste, such as spent

nuclear fuel that has already been cooled in the spent for at least one year and often as much as

ten years. Casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed. The fuel

34 "Nuclear Power's Production Costs Are Low." Nuclear Matters. Web. 12 May 2015.

52

rods inside are surrounded by inert gas. Ideally, the steel cylinder provides leak-tight

containment of the spent fuel. Each cylinder is surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other

material to provide radiation shielding to workers and members of the public.

The NRC describes the dry casks used in the US as "designed to resist floods, tornadoes,

projectiles, temperature extremes, and other unusual scenarios”. As of the end of 2009, 13,856

metric tons of commercial spent fuel – or about 22 percent – were stored in dry casks. 35

Since the Obama administration suspended the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain

repository program in 2010, the federal government has not had a viable program for the

management of used nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear energy facilities and high-level

radioactive waste from government defense and research activities. More nuclear waste is being

loaded into sealed metal casks filled with inert gas.

35 "Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry CasksKey Points and Questions & Answers." NRC:

Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks. Web. 12 May 2015.

53

Figure 4: U.S Nuclear Fuel Storage (NEI)

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 created a

timetable and procedure for establishing a permanent, underground repository for high-level

radioactive waste by the mid-1990s, and provided for some temporary federal storage of waste,

including spent fuel from civilian nuclear reactors.

The Act established a Nuclear Waste Fund composed of fees levied against electric

utilities to pay for the costs of constructing and operating a permanent repository, and set the fee

at one mill per kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity generated. Utilities were charged a one-time

fee for storage of spent fuel created before enactment of the law. The Nuclear Waste Fund

receives almost $750 million in fee revenues each year and has an unspent balance of $25

billion. However (according to the Draft Report by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s

54

Nuclear Future), actions by both Congress and the Executive Branch have made the money in the

fund effectively inaccessible to serving its original purpose. The commission made several

recommendations on how this situation may be corrected. In late 2013, a federal court ruled that

the Department of Energy must stop collecting fees for nuclear waste disposal until provisions

are made to collect nuclear waste. In December 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste

Policy Act to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the only site to be characterized as a

permanent repository for all of the nation's nuclear waste. The Obama Administration rejected

use of the site in the 2010 United States federal budget, which eliminated all funding except that

needed to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In Obama's 2011 budget

proposal released February 1, all funding for nuclear waste disposal was zeroed out for the next

ten years and it proposed to dissolve the Office of Civilian Waste Management required by the

NWPA.36

A series of ten Gallup polls from 1994 to 2012 found support for nuclear energy in the

United States varying from 46% to 59%, with opposition ranging from 33% to 48%. In nine out

of the ten polls, both a plurality and a majority favored nuclear power; the exception was a 2001

poll in which 46% favored, and 48% opposed nuclear power. Polls taken just before the

Fukishima accident and a year after the accident found identical percentages of 57% favoring

nuclear power.

Phase I: In 10 years-2025

According to EIA’s 2015 Energy Outlook, total electricity demand grows by 29%

(0.9%/year), from 3,826 billion kWh in 2012 to 4,954 billion kWh in 2040. In the year 2025, U.S

36 Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy Future. Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s

Nuclear: July 29, 2011.

55

net electricity consumption will be 5,207 billion kWh compared to 4,429 billion kWh in 2015.

Due to the significant number of coal-fired plant retirements–97 gigawatts by 2035 there is

greater need for additional base load capacity. Also, LNG exports by 2019 might also effect

electricity generation by 2025 due to changes in market prices for natural gas. Thus, projections

of nuclear capacity and generation are influenced by assumptions about the potential for capacity

uprates, new licensing requirements, future operating costs, and outside influences such as

natural gas prices and incentives for other generating technologies. As nuclear power plants are

complex construction projects, their construction periods are longer than other large power

plants. It is typically expected to take 5 to 7 years to build a large nuclear unit (not including the

time required for planning and licensing).Therefore, in the first ten years of or energy plan we

aim to build support of electricity generation through our education agenda since, there will be

no new functioning nuclear plant generation that will significantly increase their share in 2025

from the estimated 18% in 2015.We believe from 2015-2025 our education agenda and increased

public awareness will drive policy changes and encourage private companies and stakeholders to

start investing in new nuclear generating capacity. In this period of time we would specifically

like to focus on building of small scale “cookie cutter” reactors which will be localized and be

distributed power. Because of their small size—300 megawatts or less, compared to a typical

nuclear power plant of 1,000 megawatts—they have many useful applications, including

generating emission-free electricity in remote locations where there is little to no access to the

main power grid or providing process heat to industrial applications. They are "modular" in

design, which means they can be manufactured completely in a factory and delivered and

installed at the site in modules, giving them the name "small modular reactors," or SMRs.37 In

37 "Small Reactor Designs." Small Reactors. Web. 12 May 2015.

56

addition we advocate to for extensive research into thorium based nuclear reactors for fourth

generation nuclear power plants to minimize environmental risks and storage problems. The US

still relies on second-generation light-water, solid-fuel reactors that operate, on average, at more

than 90 percent capacity. Fourth-generation reactors will be even more efficient than third-

generation union with the potential to produce more electricity at less cost. They operate at much

higher temperatures but at lower pressures than third-generation reactors. Thorium is better

suited to run them than uranium because it has a higher melting point. That substitution would

minimize the danger of a meltdown at the reactor’s core, which happened partially at Three Mile

Island and wholly at Fukushima.

Funds for research into Thorium based nuclear reactors as well as research for finding

new nuclear waste storage sites should be allocated from the Nuclear Waste Fund since the

utilities as tax payers have already paid for it over the years. We anticipate that by 2025

legislation will push for Yucca Mountain to start accepting nuclear waste from all around the

country. However, we would still want to continue the process of finding new storage sites

within these ten years.

Phase II: In 25 years- 2040

As mentioned previously in the section above, U.S electricity demand will be 4,954

billion kWh in 2040 according to EIA. This is a slight decrease from the consumption in 2025

and can be attributed to changes in economic growth, advances in energy-efficient technologies,

and electricity prices. In regards to U.S nuclear power capacity, the World Nuclear Organization

states that, “Coal is projected to retain the largest share of the electricity generation mix to 2035,

though by 2020 about 49 GWe of coal-fired capacity is expected to be retired, due to

environmental constraints and low efficiency, coupled with a continued drop in the fuel price of

57

gas relative to coal. Coal-fired capacity in 2011 was 318 GWe. If today’s (2015) nuclear plants

retire after 60 years of operation, If today’s nuclear plants retire after 60 years of operation, 22

GWe of new nuclear capacity would be needed by 2030, and 55 GWe by 2035 to maintain a

20% (approx.) nuclear share”. We also believe that growth in electricity generation from nuclear

power will eat up the heavy costs of wind and solar energy – both of which are expected to

increase in supply according to our energy plan. By 2040 we expect a 25% increase in nuclear

generating capacity primarily from small based thorium 4th generation reactors. In addition there

will also be a simultaneous increase in wind and solar energy by 20% during this time to

supplement our zero carbon emission electricity generation plan. In our plan we also call for

increased distributed power which will increase the efficiency of electricity generation and

decrease inefficiency from transmission. According to GE’s publication on the subject,

“Distributed power technologies includes diesel and gas reciprocating engines, gas turbines, fuel

cells, solar panels and small wind turbines. Although there is no standard definition, distributed

power technologies are less than 100 megawatts (MW) in size—and typically less than 50 MW

which is the limit that distribution systems can accommodate at distribution voltages. They are

highly flexible and suitable across a range of applications including electric power, mechanical

power and propulsion. Distributed power technologies can stand alone, or they can work together

within a network of integrated technologies to meet the needs of both large and small energy

users”. The rise of distributed power is being driven by the ability of distributed power systems

to overcome the constraints that typically inhibit the development of large capital projects and

transmission and distribution lines. Because they are small, they have lower capital requirements

and can be built and become operational faster and with less risk than large power plants. In

addition, distributed power systems can be incrementally added to meet growing energy needs.

58

Phase III: In 50 years-2065

By 2065 we expect nuclear power generation to increase to 34% to support our efforts to

increase renewables (wind, solar, hydro) by 30% as well as move towards a low carbon and oil

dependent energy market. Since in these 50 years we will have a greater number of 4th generation

nuclear reactors we will see a significant decrease in demand for electricity in part due to

increased efficiency from nuclear generation. Increasing thermal efficiency, the ratio between

electricity and heat produced, key to improving the overall economics of nuclear power. Fossil-

fueled power plants have slowly improved their thermal efficiencies over the last several

decades, but light-water reactors haven’t changed. LWRs have thermal efficiencies under 33

percent, compared to modern coal plants at approximately 39 percent and combined-cycle gas

plants at 50 to 60 percent. A higher thermal efficiency increases the amount of electricity

produced for a given reactor size. Higher thermal efficiency also means less waste heat and less

water needed for cooling, which lessens the thermal environmental impact and the costs of

dealing with waste heat. Thermal efficiency is dependent on the temperature of the reactor core

and how efficiently the working fluid can be compressed and expanded. Higher temperatures

allow for the use of a more efficient power conversion system, usually through the use of a

Brayton cycle turbine –– the same system used in a combined-cycle natural gas turbine. For this

reason, many advanced reactor designs target higher operating temperatures in order to utilize

Brayton cycle turbines, while others use alternate means to boost efficiency. Reactor designs that

employ a Brayton cycle engine are also better able to adjust their power output (load-follow).

This may be economically attractive to utilities that operate in deregulated electricity markets, as

59

they can more easily match power output from intermittent renewables. Generation IV nuclear

power plants can achieve up to 45% efficiency in their lifetime. 38

Wind Energy

Current State 2015:

Wind is a form of solar energy and is a result of the uneven heating of the atmosphere by

the sun, the irregularities of the earth's surface, and the rotation of the earth. Wind flow patterns

and speeds vary greatly across the United States and are modified by bodies of water, vegetation,

and differences in terrain. The terms wind energy or wind power describe the process by which

the wind is used to generate mechanical power or electricity. Wind turbines convert the kinetic

energy in the wind into mechanical power. This mechanical power can be used for specific tasks

or a generator can convert this mechanical power into electricity.

In a wind turbine, the wind blows on the angled blades of the rotor, causing it to spin,

converting some of the wind’s kinetic energy into mechanical energy. Sensors in the turbine

detect how strongly the wind is blowing and from which direction. The rotor automatically turns

38 How to make Nuclear Cheap. Breakthrough Institute: June 2014

60

to face the wind, and automatically brakes in dangerously high winds to protect the turbine from

damage. From the figure below: A shaft and gearbox connect the rotor to a generator (1), so

when the rotor spins, so does the generator. The generator uses an electromagnetic field to

convert this mechanical energy into electrical energy. The electrical energy from the generator is

transmitted along cables to a substation (2). Here, the electrical energy generated by all the

turbines in the wind farm is combined and converted to a high voltage. The national grid uses

high voltages to transmit electricity efficiently through the power lines (3) to the homes and

businesses that need it (4). Here, other transformers reduce the voltage back down to a usable

level.39

Figure 5: How Electricity is generated through Wind (EDF)

39 "How Electricity Is Generated through Wind." EDF Energy. Web. 12 May 2015.

61

Wind power in the United States is a branch of the energy industry, expanding quickly

over the last several years. As of the end of 2014 the capacity was 65,879 MW. The U.S. wind

industry has had an average annual growth of 25.6% over the last 10 years (beginning of 2005-

end of 2014). Through December 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United

States amounted to 181.79 terawatt-hours, or 4.44% of all generated electrical energy. 40

Sixteen states have installed over 1,000 MW of wind capacity with Michigan just

breaking the mark in the 4th quarter of 2013. Texas, with 14,098 MW of capacity, has the most

installed wind power capacity of any U.S. state, and also has more under construction than any

other state currently has installed. Second and third are California and Iowa with 5,917 MW and

40 "AWEA 4th quarter 2014 Public Market Report" (PDF). American Wind Energy

Association(AWEA). January 2014..

62

5,688 MW respectively. The Alta Wind Energy Center in California is the largest wind farm in

the United States with a capacity of 1320 MW of power. 41

As of 2014, the wind industry in the USA is able to produce more power at lower cost by

using taller wind turbines with longer blades, capturing the faster winds at higher elevations.

This has opened up new opportunities and in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, the price of power

from wind turbines built 300 feet to 400 feet above the ground can now compete with

conventional fossil fuels like coal. Prices have fallen to about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour in some

cases and utilities have been increasing the amount of wind energy in their portfolio, saying it is

their cheapest option.42

41 Terra-Gen Closes on Financing for Phases VII and IX, Business Wire, April 17, 2012

42 Diane Cardwell (March 20, 2014). "Wind Industry’s New Technologies Are Helping It

Compete on Price". New York Times.

63

Figure 6: 2014 U.S Wind Power Capacity (NREL)

The Production Tax Credit (PTC) is a federal incentive that provides financial support for

the development of renewable energy facilities. On January 1, 2013 the production tax credit was

extended for another year. Combined with state renewable electricity standards, the PTC has

been a major driver of wind power development in the United States. This development has

resulted in significant economic benefits, according to the U.S. Department of Energy:

Between 2007 and 2014, U.S. wind capacity has nearly quadrupled, representing an

annual average investment of nearly $15 billion.

More than 550 manufacturing facilities located in 43 states produce 70 percent of the

wind turbines and components installed in the United States, up from 20 percent in

2006 – 2007.

64

The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen by more than 40 percent over the

past three years.

But Congress has repeatedly gone back and forth between expiring and extending the

PTC, which has wreaked havoc on the wind industry. Originally enacted as part of the Energy

Policy Act of 1992, Congress has extended the provision six times and has allowed it to expire

on six occasions. This "on-again/off-again" status has resulted in a boom-bust cycle of

development. In the years following expiration, installations dropped between 76 and 93 percent,

with corresponding job losses.

Short-term extensions of the PTC are insufficient for sustaining the long-term growth of

renewable energy. The planning and permitting process for new wind facilities can take up to

two years or longer to complete. As a result, many renewable energy developers that depend on

the PTC to improve a facility's cost effectiveness may hesitate to start a new project due to the

uncertainty that the credit will still be available to them when the project is completed.

As of 2014, the United States still had no operational offshore wind power facilities.

Development is hindered by relatively high cost compared to onshore facilities. A number of

projects are under development with some at advanced stages of development. The United

States, though, has very large offshore wind energy resources due to strong, consistent winds off

the long U.S. coastline.

65

Figure 7: U.S Annual Average Offshore Wind Speed at 90 meters (NREL)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provided an assessment of potential

generating capacity from offshore wind, totaling 4,150 gigawatts (GW). At the end of 2009, the

Nation's total electric generating capacity was 1,025 GW. The NREL assessment does not

consider cost or transmission availability, and assumes all locations meeting certain

characteristics will be available for offshore wind development.

Offshore winds are attractive as a power source as they are typically both stronger and

steadier than winds onshore. Offshore wind turbines, however, are costlier, take longer to build,

and are more challenging to maintain. The United States does not currently have any operating,

utility-scale offshore wind capacity, although some projects are in the planning stages. Factors

other than wind resource availability, including the future availability of subsidies for wind

generation, the cost of natural gas and other competing technologies, and issues surrounding the

66

allocation of costs for transmission projects that could connect wind-rich regions with major load

centers, will likely play a dominant role in determining the future use of wind power.

Coastal residents have opposed offshore wind farms because of fears about impacts on

marine life, the environment, electricity rates, aesthetics, and recreation such as fishing and

boating. However, residents also cite improved electricity rates, air quality, and job creation as

positive impacts they would expect from wind farms. Wind turbines can be positioned at some

distance from shore, impacts to recreation and fishing can be managed by careful planning of

wind farm locations.

In June 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued five exploratory leases for

wind power production on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore from New Jersey and Delaware.

The leases authorize data gathering activities, allowing for the construction of meteorological

towers on the Outer Continental Shelf from six to 18 miles (29 km) offshore. Four areas are

being considered. On February 7, 2011, Salazar and Stephen Chu announced a national strategy

to have offshore wind power of 10 GW in 2020, and 54 GW in 2030. Projects are under

development in areas of the East Coast, Great Lakes, and Gulf coast.

Phase I: In 10 years -2025

As mentioned earlier in the plan, according to EIA’s 2015 Energy Outlook, total

electricity demand grows by 29% (0.9%/year), from 3,826 billion kWh in 2012 to 4,954 billion

kWh in 2040. In the year 2025, U.S net electricity consumption will be 5,207 billion kWh

compared to 4,429 billion kWh in 2015. Also, renewables (mainly solar and wind) account for

more than half the capacity added through 2022, largely to take advantage of the current

production tax credit and to help meet state renewable targets. Renewable capacity additions are

67

significant in most of the cases, and in the Reference case they represent 38% of the capacity

added from 2013 to 2040. The 109 GW of renewable capacity additions in the Reference case

are primarily wind (49 GW) and solar (48 GW) technologies, including 31 GW of solar PV

installations in the end-use sectors.

In the first 10 years of our plan we advocate for reform in the Production Tax Credit. The

current system makes the wind energy sector too dependent on government subsidies. Thus, they

are impacted heavily by the volatility of policy changes. Since it was introduced over 20 years

ago, it has been allowed to lapse several times, and last year it very nearly expired, only to be

extended for a year at the last minute. This leads to a potentially wasteful boom-and-bust cycle

as wind developers rush to take advantage of the credit while it’s available. It would not be in the

best interest of the nation or the wind industry to make PTC permanent. That would provide little

incentive to innovate. Wind farm developers will simply keep buying the same wind

turbines that have been shown to make a profit in the past, or ones that are only incrementally

better. According to Kevin Bulls from the MIT Technology report, “A better approach would be

to establish the production tax credit for a fixed time, and then decrease the size of the credit on a

predictable schedule. That way it becomes clear that new technologies will be needed to keep

wind farms profitable. And because turbine makers can be reasonably confident that the bottom

won’t suddenly drop out of the market, they can justify investments in longer-term R&D projects

that could make wind power considerably cheaper or more reliable”

Another option is to specifically require innovation as a condition of getting the tax

credit. Such a requirement might involve tying the credit to specific cost and performance

targets, which would be changed as technology improves and would be set up, say, based on the

needs of utilities. Without such a requirement, wind farm developers (and those who fund them)

68

will choose established technology with a track record that makes it easy to predict return on

investment. There will only be incremental improvements, rather than major changes that might

allow wind to stand on its own in the long term.

We believe that such reform will create a long term sustainable market for the wind

industry. Our Independent Agency should spearhead the reform in PTC and consult with all its 7

regions to gradually wean off government subsidies. Since we expect a 5% growth in electricity

generation from wind by 2025 and 20% by 2040, a PTC reform is vital to achieve these supply

goals.

Phase II: In 25 years- 2040

U.S electricity demand will be 4,954 billion kWh in 2040 according to EIA. This

is a slight decrease from the consumption in 2025 and can be attributed to changes in economic

growth, advances in energy-efficient technologies, and electricity prices. With PTC reform in

place we should expect a growth in energy efficient wind turbines. While a previous focus of the

wind industry was increasing the total nameplate capacity of wind turbines, the focus has shifted

to the capacity factor of the turbine, which helps keeps energy cost low by providing the most

possible power. One of the deciding forces so far for increasing capacity factors has been an

increase in the size of the rotors used on wind turbines. GE's predominant turbine in the U.S.,

which has a 1.6 MW capacity, currently comes with a 100-meter rotor, compared to a 70-meter

rotor in the past. Betz's law calculates the maximum power that can be extracted from the wind,

independent of the design of a wind turbine in open flow. According to Betz's law, no turbine

can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind. The factor 16/27 (0.593) is

known as Betz's coefficient. Practical utility-scale wind turbines achieve at peak 75% to 80% of

the Betz limit. It shows the maximum possible energy — known as the Betz limit — that may be

69

derived by means of an infinitely thin rotor from a fluid flowing at a certain speed. Increasing the

size of the turbine rotors creates new challenges for manufacturers, however. Rotors scale poorly

with size, so the cost can go up faster than the revenue generated by the increased capacity

factor. Turbine rotors are affected by two different forces: torque, which turns the rotors and

creates energy, and thrust, which pushes against the turbine. Dealing with thrust can be difficult

when designing a rotor. However, we expect breakthroughs in rotor technology to improve

efficiency, some of which have already gained momentum in 2015.

By 2025 we also hope to see U.S offshore wind technology coming online with

enhancements in transmission and distributed power. Moreover, we believe our education

agenda will educated the public on energy supply and demand which will increase acceptance for

onshore/offshore wind farms.

Phase III: In 50 years-2065

In 50 years we expect wind energy to provide 20% of U.S electricity. According to

Department of Energy’s report - Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States

:Wind energy has already cut electric sector carbon emissions by over 5 percent; those emissions

will fall by an additional 16 percent by 2050 as wind increases from 4.5 percent of our electricity

mix to 20 percent. Cumulatively through 2050, wind’s pollution reductions would avoid $400

billion in climate change damages. Wind would save an additional $108 billion in public health

costs by cutting other air pollutants, including preventing 22,000 premature deaths. In conclusion

we advocate the following measures to achieve growth in wind industry through 2065:

Improved weather forecasting, and optimized layout of turbines at wind farms for

maximum power

70

Next-generation technology, and advanced standards and testing

A robust U.S. manufacturing base and expanded domestic supply chain for advanced

materials

Best practices for performance, reliability, and safety adopted across the industry

Sufficient transmission lines to deliver low-cost wind energy to population centers.

Mitigation of public use concerns, clear regulations, and better public understanding

Workforce development, with technical training from primary schools to universities

Consistent policies, which unleash the necessary private investment

Solar Power

Solar power has a less than sterling reputation in the US, this reputation is however not

based on facts but on opinions that are founded from failed projects. In 2009 the Obama

administration offered subsidies and loan guarantees that totaled in the low billions to solar

companies in the US, which seems like a great program, but unfortunately failed. However, solar

did not fail as is so often the impression, rather the US solar panel industry failed. The

companies that were subsidized so heavily were never in a position to compete on a price level

with Chinese solar panel manufacturers, or on a quality level with German manufacturers. As a

result large business that received hundreds of millions in subsidies at the tax payer’s expense,

Solyndra, Ecotality and Abound Solar the most prolific, folded to the distaste of the American

taxpayer. However over this period solar installation increased, efficiency increased and price

71

dramatically decreased. So a period that many believe was the darkest for solar, was actually

very strong.

Solar currently provides less than 0.5% of US energy , which seems dismal, however that

is a figure that has risen around 1000% in the last 10 years. Solar is currently in a very strong

position. The sun has been are primary source of energy since the creation of the planet, and we

are all too aware of its ability to power not only nature, but also our home and vehicles. In fact

no matter what source of energy you use, you are almost always using solar energy in some way.

Of course there are areas of the country where solar is not practical, many northern states do not

get the level of continuous sunshine to sustain heavy solar installation, however many southern

states, especially the desert states, have a bounty of sunshine that completely justify heavy

investment in solar. In Arizona for example, enough sunshine falls on the average day to power

the whole of the United States.

The cost of solar is a stumbling block to many, however as the graph below

shows, cost have been falling and continue to do so. With projections predicting solar power to

become increasingly cheaper it is fair to expect that many more small scale installation will be

seen in the coming years.

It is also worth mentioning that Germany, the leader in solar electricity globally,

manages to install solar at a fraction of the cost of US installation, which is illustrated by the

below graph. Much of the savings come from an elimination of red tape and a complete removal

of supply chain costs.

72

Private installation will become an increasingly important part of the energy mix,

individual households being able to generate their own power from the roofs of their home will

revolutionize the electricity infrastructure of our nation. The fact of the matter is that many

regions of the US are suitable for solar production on a small scale. The map below, created by

researchers at Rutgers university, illustrates just how ubiquitously solar energy falls on the US,

and this makes widespread solar installation a practical component of the energy mix.

The German model for solar power uses the individual household as a generator for the

grid. Homes sell their power to the grid, and then buy their own electricity from the same grid, as

there is no effective way to store the energy. As sunlight is a day time occurrence, and most of us

are out of the house when the sun is shining, power that you can’t store is of little use. Storage of

solar power is a real issue. However battery technology, especially the types of high capacity

batteries being produced by Tesla and similar businesses, is catching up to the demands of the

consumer. A battery that can store solar power in the day, to later be used in the evening when

the consumer is at home, is the only true solution to get the most use out of solar power. This

micro, enclosed, system allows the consumer to optimize their use of abundant solar power, and

only draw from the utility provider on a cloudy day, or when their consumption exceeds their

capacity. This model is truly revolutionary for the current energy infrastructure.

Large Scale Applications

Whilst the individual home application of solar power are encouraging, only large scale

solar power capacity will bring solar strongly into the energy mix. Laying down acres of solar

panels is just not the most effect method, although if you have the space it will work. For those

who don’t have the space concentrated solar power systems or CSP, provides a real, working,

future based approached. CSP systems utilize mirrors and lenses to concentrate solar energy to

73

optimize the efficiency of the system. The mirrors and lenses are able to track the sun throughout

the day, so the energy production is consistent and at its highest level at all times. The

concentrated solar energy is converted to heat, and is typically used to power a steam turbine to

produce electricity. This technology is proven, and globally there is around 3500 megawatts of

installed CSP production, the majority of which is installed in Spain which is the market leader

at this time. The largest CSP plant is in the US in the Mojave Desert, Pictured below, the

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is a 392 megawatt facility. Facilities like this could

quite easily replace hydrocarbon burning power plants in states that have the geographical ability

to takes advantage of the sun’s free and abundant energy. This technology, coupled with

improved storage technology could greatly reduce the reliance on fuels such as coal, and natural

gas in these regions, as so much power could be generated from solar energy.

10 year plan

Our plan aims to bring solar energy firmly into the equation, with a 5% share of the

energy mix. How this will be achieved is not all the difficult. California, Nevada, Arizona and

New Mexico have a number of large scale project both under construction and about to break

ground. With proposals for new plants being made all of the time. By 2020 California aims to

source 10% of its electricity from solar power. The fact of the matter is, over the last 10 years

solar power has risen in market share by 1000%, if it does the same in the next ten years we will

have hit our target of 5%. The 5% figure is not at all unrealistic, it just needs current trends to

continue. With the construction of numerous new plants, the technological progress in the

storage market, and the ever falling cost of private solar installation, 5% of electricity being

sourced from solar power by 2025 is very reasonable, and may actually be underestimating our

ability to develop solar.

74

25 Year Plan

By 2040 we aim to have solar account for an 11% share of our energy mix. For this to

happen we are anticipating the average growth of solar to slow. This will likely be due to the

saturation of the solar market in the states, such as California, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada

where they are best equipped to install solar. An 11% share of the nation’s energy coming from

solar will mean that in these states around 50% of electricity requirements in these states will be

me by solar. Be that from industrials scale sources or from private installations. Storage

technology will have caught up to demand, which will be necessitated by the consumers demand

for storage driving technology and business, which will mean a constant flow of power from the

sun, even at night time. Private installations will be a common sight due to continuity of price

drops, exacerbated by the economies of scale that the demand for private installation will create.

Other states outside of the desert states will install solar, but on a smaller scale, and private

installations will be less common but still prevalent.

50 Year Plan

By 2060 we expect solar to account for 15% of the US energy mix. This is likely an

underestimation, but for our model the saturation of the solar market in many states, and

competition from other sources that are cheaper for many states will cap market share. Most of

the 4% market share increase will come from advances in efficiency and storage as opposed to

new installations. Private installations will be popular, especially due to high efficiency and

storage technology, and this will combine to see solar account for 15% of our electricity energy

mix by 2060.

75

Hydroelectricity

Intro

Hydropower is one of the oldest methods of producing power for man. The United States

realized early on that it could tap its abundant water resources as a source of power and

undertook to build as many hydroelectric power plants as possible, typically building dams to do

so. At one point, hydroelectricity supplied about half on the nation’s energy, but now supplies

less than ten percent.43 There are many benefits to using water as a source of energy, with the

main one being that water is a renewable resource, but also: no fuel is burned, so there is

minimal pollution; hydropower plays a major role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

relatively low operations and maintenance costs; reliable technology that has proven itself over

time; and it is highly renewable – rainfall renews the water in the reservoir, so the fuel is almost

always there. However, hydropower is not perfect, and there are a few disadvantages: typically

high investment cost; hydrology dependent (precipitation); in some cases, inundation of land and

wildlife habitat, loss or modification of fish habitat, changes in reservoir and stream water

quality, and displacement of local populations; and fish entrainment or passage restriction.44

With the United States’ goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and having overall

more renewables as part of the energy equation, hydropower will play an important role. The

National Hydropower Association agreed with former Energy Secretary Steven Chu that there is

an “incredible opportunity” to continue to develop America’s “lowest-cost energy option” into

43 "Hydroelectric Power Water Use." Hydroelectric Power and Water. Basic Information about

Hydroelectricity, USGS Water Science for Schools. USGS, n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 44 Ibid.

76

the foreseeable future.45 Essentially, hydropower is a renewable, efficient, and reliable source of

energy that does not directly emit greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, and that can be

scheduled to produce power as needed, depending on water availability.46

Current Status

The United States currently has about 78,000 megawatts (MW) of hydropower generation

capacity, with the potential of another 80,000 to 240,000 megawatts of capacity, depending on

what the source is.4748 The current capacity supplies electricity to about 28 million households

while simultaneously replacing around 500 million barrels of oil.49 If you include pumped-

storage facilities, an additional 24,000 megawatts of capacity is also generated.50 Although there

are over 80,000 dams in the United States, there are only about 2,200 hydropower facilities.51

Hydropower constitutes over 50% of the renewables sector, but that percentage is dropping as

wind and solar continue to be built out, with a total provided capacity of somewhere between 5.8

and 7.2 percent of total U.S. electricity demand.52 Environmental concerns, coupled with lack of

potential sites, has led to the United States building very few large dams since the 1980s.53 The

45 "Navigant Study | National Hydropower Association." National Hydropower Association

Navigant Study Comments. National Hydropower Association, n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 46 "Hydropower." Hydropower. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, n.d. Web. 07 May

2015. 47 Ibid. 48 “NHA Study Highlights” (n.d.): n. pag. National Hydropower Association. Web. 07 May

2015. 49 "Hydroelectricity." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 50 "Electricity." EIA. U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 51 United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Renewable Electricity Futures Study

Volume 2: Renewable Electricity Generation and Storage Technologies. By Chad Augustine,

Richard Bain, Jamie Chapman, Paul Denholm, and Etc. N.p.: n.p., n.d. pag. 8-1. Print. 52 See citation 8 53 See citation 4

77

practical long-term growth in hydropower is thus not in large facilities that supply power to large

areas, but instead smaller facilities that operate at the community level.54

Efficiency

The efficiency of electricity generation by hydropower facilities depends on three factors:

1) the turbine generating capacity; 2) the turbine discharge flow (the volume of water passing

through the turbine in a given amount of time), and 3) the site head (the height of the water

source or vertical distance between the highest point of water source and the turbine). The higher

the head, the more gravitational energy the water has as it passes through the turbine. Most

existing hydropower facilities in the United States can convert about 90 percent of the energy of

falling water into electricity, which makes hydropower a technically efficient source of energy.55

Hydropower realizes a significant cost savings in relation to other sources of electricity

generation because of its efficiency. While the initial cost of construction can be high, the long-

term maintenance and operation of hydropower facilities is low. An added benefit is hydropower

is not beholden to fuel price fluctuations, as electricity generation by these facilities does not

require burning fuel. Although many of the dams in the United States are reaching the end of

their lifecycle, they can be operational for over 50 years, making their initial investment cost

almost nil.56 Generation costs for hydropower are site-specific and depend on a number of

factors, including hydrologic characteristics, site accessibility, and distance from transmission.

54 Bahleda, M., and M. A. Hosko. "Assessment of Waterpower Potential and Development

Needs." (n.d.): n. pag. Vii Electric Power Research Institute, Mar. 2007. Web. 07 May 2015. 55 See citation 4 56 "ASCE | 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure." ASCE | 2013 Report Card for

America's Infrastructure. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015.

78

However, even with the variation of costs, the average cost for hydropower generated electricity

is only two cents per kilowatt/hour, beating out all other sources of renewable energy.57

Figure 1: Cost of Hydropower in Cents/KWH58

57 "Affordable." National Hydropower Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 58 Ibid.

79

Figure 2: Installed Project Costs for Various Hydropower59

Environment

Hydropower is an incredibly clean source of energy, as no fossil fuels are burned during

electricity generation, and no greenhouse gas emissions are produced, or other pollutants, or

wastes associated with fossil fuels or nuclear power. There is, however, an initial generation of

indirect greenhouse gases during the construction of the hydro generation station and flooding of

the reservoirs, potentially due to the decomposition of biomass in the reservoir.60 The greenhouse

59 Ibid. 60 Tremblay A., Varfalvy L., Roehm C. and Garneau M., “The Issue of Greenhouse Gases from

Hydroelectric Reservoirs: From Boreal to Tropical Regions,” Table 1, p. 3. N.p., n.d. Web. 07

May 2015.

80

gas emissions factor (4 to 18 grams CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour6162) of hydropower is 36 to

167 times lower than the emissions produced by electricity generation from fossil fuels.63

Hydropower also fares comparably well to other renewable sources, producing less greenhouse

gases over its lifecycle than electricity generated from biomass or solar and about the same as

wind, nuclear, and geothermal generation facilities.64

The main source of criticism for hydropower, and one of the two main reasons as to why

so few large scale hydropower generation facilities have been built since the 1980s (the other

being lack of actual locations for large facilities), is that hydropower negatively affects local

ecosystems and habitats. The primary source of hydropower comes from the damming of rivers,

which significantly alters the natural flow regime and temperature, and in turn changes the

aquatic habitat upstream, disturbing the river’s natural flora and fauna. Migratory fish are in

particular harmed by the damming of rivers. The way hydropower companies and governing

bodies have tried to mitigate these concerns is to build smaller hydropower facilities, so-called

low and micro hydropower facilities, as they have much smaller environmental impacts and can

be built in much more remote and inaccessible areas.6566 If the United States was to fully realize

61 Meier P. J. (2002) “Life-Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications

for Climate Change Policy Analysis,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 62 Van de Vate, J. F. (2002) Full-energy-chain greenhouse-gas emissions: a comparison between

nuclear power, hydropower, solar power and wind power, International Journal of Risk

Assessment and Management, Vol. 3, No.1 pp. 59-74. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 63 Ibid. 64 See citation 19 65 Kosnik, L-R (2008a), “The Potential of Water Power in the Fight against Global Warming in

the U.S.,” Energy Policy (36): 3252-3265. Web. 07 May 2015. 66 Carlton, Jim, “Deep in the Wilderness, Power Companies Wade In,” Wall Street Journal, 21

August 2009. Web. 07 May 2015.

81

the aforementioned increase in hydropower generation capacity, roughly 8.5 percent of total

2003 U.S. CO2 emissions could be removed from the electricity generation matrix.67

Infrastructure

Hard

The United States has some 2,200 conventional and 39 pumped-storage hydropower

generation facilities, spread out unevenly, with areas like the Pacific Northwest generating a

significant amount of their electricity from hydro, while the Great Plains region generates very

little.68 Of the conventional facilities, only approximately 15% are large plants with installed

capacity greater than 30 MW, but they comprise 90% of the total installed capacity. The

remaining conventional plants (more than 1,800 plants) are small plants with nameplate

capacities of 30 MW or less. Approximately 70% of the conventional plants are privately owned,

and 75% of total capacity is owned by federal and non-federal public owners, such as

municipalities, public power districts, and irrigation districts. Every state but Mississippi have

hydropower facilities, with California and New York having the greatest number. Washington

and California have the greatest total installed capacities.69

67 See citation 23 68 "Hydroelectric Power Sources Form Regional Clusters." U.S. Energy Information

Administration, n.d. Web. 07 May 2015. 69 See citation 9, pgs. 8-1, 8-2

82

Figure 3: Hydroelectric Generators in and Around the Unites States70

Due to the variety of locations a hydropower facility can be located, there is also a great

diversity in the type of hydropower facility. They can be located at dams with varying storage

capacities (only 3% of U.S. dams even have hydropower facilities), be run-of-the-river facilities

with no water storage capacity, and their elevations can be drastically different. Depending on

their storage capacity, hydropower facilities can be classified as follows:71

70 See citation 26 71 See citation 4

83

1. Low-Head High-Storage Hydropower Plants

These facilities are usually located behind multi-purpose (water supply, flood control,

etc.) dams which have hydropower generation as an ancillary benefit. The reservoirs associated

with these units are large (high storage capacity) while the head is relatively low at these

facilities.

2. High-Head Low-Storage Hydropower Plants

These facilities are often located behind reservoirs which have hydropower generation as

their single objective. The reservoirs associated with these units are small (low storage capacity)

while the head is relatively high. These units are usually located at higher elevations.

3. Run-of-the-River Hydropower Plants

These facilities are usually built on rivers with steady natural flows or regulated flows

discharged from upstream reservoirs. These units have little or no storage capacity, and

hydropower is generated using the river flow and water head. Run-of-the-river hydropower

plants are less appropriate for rivers with large seasonal fluctuations.

4. Pumped-Storage Hydropower Plants

At these facilities water is stored in a lower reservoir after it is released from an upper

reservoir to drive the turbine and generate power. Later, water is pumped back to the upper

reservoir for reuse. Pumping water back to the upper pool requires energy (electricity). Pumped-

storage systems are considered as flexible sources of electricity generation. These units generate

electricity when demand and price are higher (during peak hours) and pump water back to the

84

upper pools when electricity demand and price are lower. Pumped-storage plants are not net

energy producers; rather, they provide energy storage and electricity at its peak demand times.

Soft

There are a number of laws that govern hydropower. Although not a comprehensive list,

the following are the major statutes governing hydropower licensing in the United States, and are

listed by name only for brevities sake:72

1. Federal Power Act (FPA)

2. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

3. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

4. Clean Water Act (CWA)

5. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

6. Rivers and Harbors Act

7. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)

As the United States has stopped building large-scale facilities, local communities and

municipalities have undertaken the majority of hydropower construction, with very little to no

outcry form the local populations, due to new facilities being of the micro sort and having very

little environmental impact.73

72 "Laws Governing Hydropower Licensing." Hydropower Reform Coalition, n.d. Web. 07 May

2015. 73 See citation 24

85

The Future

In long-term projections for hydropower, the EIA estimates that hydropower generation

will remain relatively flat, with about .1% growth in capacity and .5% growth in electricity

generation.74 The main goal for hydropower in this report is for hydropower to maintain roughly

its share of electricity generation capacity.

Figure 4: Hydropower Generation Growth75

There are two paths that hydropower can follow that would keep it on the above

projected growth model, if not potentially grow its market share: (1) high-priced potential

74 "Annual Energy Outlook 2015." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), n.d. Web. 07

May 2015. 75 Ibid.

86

projects and (2) low-priced potential projects. The latter will be the focus of the first 10 years of

development the United States needs to focus on.

10 Years

The American Society of Civil Engineers’ 2013 Report Card for America’s

Infrastructure rated the United States’ overall infrastructure as a D+.76 Simply put, America’s

infrastructure is falling apart. In a way, this is a benefit to hydropower, as general upkeep and

maintenance on existing facilities would increase efficiency and capacity much more cheaply

than building new facilities would be. Other lower-cost opportunities to increase hydropower

capacity include: (1) retrofitting and upgrading equipment at existing hydroelectric plants, (2) the

addition of power generation at existing non-powered dams, and (3) the use of constructed

waterways (canals, water supply and treatment systems, and industrial effluent streams) as power

sources. Adding on to existing facilities is considered cheaper due to the lower licensing and

construction costs compared to “greenfield” sites.77 In 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy

released a report in which it looked at 54,391 of the 80,000 non-powered dams (NPDs)—dams

that do not produce electricity—and determined that adding power to U.S. NPDs has the

potential to add up to 12 GW (12,000 megawatts or MW) of new renewable capacity, a potential

equivalent increase of 15% to the existing conventional hydropower fleet.78

76 See citation 14 77 See citation 9, pg. 8-2 78 United States. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. An

Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States. By Boualem

Hadjerioua, Yaxing Wei, and Shih-Chieh Kao. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. Pg. viii.

87

Figure 5: NPDs with Potential for Generation Capacity Greater than 1 MW79

25 Years

In the medium-term of our timeline, the United States would continue to retrofit and

upgrade facilities as their initial lifecycles came to an end. There would primarily be a focus on

building new facilities that fall in line with some of the new technology that is coming out, with

a particular emphasis on pumped-storage facilities, as there are now opportunities that allow

these facilities to be built without large new dams. The United States would also begin to

seriously consider tidal and wave hydropower facilities. A minimum potential of 24 GW of

added hydropower can be added in this way.80

79 Ibid. 80 See citation 6

88

50 Years

By the 50 year mark, the United States should have all existing facilities upgraded and

rehabilitated to match safety and production needs. All potential inland NPDs should by now be

retrofitted to generate electricity as well. The focus now should be the completion of and

continued expansion of tidal and wave facilities. The reason we believe it will take a good 50

years for these type of facilities to be built is due to how the majority will be located along the

California and Florida coastlines, areas of the country where stiff opposition could arise from

environmentalists and deep-pocketed interests who do not want their pristine coastlines marred

by anything. The goal for the United States at this point is to try and max out any potential sites

of hydropower, so that all efforts in the future can be focused on maintaining and upgrading

existing facilities. A minimum of about 15 GW of added hydropower can be added this way,

with the potential of significantly more.8182

81 Ibid. 82 Trabish, Herman K. "U.S. Tidal Energy Potential." NewEnergyNews. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May

2015.

89

Figure 6: Potential Tidal Sites83

Research and Development

Realization of any potential for hydropower requires a concerted effort of research,

development, demonstration, and deployment by the public and private sectors. An obvious

method of R&D is to simply evaluate and produce better equipment for existing technologies,

like advanced modern hydropower turbines.84

83 Ibid. 84 See citation 9, pg. 8-3

90

Figure 7: Advanced Modern Hydropower Turbine85

The continued R&D for the future of hydropower (tidal, wave, hydrokinetics) is certainly

required as well. The United States already has in law a stated goal of continued hydropower

development through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which directs the Secretary of Energy to:86

Hydropower, ...conduct a program of research, development, demonstration and

commercial application for cost competitive technologies that enable the development of new

and incremental hydropower capacity, adding to the diversity of the energy supply of the United

States, including: (i) Fish-friendly large turbines. (ii) Advanced technologies to enhance

environmental performance and yield greater energy efficiencies. (E) Miscellaneous Projects. –

The Secretary shall conduct research, development, demonstration, and commercial application

programs for – (i) ocean energy, including wave energy (...) and (iv) kinetic hydro turbines.

United States R&D into other renewables has seen some return on investment, and any

sort of investment into hydropower is sure to see outsized gains on a per dollar basis. A good

way of making sure hydropower continues to advance technologically would be to reinstate the

Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Clean Renewable Energy Bond (CREB) programs for

85 Ibid. 86 See citation 12, pg. ix

91

specifically hydropower. Due to the history and success of hydropower, there is a much greater

likelihood that any tax dollars spent on investment will be received with much more enthusiasm

from the American public.87

Figure 8: Estimated Return on Investment of R&D Funds for Hydropower88

87 Ibid., pg. x 88 Ibid., pg. ix

92

Hydrogen for use in Transportation Sector

Intro

Hydrogen is currently being looked at as a replacement, or complimentary, fuel for

passenger vehicles. The primary method being researched currently is hydrogen fuel cells to

power electric vehicles, but there is also a way to burn hydrogen in internal combustion engines

(ICEs). Hydrogen is considered an environmentally friendly fuel that has the potential to

dramatically reduce the United States’ dependence on imported oil due to primarily two factors:

(1) hydrogen can be produced domestically from natural gas via steam reforming; from coal and

biomass through gasification; from electricity, which once produced from nuclear, hydro, solar,

wind, or geothermal, can generate hydrogen through electrolysis, and (2) hydrogen produces no

air pollutants or greenhouse gases when used in fuel cells, while only producing nitrogen oxides

(NOx) when burned in ICEs.8990

However, hydrogen has many challenges it must overcome to be considered a viable fuel

option in the United States: (1) hydrogen has a limited availability, with fuelling stations

primarily being located in California; (2) fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) are currently more expensive

than traditionally fueled vehicles, and are not available to the general public; (3) onboard fuel

storage of hydrogen is a major concern, as hydrogen contains much less energy than gasoline or

diesel on a per-volume basis, making it difficult to store enough hydrogen onboard an FCV to go

89 "Hydrogen." Fueleconomy.gov. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015. 90 United States. U.S. Department of Energy. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Hydrogen

Resource Assessment: Hydrogen Potential from Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro Power.

By Anelia Milbrandt and Margaret Mann. N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print. Pg. v.

93

as far as comparable gasoline vehicles between fill-ups;91 (4) storage and transportation is

extremely inconvenient and expensive in anything other than small amounts, making it

impractical for most functions; and (5) hydrogen is also highly flammable.92

The stated goal of this report is for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to constitute 25% of the

United States’ overall non-electric passenger vehicle fleet by 2065.

Current Status

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are, for the moment, completely unviable, and only located in

California and South Carolina. The primary reasons are lack of infrastructure and cost of fuel cell

vehicles, which has resulted in around only 100 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles owned by private

citizens being on the road.93

Efficiency

There are two ways in which to measure the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells: (1)

efficiency of the fuel cell itself, and (2) efficiency of the fuel cell in relation to gasoline and ICEs

on a cost basis. Hydrogen fuel cells have excellent efficiency, with the current potential to

convert up to 75 percent of the energy in the fuel, with the added benefit that the energy is

converted to electricity.94 However, the true importance of hydrogen fuel cells to this report is

the possibility of their being used as a substitute for gasoline.

91 See citation 47 92 "Advantages and Disadvantages Of Hydrogen Energy." ConserveEnergyFuture. N.p., 19 Jan.

2013. Web. 09 May 2015. 93 Ulrich, Lawrence. "Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Return for Another Run." The New York Times.

The New York Times, 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 May 2015. 94 "Hydrogen Basics - Fuel Cells." Florida Solar Energy Center, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

94

One benefit to hydrogen as a fuel source is that 1kg of hydrogen can potentially replace

4.35kg, or 1.58 gallons, of gasoline, which has led to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles achieving a

comparable miles-per-tank distance with traditional ICE vehicles of around 300 miles.9596

However, while in a value-neutral world hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can compete, once costs are

taken into consideration, any efficiency gains are completely lost. Hydrogen gas also only

contains one third the energy volume per volume that gasoline does.97

Perhaps the most startling aspect of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is the upfront sticker price

of manufacturing and buying said vehicles. Honda’s 2002 FCX cars cost up to one million each

to produce, with Hyundai’s Tuscon crossover sport utility vehicle costing about $80,000, or $499

a month with $2,999 down, decisively more than the gasoline version.98 Hydrogen fuel cell

systems also cost almost double of ICEs.99

Another huge concern is the cost of fuel cells on a kW basis. The DOE commissioned a

report to determine the cost of fuel cells per kWh if there was mass-production of fuel cell

vehicles. It’s most recent finding was for a 80-kW light-duty vehicle application using a Design

for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology at an annual production rate of 500,000

fuel cell systems to be $48.47/kWe, or about double the cost of gasoline.100

95 See citation 47, pg. v 96 See citation 51 97 "Challenges." Fuel Cell Vehicles. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015. 98 See citation 51 99 See citation 55 100 United States. U.S. Department of Energy. Mass-Production Cost Estimation for Automotive

Fuel Cell Systems. By Brian D. James, Kevin Baum, Andrew B. Spisak, and Whitney G. Colella.

N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print. Pg. v-18.

95

Figure 9: Cost per kWe101

There are also storage costs to be taken into consideration, with on-board storage costs

being around $15, well above the commercialization level of two dollars per kilowatt/hour.102

Another potentially problematic scenario for hydrogen as a fuel source would be the

inefficiency of costs per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) throughout the United States. Due to

transportation and storage costs, prices could differ greatly by metropolitan area, but most starkly

between metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan areas. In a scenario in which fuel cell vehicles

make up one-half of all light-vehicle sales (2050), there could be as much as a $4.82/GGE

difference in H2 costs between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The national average is

101 Ibid. 102 See citation 55

96

estimated to be about $3.36/GGE, but metropolitan areas would average about $2.25/GGE while

non-metropolitan areas average is $7.37/GGE.103

Figure 10: Average of H2 by GGE104

Environment

Hydrogen cannot just be found and extracted from the earth’s crust, and is instead made

through the aforementioned processes of steam reforming of natural gas; from coal and biomass

through gasification; and from electricity, which once produced from nuclear, hydro, solar, wind,

or geothermal, can generate hydrogen through electrolysis. If the United States is to be serious

about cutting back on greenhouse gases, any production of hydrogen for use in fuel cells will

need to come from renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, and biomass), which have the

potential to create 1,000 million tonnes of hydrogen per year, far more than what would be

103 Singh, Margaret, Jim Moore, and William Shadis. Hydrogen Demand, Production, and Cost

by Region to 2050. Publication no. ANL/ESD/05-2. N.p.: n.p., 2005. Print. Pg. ix. 104 Ibid., pg. x

97

needed to fuel all the cars in the United States.105 If this is the path the United States follows, the

creation of hydrogen would have an extremely small environmental impact. However, there are

advantages and disadvantages to all production methods, which can be seen in Figures 11 and

12, with production through electrolysis from traditional electricity production methods actually

increasing greenhouse gas production.

Figure 11: H2 Production Pathways, Advantages and Disadvantages106

105 See citation 45, pg. v 106 Herzog, Antonia, and Marika Tatsutani. A Hydrogen Future? An Economic and

Environmental Assessment of Hydrogen Produciton Pathways. Publication. N.p.: n.p., 2005.

Print. Pg. 8.

98

Figure 12: Global Warming Emissions from Fuel Cell Vehicle Refueling

Pathways107

Infrastructure

Hard

Currently, the only hard infrastructure of any importance for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

are the hydrogen refueling stations in California (there exists exactly one in South Carolina, and

possibly one in Connecticut).108 However, a great advantage for hydrogen is the copious amounts

of areas in which it could be produced, with the majority of states having the capability to

produce hydrogen, quite unlike gasoline.109

107 Ibid., pg. 12 108 See citation 51 109 See citation 45, pg. 10

99

Figure 13: Hydrogen Potential from Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Hydropower as

a Percentage of Total Hydrogen Potential110

The building of any sort of infrastructure, however, would be extremely expensive.

Hydrogen refuel stations can cost anywhere from $500,000 to $5,000,000, with an estimated cost

of over $500 billion to have a network that is comparable to gasoline refuel stations.111 A

proposed method of getting hydrogen refuel stations into the market would be to build them

along major interstate freeways.112

110 Ibid. 111 Siler, Steve. "Pump It Up: We Refuel a Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicle - Feature." Hydrogen

Filling Stations Are Still Rare. Car & Driver, Nov. 2008. Web. 09 May 2015. 112 "Proposed Hydrogen Fueling Stations Along Major Interstates." National Renewable Energy

Laboratory, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

100

Figure 14: Proposed Hydrogen Refuel Station113

There also exists a number of hydrogen fuel cell types. However, only one type is being

used in vehicles for transportation:114

1. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEM)

113 Ibid. 114 "Type of Fuel Cells." Fuel Cells 2000, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

101

PEMs operate at relatively low temperatures, have high power density, and can vary

output quickly to meet shifts in power demand. Are already seen in buses and demonstration

vehicles.

2. Direct Methane Fuel Cell (DMFC)

3. Alkaline Fuel Cell (AFC)

4. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC)

5. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC)

6. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC)

102

Figure 15: Types of Fuel Cells115

Soft

There is not currently any public outcry against hydrogen as a fuel source. There are

currently a variety of incentives, laws, and regulations that govern hydrogen, however. As this

115 Ibid.

103

report is focusing on what the United States can do as a whole, the focus will be on the Federal

level of governance. The incentives include:116

1. Low- and Zero-Emission Vehicle Research, Demonstration, and Deployment Funding

2. Improved Energy Technology Loans

3. Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Research and Demonstration

Bonds

4. Alternative Fuel Tax Exemption

Laws include:

1. Vehicle Incremental Cost Allocation

2. Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Use Requirements for Federal Fleets

3. Vehicle Acquisition and Fuel Use Requirements for Private and Local Government

Fleets

The most important aspect of the hydrogen industry for fuel cells going forward will be

any incentive programs that the federal and local governments come up with. The biggest

problem right now is the chicken/egg problem. Right now, consumers do no switch because there

are no options, and producers do not make because there is no market. As long as hydrogen fuel

cells are considered safe and dependable, there should be little to no pushback from private or

public interests against the build-out of the infrastructure, albeit any concerns that arise from

cost.

116 "Federal Laws and Incentives for Hydrogen." Alternative Fuels Data Center. U.S. Department

of Energy, n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

104

The Future

The goal in this report is for the United States to slowly convert its transportation fleet

into hybrid-use vehicles capable of using a variety of fuels, with hydrogen being the fuel of

choice for 25% of the national passenger fleet by 2065.

10 Years

In the short term, the federal government would have to make a concerted effort by

means of incentive programs to get the American public on-board with hydrogen fuel cell

vehicles. California is currently the only state that is making a concerted effort to have hydrogen

be a part of the future energy matrix for vehicles. Over the next ten years then, the goal of the

United States should be to focus on R&D for hydrogen fuel cell technology with an incentive

program for large metropolitan areas in states to begin building refueling stations. Most experts

believe hydrogen can compete with gasoline once brought up to scale, so the federal government

can focus on building out the infrastructure while manufacturers focus on having the lifetime

expectancy of FCVs increase from 75,000 to 150,000 miles. The best method to do this would be

the continued investment in H2USA, the public-private partnership between the DOE and a

variety of private companies.117118 The goal would be for 5% of vehicles to be FCVs.

25 Years

117 "Benefits and Challenges." Fuel Cell Vehicles. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 09 May

2015. 118 "Energy Department Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen

Infrastructure." U.S. Department of Energy, 13 May 2013. Web. 09 May 2015.

105

Twenty-five years from now is when the United States could see the fruits of its

investment labor really pay off. PPGE for hydrogen at this point would be seriously competitive

with gasoline, especially in the metropolitan areas. The most important thing hydrogen has going

for it is how the costs of the fuel cell and vehicles continue to drop, and there is strong evidence

that their prices would be comparable to gasoline vehicles. Another strong selling point, and one

that is extremely important to the American consumer, is how refueling a FCV is very similar to

a gasoline vehicle, with refueling time about five minutes. After the initial ten years of

investment, there is a distinct possibility that FCVs will have be large percentage of new vehicle

purchases because of the familiarity, capturing around 15% of market share.119120 A possible

incentive program for FCV purchase would be tax rebates for consumer for buying a vehicle that

emits no emissions, and as a loophole to manufacturers from CAFÉ standards, as well as the

aforementioned building of hydrogen refuel stations along major interstate freeways.

50 Years

This report believes strongly that once consumers are aware of the environmental benefits

to using hydrogen instead of gasoline to fuel their vehicles, and the cost of switching has become

almost nil due to technological advances, a healthy 25% of passenger vehicles will be FCVs by

2065. By now, regular supply/demand forces will have taken over. Perhaps the most important

factor, however, is the potentiality of individual states producing their own hydrogen for fuel cell

usage as a means to wean themselves off their reliance to foreign and other state reliance on oil.

The production of hydrogen also could be the impetus to grow nuclear capacity for electricity

generation, helping solve two of this reports problems simultaneously.

119 See citation 51 120 See citation 58

106

Biofuels

Intro

Biofuels encompass any fuel produced from plant- or animal-based feedstock, with the

two most common forms found in the United States being ethanol and biodiesel. Currently

available biofuels are made from sugar crops (sugarcane, sugarbeet), starch crops (corn,

potatoes), oilseed crops (soybean, sunflower, rapeseed), and animal fats. Sugar and starch crops

are converted through a fermentation process to form bioalcohols, including ethanol, butanol,

and propanol. Oils and animal fats can be processed into biodiesel. Ethanol is the most widely

used bioalcohol fuel. Most vehicles can use gasoline-ethanol blends containing up to 10%

ethanol (by volume). Flexible fuel vehicles can use gasoline-ethanol blends containing up to 85%

ethanol. Second generation biofuels, or cellulosic biofuels, are made from cellulose, which is

available from non-food crops and waste biomass such as corn stover, corncobs, straw, wood,

and wood byproducts. Third generation biofuels use algae as a feedstock. Second and third

generation biofuels are not yet produced commercially.121

There are two primary reasons the United States views biofuels as an alternative to

petroleum based fuels for transportation: (1) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as biofuels

reduce net carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions because CO2 emitted during combustion is captured

during the growth of the feedstock, and (2) reduce dependence on petroleum based fuels in

general, for the above reason of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduced dependence

on foreign countries for transportation fuels.122

121 "Resources | Biofuels | Environmental Assessment." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency,

n.d. Web. 09 May 2015. 122 "Biofuels Overview." Biofuels Overview. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, n.d. Web.

09 May 2015.

107

However, there are a number of disadvantages to biofuel use in the United States, in

particular U.S. insistence to use corn as its primary plant-based feedstock for ethanol: (1) high

cost of production; (2) monoculture, which refers to the practice of producing the same crops

year after year without doing any sort of crop rotation to return nutrients to the soil; (3) use of

fertilizers, which can have harmful effects in the environment and are a cause of water pollution

and the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico;123 (4) a shortage of food, or a rise in food prices of the

food used for biofuels; (5) industrial pollution, as large scale industries meant for churning out

biofuel are known to emit large amounts of emissions and cause small scale water pollution; and

(6) water use in general, as large quantities of water are used to irrigate biofuel crops instead of

being used for actual feed-stock.124

The stated goal of this report is for biofuel vehicles to constitute 25% of the United

States’ overall passenger vehicle fleet by 2065.

Current Status

Current production and consumption of biofuels can be understood through the

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that established minimum volumes of various types of

renewable fuels that must be included in the United States’ supply of fuel for transportation that

are intended to grow year over year through 2022. While ethanol derived from cornstarch has

met most of the biofuel requirements in recent years, an emphasis on “advanced biofuels,” which

include biodiesel, ethanol made from sugarcane, and cellulosic biofuels are the primary focus for

the coming years. The primary growth trend for biofuels will be in biodiesel, as ethanol has hit a

123 Schleifstein, Mark. "Voluntary Plan to Reduce Fertilizers Not Enough to Shrink Gulf's 'Dead

Zone', New Study Says." NOLA.com. N.p., 03 Feb. 2015. Web. 09 May 2015. 124 "Advantages and Disadvantages of Biofuels - Conserve Energy Future."

ConserveEnergyFuture. N.p., 30 July 2013. Web. 09 May 2015.

108

sort of “blend wall,” as almost all gasoline is blended with 10 percent ethanol (E10), with ethanol

and biodiesel making up almost 10 percent of total U.S. gasoline consumption.125

The United States produces more ethanol and biodiesel than it consumes on a yearly

basis: about 14 billion barrels produced and 13 billion barrels of ethanol consumed, and 1.2

billion barrels produced and 900 million barrels of biodiesel consumed.126

Efficiency

Ethanol has a higher octane level than the gasoline found in the United States, and is used

primarily as an oxygenate to reduce air pollution. Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than

gasoline, to varying degrees, depending on the volume percentage of ethanol in the high-level

blend. Per gallon, ethanol contains about 30% less energy than gasoline. E85 contains about 25%

less energy than gasoline.127

Measuring the efficiency of biodiesel is a bit more difficult, being best understood as

thermal efficiency, and depends on a variety of fuel characteristics: specific density, flash point,

and viscosity, all of which change depending on the blends and quality of the biodiesel being

considered. Pure biodiesel (B100) contains about 8% less energy per gallon than petroleum,

while B20 has about a 1% to 2% difference, but is effectively not noticeable.128

Environment

125 United States. Congressional Budget Office. The Renewable Fuel Standard: Issues for 2014

and Beyond. N.p.: n.p., 2014. Print. Pg. 1 126 "Biofuels Issues and Trends." U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d. Web. 09 May

2015. 127 "Ethanol Benefits and Considerations." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. N.p., n.d. Web. 09

May 2015. 128 "Biodiesel Blends." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2015.

109

While most initial studies found biofuels to reduce greenhouse gases, more recent studies

have consistently found that the exact opposite is true. The primary feed-stock for ethanol in the

United States, corn-based ethanol, is estimated to double greenhouse gases over 30 years instead

of realizing a 20% reduction, and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Switchgrass-based

biofuels would increase emissions by 50%.129

Figure 16: Net Land-Use Effects of Biofuels130

There is of course the aforementioned ill-effects caused by farmers continually growing

the same crops without practicing crop rotation and the nitrogen runoff from fertilizers used

primarily for corn and soybeans that has led to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.131 The

environmental impacts of mass biodiesel are yet to be understood fully, but could potentially be

as harmful as ethanol production.

129 Searchinger, Timothy, Ralph Heimlich, R. A. Houghton, Fengxia Dong, and Etc. Use of U.S.

Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change.

Publication. Vol. 319. N.p.: n.p., 2008. Print. Pg. 1238. 130 Ibid., pg. 1239 131 See citation 81

110

Infrastructure

Hard

Ethanol engines are just ICEs modified to handle biofuels, and are not worth going into

for this report. However, what is important is the transportation network for ethanol and

biodiesel, with both being transported in virtually the same way, as can be seen in Figure 17.

Transportation by truck and rail is just as expensive for ethanol and biodiesel as it is for

petroleum, but the former cannot be transported by pipeline due the affinity for water and solvent

properties that require use of dedicated pipelines or significant cleaning of existing lines. So, not

only are biofuels more environmentally unfriendly than hydrocarbons, but they also have to be

transported in a less efficient way as well.132

There exists 2,607 ethanol refueling stations133 and 253 biodiesel refueling stations in the

U.S.134

132 "Ethanol Production and Distribution." Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Production.

N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2015. 133 "Ethanol Fueling Station Locations." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May

2015. 134 "Biodiesel Fueling Station Locations." Alternative Fuels Data Center:. N.p., n.d. Web. 09

May 2015.

111

Figure 17: Ethanol (and Biodiesel) Distribution System135

Soft

Biofuel usage in the United States is mandated by law, and is based mainly on the

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that establishes minimum volumes of various types of

renewable fuels that must be included in the United States’ supply of fuel for transportation as

defined by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).136 States can enact more

stringent standards, but the federal law is the minimum that must be met.

The Future

The future of biofuels is not expected in this report to change much. When considering that

biofuels only make up 25% of the 40% of non-electric vehicles for the 2065 plan, the overall share

135 See citation 90 136 See citation 83

112

will remain at about 10% for the foreseeable future. In fact, biofuel consumption will potentially

decrease in the United States, even if production remains the same or increases for international

markets.

10 Years

The goal for the United States for biofuel production in the next 10 years should focus on

first improving existing systems for the production of biodiesel, while beginning to prepare corn

ethanol facilities to be retrofitted to begin producing non-corn based ethanol, with a particular focus

on the potentiality of mass production of biomass from switchgrass.137 What has become very

apparent is the negative environmental impact that corn-based ethanol has, so the goal in the near

term for the United States would be to increase the collective knowledge on cellulosics. Perhaps the

most important thing for the United States would be to amend the RFS to lessen the requirements

for corn-based ethanol, something that has once again been proposed in Congress.138

25 Years

The second and third generation transitional crops should fully be coming into their own by

this point. This will be achieved by supporting “bolt-on” systems that allow the production of

cellulosics alongside corn or sugarcane sugar streams. There are currently three types of facilities that

could facilitate a transition to large-scale cellulosic production: corn kernel fiber that shares most

corn ethanol plant facilities; bagasse that is already processed for electricity at sugarcane plants but

requires additional processes for ethanol conversion (and could share sugarcane ethanol plant

137 Adusumilli, Naveen, and Andrew Leidner. "The U.S. Biofuel Policy: Review of Economic

and Environmental Implications." Science and Education Publishing. N.p., 15 July 2014. Web.

09 May 2015. 138 Barron-Lopez, Laura. "Lawmakers Push Bill to Reform Renewable Fuel Mandate." TheHill.

N.p., 02 Feb. 2015. Web. 09 May 2015.

113

facilities); and corn stover, the leaves and stalks of maize that, unlike bagasse, is not currently

collected.139

50 Years

Stand-alone biorefineries separate from the previous generation’s facilities capable of

producing cellulosics and algae are the goal for the United States by now due to their capability using

resources that do not have major land use risks and few alternative uses. These type of facilities are

currently extremely expensive, which is why they remain at the end of this report’s timeline, but

remain due to the way in which they can solve the United States’ land-use problem while

simultaneously producing biofuel that is actually environmentally friendly.140

139 Three Routes Forward for Biofuels: Incremental, Transitional, and Leapfrog. Rep. N.p.: n.p.,

2014. Print. Pg. 2. 140 Ibid., pg. 3

114