OUR DECENTRALIZED ENERGY FUTURE
On-Site Power Generation Arrives
David Morris is the author of A Better Way, and vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
AUDIO: Click here to listen to David Morris' commentary.
To download RealPlayer for free, click here.
Steve Rosenfeld produced this commentary.
If Congress wants to stimulate the economy in a way that will have both a short-term and a longiterm positive impact, if it wants to give a gift that will keep on giving, it can do no better than to stimulate on-site, decentralized electricity generation. Technologies are now available that can transform households and businesses and office buildings into electricity producers. A national effort to introduce these technologies will make our energy system more secure. A million power plants make for far less attractive terrorist targets than one giant power plant or one giant transmission line.
Our energy system will be more secure for another reason. More than 90 percent of proposed power plants will be fueled by natural gas. This burdens our pipelines and potentially, makes us dependent on imported gas and scarce gas reserves. The key problem is that a large central power plant fueled by natural gas, just like a large central power plant fueled by coal or oil or uranium, loses two thirds of the energy burned in the plant as waste heat. Less than a third of the energy consumed in the power plant actually enters our buildings as electricity. On-site power generation, on the other hand, can use the heat produced which can double and even triple overall energy efficiencies.
Our electricity system not only wastes fossil fuels, it wastes renewable fuels. Sufficient sunlight falls on a typical home in the United States to provide all the energy an efficient home needs on a year round basis. That's an enormous wasted resource. Indeed, in many parts of the country black rooftops soak up solar energy which heats up the house in the summer, increasing our demand for electricity for air conditioning. Thus sunlight right now is actually increasing our consumption of fossil fuels. In contrast, solar cells - devices that use sunlight to generate electricity - are now being built into rooftops and the sides of buildings. The price is tumbling. In 1975 a household solar array cost over half-a-million dollars. Today the cost is as low as $10,000.
So what should be done? I say we should launch a Manhattan Project level effort to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks and our reliance on imported fuels by literally and figuratively empowering Americans to become energy producers. In larger buildings this means quickly converting boilers into power plants that supply electricity as well as heat. For federal buildings, managers should be given the financing to do this whenever the payback is less than 15 years. For private buildings the federal government should offer to finance any such investment that has a 10 year payback or less.
Fuel cells and microturbines are very small scale power plants that are just coming into the marketplace. For these the federal governmen should enter into contracts with a dozen or more manufacturers to buy an increasing amount of power at a guaranteed decreasing price. And the government should supply the money needed to allow manufacturers to quickly scale up their production processes. In the 1950s, an arrangement like this between the Navy Department and manufacturers of transistors quickly drove the price of transistors down dramatically.
For households the federal government should support a massive effort to install solar cells. Again, it should enter into multi-year contracts with manufacturers for an increasing purchase of solar cells at a price that is reduced each year. And it should offer households a rebate that covers the difference between the cost of solar electricity and their current cost of electricity. The rebate would be lower in communities with high cost electricity and higher in communities with lower cost electricity. This would allow all communities to participate in this national movement. The rebate would be short-lived, perhaps two years, until the increased manufacturing volume drives the price down to competitive levels.
And state and local government that joins in the effort should be rewarded. For example, in a few days the citizens of San Francisco will vote on whether to approve a $100 million bond that can be used for solar cell installations. If they approve this initiative, the federal government should match the amount used for solar cells and provide such financing as is needed to cover startup costs.
The manufacture of small power plants generates more jobs than the manufacture of large power plants. The installation of millions of small power plants will generate a massive demand for skilled labor. Thus at the same time as the federal government works with household and office building owners and manufacturers to drive volume up and prices down, it needs to finance a national job training program for installers and service technicians.
A multi-billion stimulus package to literally bring power to the people will spur the installation of millions of small power plants.These will generate the electricity we will need to meet future demand. They will also dramatically improve the environment, reduce our dependence on long fragile energy supply lines and create large numbers of well-paid jobs.
In World War II we were asked to sacrifice for the war effort. Today we are being asked to shop. A national effort to literally and figuratively empower Americans would be compatible with the current emphasis on increasing buying. But it would encourage a kind of buying that can have an enduring impact, not only economically but socially and psychologically on Americans. I believe such a bold effort would be enthusiastically embraced.
This is David Morris for TomPaine.com.
Published: Oct 30 2001
