http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-americas-use-of-fossil-fuels  As the new home of Ohio PIRG's environmental work, Environment Ohio can be contacted regarding this report.   America has the technological know-how and the http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/a-new-energy-future-the-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-for-cutting-americas-use-of-fossil-fuels Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:39 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states2   As the new home of Ohio PIRG's environmental work, Environment Ohio can be contacted regarding this report.  In the summer of 2006, Americans from coast to coast experienced a http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/feeling-the-heat-global-warming-and-rising-temperatures-in-the-united-states2 Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:39 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/energizing-ohio39s-economy-creating-jobs-and-reducing-pollution-with-wind-power   http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/energizing-ohio39s-economy-creating-jobs-and-reducing-pollution-with-wind-power Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:39 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/making-sense-of-the-coal-rush-the-consequences-of-expanding-americas-dependence-on-coal  As the new home of Ohio PIRG's environmental work, Environment Ohio can be contacted regarding this report.  Energy http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/making-sense-of-the-coal-rush-the-consequences-of-expanding-americas-dependence-on-coal Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:39 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/redirecting-ohios-energy In 2004, Congress and the Bush administration proposed an energy policy that included $52 billion in subsidies, two-thirds of which would have benefited fossil fuels and nuclear power. Proponents of this energy policy argue that investing in fossil fuels and nuclear power are essential for a healthy and vibrant economy. They also contend that a renewable energy standard, requiring a certain percentage of our electricity come from renewables, will cost us jobs and increase costs to consumers.Study after study has shown that renewable energy and energy efficiency boost local economies and save consumers money. So we asked the question: what would be the economic and consumer benefits to Ohio of shifting these subsidies into renewables and energy efficiency and implementing a renewable energy standard? We call this alternative to the 2004 energy proposals the Clean Energy Package. http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/redirecting-ohios-energy Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:39 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/ohio-renewable-energy-and-public-opinion Public Opinion Strategies conducted this http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/ohio-renewable-energy-and-public-opinion Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:43:36 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/ohios-wind-energy-future At the dawn of the 21st century, Ohio faces immense energy challenges, but committing to a new energy future would decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, create jobs, secure our economy, revitalize rural Ohio, and help build a healthier cleaner energy future for our children. Ohio has significant potential to harness energy from homegrown resources like the wind, crops, and sun. Detailed wind maps of Ohio show substantial wind resources along the glacial ridges of central Ohio, across the farmlands of northwest Ohio, as well as on and off the shores of Lake Erie. If fully realized, Ohio’s wind potential could supply all of the electricity needs of our state, and then some. Within the next decade, Ohio could generate at least 10 percent of our electricity from wind power alone. With enough political will and dedication, Ohio’s clean homegrown wind energy could provide electricity to millions of Buckeyes.Ohio will benefit from wind energy in many ways:• Energy Independence: In 2001, energy imports cost Ohio over $16 billion. By increasing Ohio’s clean, homegrown energy resources we can keep more Ohio dollars in state. Building new wind energy farms is more beneficial to our state’s economy than investing in new coal or gas fired power plants• Job Creation: Over a thousand Ohio businesses have the capacity to make components for wind turbines. A national investment in wind energy could bring another 13,000 manufacturing jobs to Ohio.• Farmland and Rural Development: Farmers who lease their land to wind developers could gain anywhere from $2,000 to $20,000 annually. Rural economies could also benefit from property tax revenues generated from installing wind turbines. This boost to rural economies and the additional income for Ohio’s farmers could reinvigorate rural Ohio.• A Healthier Environment: Wind turbines produce energy without using any polluting fuels or leaving behind any toxic emissions or waste. By increasing the energy we produce from wind we will be creating a healthier and cleaner future for our children.Many other states have already begun to develop their wind resources. The amount of installed wind capacity in the United States has quadrupled in the last six years, and this year alone the U.S. is on track to install a record number of wind turbines. Unfortunately, Ohio is lagging behind, having currently developed only one utility scale wind farm, in Bowling Green, Ohio. However, Ohio’s own electric utilities have helped develop wind energy in many other states. American Electric Power, First Energy and Duke Energy have each invested in large scale wind farms in many of our neighboring states.Ohio is at a critical point. Continuing to delay a transition to cleaner energy will leave Ohio facing an even greater uphill battle in the effort to be a competitive state. Across the nation, other states have implemented innovative tools to encourage a shift to a clean energy strategy. In order for Ohio to realize a new energy future we need to adopt clean energy policies such as:• A Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that requires 20 percent of Ohio’s electricity be generated from clean energy sources like wind, solar and biomass by 2020. At least 10 percent of Ohio’s RES should be generated from wind.• Invest in a new energy future by making Ohio’s Energy Loan Fund a permanent source of funding for renewable energy development, local manufacturing projects and energy efficiency measures.• Reform Ohio’s utility regulations, to make it easier for wind developers and rural communities to take advantage of their homegrown energy resources.Other states’ actions are building momentum, and it is Ohio’s turn to step up to the plate and create a clean, safe and healthy energy future. This report describes one of Ohio’s best clean energy options, wind energy, and the multiple benefits that our wind resources will bring to the state. http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/ohios-wind-energy-future Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:21:39 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/reaping-the-rewards-how-state-renewable-energy-standards-are-cutting-pollution-saving-money-creating-jobs-and-fueling-a-clean-energy-boom Renewable energy in the United States is on the rise. America now http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/reaping-the-rewards-how-state-renewable-energy-standards-are-cutting-pollution-saving-money-creating-jobs-and-fueling-a-clean-energy-boom Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:28:56 -0600 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/beyond-oil-the-transportation-fuels-that-can-help-reduce-global-warming The growing threat of global warming, air and water pollution, and rising energy costs are a few of the many problems that result from our current over-reliance on petroleum-based transportation fuels. Alternative transportation fuels, in conjunction with an array of other energy-related strategies, have the potential to help mitigate these problems—if public policy prioritizes those fuels that can deliver the greatest benefit for the environment and the American people. America’s dependence on oil for transportation causes massive environmental mpacts. • Emissions from transportation accounted for 33 percent of carbon ioxide emissions in the United States in 2005. Gasoline and diesel were responsible for 78 percent of transportation- sector emissions. • Global warming is a growing threat to the environment and our way of life. Within a century, the average world temperature could increase by another 2 to 11.5°F. Sea level could rise by 7 to 23 inches, and snow and ice cover will continue to contract. • Our heavy reliance on petroleumbased fuels has also created widespread air and water pollution. Alternative transportation fuels can reduce our dependence on petroleum, but vary greatly in their impact on the environment. Corn-based ethanol has greater lifecycle global warming emissions than gasoline, when produced at the high volumes forecast for coming years and in ways that increase demand for cropland worldwide. Corn-based ethanol can also contribute to air pollution problems if used in lowpercentage blends in gasoline and may potentially trigger significant environmental impacts from increased farming. Cellulosic ethanol made from agricultural residues or from crops grown on abandoned or marginal cropland may achieve emission reductions with less environmental impact, but is still in the very early stages of development. Biodiesel is generally recognized to produce less air pollution than conventional diesel, but soybean-based biodiesel produces more global warming pollution than conventional diesel when it is produced in ways that increase demand for cropland worldwide. Oil crop production is land-intensive, spurring cultivation of new land and resulting in high emissions. Biodiesel made from waste oil is 98 percent cleaner than conventional diesel, but supplies are extremely limited. Electricity can be used to power “plug-in hybrid” vehicles and all-electric vehicles, both of which draw electricity from the power grid. Because electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines, vehicles that use electricity almost always produce less global warming pollution than gasoline vehicles, even when the electricity used to fuel them is generated from coal. The benefits are even greater when vehicles are fueled with renewably generated electricity. However, few electric vehicles are currently available to consumers. Natural gas reduces air pollution and global warming pollution compared with gasoline vehicles. But natural gas fueling infrastructure is expensive and domestic supplies of natural gas are both finite and increasingly constrained. Hydrogen has long been touted as the transportation fuel of the future. But the environmental impacts of hydrogen depend greatly on how it is produced, and hydrogen-powered vehicles are still a long way from being available to American consumers. Coal-to-liquids fuels would vastly increase global warming pollution from transportation, while exacerbating environmental impacts from coal production. Even if emissions from coal-to-liquids plants are captured and sequestered underground, coal-to-liquids fuels are likely to be no better, in global warming pollution terms, than today’s petroleum-based fuels. America needs a comprehensive strategy to reduce global warming pollution from transportation. Low-carbon transportation fuels can play an important part in that strategy. To reduce global warming pollution from transportation, America must reduce the amount of miles we drive, use more ef- ficient vehicles, and shift to lower-carbon fuels. A low-carbon fuels strategy for the United States should: 1) Combine the most promising approaches to maximize environmental benefits. America should work to make vehicles more fuel efficient, reduce liquid fuel consumption by increasing the use of electricity (in the short-term, through plug-in hybrids), and replace a significant share of the liquid fuel that remains with lowercarbon options. Such a comprehensive approach can slash per-mile global warming pollution from vehicles by as much as 74 percent compared to conventional gasoline vehicles. 2) Develop fuels with long-term potential. Natural gas, for example, has the potential to reduce global warming pollution in the short term, but has little long-term potential as a transportation fuel due to limited domestic gas supplies. Some sources of cellulosic ethanol have comparatively lower life-cycle global warming emissions, but technological breakthroughs and infrastructure developments will be required before the fuel becomes widespread. Public policy should emphasize the development of infrastructure to support promising long-term fuel options over those with only short-term potential. 3) Set stringent environmental standards and mitigate environmental and social impacts. America will be more likely to reduce the nvironmental impacts of transportation fuels if we set stringent environmental standards for those fuels. The first step should be to establish a low-carbon fuel standard that encourages the development of fuels with lower life-cycle global warming emissions. Standards should also be developed and implemented to mitigate the impacts of alternative fuels on the quality of our air, water and natural ecosystems. Achieving large reductions in global warming pollution from cars and light trucks in the years to come will require strong public policies. Necessary steps include: • Adopting requirements to lower the carbon content of transportation fuels and rejecting policies to promote fuels that would make the problem worse. • Requiring that by 2020, all new vehicles are capable of using lower carbon fuels, whether electricity or biofuels. • Supporting additional research into cultivation techniques for cellulosic feedstock and into technologies for converting cellulosic feedstocks, especially waste, into fuel. • Improving vehicle fuel economy and pursuing measures to reduce total driving. These measures would further cut global warming emissions and reduce our vulnerability to rapid changes in the global petroleum market. http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/beyond-oil-the-transportation-fuels-that-can-help-reduce-global-warming Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:15:33 -0500 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/building-an-energy-efficient-america America is the largest consumer of energy in the world. Almost half of the energy we use—10 percent of the energy in the world—powers our buildings.1 Most of this energy comes from burning fossil fuels. Our reliance on these fuels makes us vulnerable to supply disruptions, contributes to global warming and other environmental problems, and is becoming increasingly expensive. We could be using far less energy in our buildings. Homes and businesses exist that use a fraction of the energy of typical buildings—some also generate 100 percent or more of the energy needed to power them on-site, using renewable sources such as wind and solar power. Approximately 75 percent of our buildings will be new or renovated by the year 2035.2 Although this situation represents huge potential for saving energy, market barriers are preventing the widespread adoption of energy-efficient building practices. Those barriers include: • Many construction and home building firms resist the marginally higher upfront costs of actions to improve building efficiency and therefore are slow to adopt measures that would benefit renters and home and building owners. • Buyers and renters lack the information needed to choose more energy-efficient properties. Policies can be adopted to overcome these barriers and ensure that new buildings and renovations take advantage of energy-efficient practices, such as: • Building energy codes should be improved and enforced. National model codes should be 30 percent more efficient by 2010 and state codes should match or exceed the model codes. • Federal, state, and local governments should adopt policies that encourage building far beyond code and retrofitting existing buildings for increased efficiency. • Policies should be designed to encourage on-site renewable power. • Political leaders should set the goal for all new buildings to be zero net energy by 2030. These policy changes would have a huge impact on energy use and global warming emissions in the United States, at little cost. • Adopting and enforcing strong building codes nationally could reduce our annual energy consumption by 2 percent from 2030 projected use. • Investments of $21.6 billion a year for five years through federal efficiency programs could reduce our energy use enough to replace more than 100 coal-fired power plants and lower annual carbon dioxide emissions by 433.5 MMT. • One quad of energy gained through building efficiency would cost $42.1 billion, 35 percent of the cost to gain the same amount of energy through new coal plants, and under 20 percent of the cost to gain the same amount of energy through new nuclear generation. Half of the buildings constructed today will still be in use in the middle of this century.10 The decisions we make today will have a lasting effect on our energy economy. http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/building-an-energy-efficient-america Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:25:31 -0500 http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/investing-in-our-future-how-renewable-energy-will-help-to-stabilize-electricity-rates-and-stimulate-ohios-economy The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio projects that the state‟s demand for energy will increase by about one percent per year through 2020. According to the Energy Information Administration, world energy consumption could increase up to 57 percent from 2004 to 2030. Increased demand for energy has already begun to affect the demand for coal, and thus the prices of coal. Ohio generates 87 percent of its electricity from coal, the majority of which is imported. That leaves the state highly vulnerable in the presence of rising coal and oil prices. A federal cap on carbon is increasingly likely and would lead to a dramatic increase in the cost of electricity generated from coal. Because Ohio is the 4th largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the U.S., any energy policy under consideration for the state of Ohio should compare and contrast the future costs of energy resources in order to promote the least cost option and thereby protect residential, commercial, and industrial electricity users. Although Ohio is currently vulnerable to rampant increases in electricity rates due to the state‟s heavy dependence on imported coal and looming carbon legislation, it‟s not too late to change the state‟s energy future. By diversifying its electricity mix with renewable energy, Ohio can shield itself from upward-spiraling electricity costs and simultaneously improve public health and spur economic growth; a renewable energy standard (RES) would not only reduce pollution, but it would also create thousands of new jobs, increase the incomes of rural landowners by $ millions, generate tax revenue for school districts, and add $ billions to the Gross State Product (GSP). Coal prices are going up. • According to a recent article by the Washington Post, “world consumption of coal has grown 30 percent in the past six years,” driving “international spot prices of coal up by 50 percent or more in the past five months, surpassing the escalation in oil prices…if high prices last, that would raise the cost of U.S. electricity, half of which is generated by coal-fired powered plants.” • According to a recent article by the New York Times, “spot prices for two benchmark American grades of coal, from central Appalachia and the Powder River Basin of Wyoming…(are) up 93 percent and 64 percent, respectively, in the last year…„Watch out, consumer,‟ said David M. Khani, a coal analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group. „You‟re probably going to see accelerating electricity prices in 2009, 2010, and 2011‟…Already, there are some signs of rising prices. Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power, both American Electric Power subsidiaries, on Feb. 29 filed papers seeking approval in West Virginia for a 17 percent increase in revenues, mainly to pay for costlier coal. If the request is approved, a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours a month would see his bill increase from $64.55 to $73.94, starting in July.” Investing in renewable energy will reduce Ohio’s exposure to increasing and volatile fuel prices. • The cost of generation from renewable sources is not tied to fossil fuel prices. Thus, renewable energy can protect against volatility in the fossil fuel markets. • The “fuel” for electricity generation from wind is wind. Thus, because wind does not need to be mined or transported, as does the fuel for other sources of electricity generation, wind power removes a significant cost component and provides a hedge against increasing and volatile fossil fuel and oil prices – the price of oil recently reached $112 a barrel. A federal cap on carbon emissions is imminent. By investing in renewable energy, now, Ohio can hedge its exposure to the increase in electricity prices resulting from such a cap. • To prevent the most harmful effects of climate change, the world‟s leading scientists have said that we need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80 percent below today‟s levels by 2050. • The Warner-Lieberman Bill, which is currently being considered in the Senate, would result in a cap on 80 percent of total U.S. emissions. Echoing this sentiment, President Bush recently signed into law an increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. • Ohio ranks 4th in total carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Because renewables would be immune to such legislation, they could help to hedge against the increase in electricity rates resulting from a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. • According to a 2006 analysis by Synapse Energy Economics, one ton of carbon dioxide pollution will likely cost between $10 and $40 in 2010, and between $20 and $50 in 2030.5 At these prices, given Ohio‟s electricity-related carbon dioxide emissions were 145 million tons in 2005, the state‟s carbon exposure would be over $1 billion per year. • U.S. Department of Energy studies have shown that an RES can help lower the cost to consumers of implementing a carbon cap and trade program. Various options have been proposed to reduce carbon emissions associated with electricity generation, such as renewable energy, advanced coal, and advanced nuclear. Among these options, renewable energy is the most cost-effective choice. • New generation of electricity from wind is CHEAPER than new generation from advanced coal and nuclear power. • Twenty-five states and Washington D.C. have renewable energy standards. According to a recent report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “The electricity rate increases associated with existing state RPS (renewable portfolio standard) policies, for those states in which such impacts are readily calculable, generally equal one percent or less so far; in several states, the renewable electricity required by these policies appears to be priced competitively with fossil generation.” • According to the EPA, capturing – not including transporting or storing – 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) advanced coal plants would increase the total cost of electricity by 38 percent. • Indiana recently approved an IGCC advanced coal plant that will result in an average electric rate increase of about 16 percent. This rate will be phased in between 2008 and 2012. • According to a report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, from 1970 to 1995, levelized costs per kWh of nuclear power increased from 4 cents/kWh to over 9 cents/kWh (in 1999 dollars). That is an increase of 125 percent. On the other hand, between 1980 and 1995, wind costs decreased from 86 cents/kWh to 6 cents/kWh. That is a decrease of about 93 percent. • According to the U.S. Department of Energy, since 1980, while capacity has increased, the cost of wind power has decreased nearly twenty-fold. • According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the best wind sites can compete in the electricity market with traditional fossil-fuel power plants, even in terms of direct costs – when adding in the indirect costs of electricity generation, such as air and water pollution, nuclear waste removal, etc., wind is in fact the favorable option. http://www.environmentohio.org/reports/energy/energy-program-reports/investing-in-our-future-how-renewable-energy-will-help-to-stabilize-electricity-rates-and-stimulate-ohios-economy Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:34:54 -0500