From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 09 Sep 92 17:38 PDT
Subject: Americas Energy Choices review
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601759:000:4483
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Sep  9 17:38:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: Americas Energy Choices review

/* Written 10:59 am  Sep  6, 1992 by larris in cdp:en.energy */
/* ---------- "Americas Energy Choices review" ---------- */
From: Lelani Arris <larris>
Subject: Americas Energy Choices review

/* Written  8:54 am  Sep  4, 1992 by dean@vexcel.com in cdp:talk.environme */
/* ---------- "CO2 Mitigation Cost Scenario" ---------- */

The following is a summary from the report "America's Energy Choices - 
Investing in a Strong Economy and a Clean Environment", put together by
the following groups:

	Alliance to Save Energy
	American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
	Natural Resources Defense Council
	Union of Concerned Scientists

as an alternative to President Bush's National Energy Strategy (NES).

The report is 122 pages so I have necessarily pulled out a few highlights.
I will fill in more details if people want to see them, including any
specific questions people may have.

The report analyzes four scenarios for energy policy in the U.S.:

Reference scenario - adapted from the Dept of Energy projections

Market scenario - makes use of cost-effective energy-efficiency and
	renewable energy technologies, assuming moderate market
	penetration rates, with no accounting for environmental or
	security costs beyond those embodied in current trends (e.g.,
	the Clean Air Act).

Environmental scenario - employs additional energy-efficiency and
	renewable energy resources to the extent justified by the
	environmental and security costs of fossil fuels, and assuming
	more rapid market penetration rates.

Climate Stablization scenario - designed to achieve carbon dioxide emissions
	targets consistent with an effective international program to limit
	global warming (a 25% reduction in US CO2 emissions by 2005 and at
	least a 50% reduction by 2030).

Three guiding principles are used:
	Harness market forces
	Make efficiency the standard
	Invest in the future

All scenarios assume the same economic growth and energy _services_.

Modeling was performed by the Stockholm Environmental Institute - Boston
Center at Tellus Institute.  The modeling program is called Long-Range
Energy Alternative Planning (LEAP) And Environmental Database (EDB).  
They compared the results with 6 other studies - 2 by the DOE, 2 by the
US Office of TEchnology Assesment, 1 by ICF Inc. for the EPA, and 1
from MIT.  There were a variety of agreements and disagreements, with the 
DOE studies (for the NES) the most energy intensive and this study at the
other end.  Most financial calculations
use a 3% discount rate, although a few alternative calculations are made
at other rates.


Overall costs (Trillions of $) compared to reference to 2030:

scenarios:		market		environmental	climate

Investment cost:	1.2		2.1		2.7
Energy savings:		3.1		4.2		5.0
Net savings:		1.9		2.1		2.3

The savings comes to about .6 tillion in each case if a 7% discount rate 
is used.

CO2 emissions (billion tons)

			1988	2000	2010	2030

Reference		5.26	5.95	6.75	8.29
Market			5.26	5.36	4.69	3.79
Environmental		5.26	4.88	3.73	2.74
Climate Stablization	5.26	4.39	3.16	1.51

Overall results:

				1988	2000	2010	2030

GNP (billion 1990$)		5,292	7,090	8,941	12,792

Refernce Case
	Primary Energy (quads)	85.3	96.4	105.0	120.2
    Primary Renewables (quads)	7.4	9.8	11.2	15.5
	Energy/GNP (kBtu/$)	16.1	13.6	11.7	9.4
	CO2/Energy (lb/MMBtu)	124.3	123.4	128.6	138.0

Market Case
	Primary Energy		85.3	88.5	83.4	82.2
	Primary Renewables	7.4	10.2	14.8	29.0
	Energy/GNP		16.1	12.5	9.3	6.4
	CO2/Energy		124.3	121.1	112.5	92.2

Environmental Case
	Primary Energy		85.3	82.2	72.7	70.2
	Primary Renewables	7.4	10.6	15.6	29.3
	Energy/GNP		16.1	11.6	8.1	5.5
	CO2/Energy		123.3	118.7	102.6	78.1

Climate Stablizations Case
	Primary Energy		85.3	78.4	68.9	61.9
	Primary REnewables	7.4	12.4	18.1	32.8
	Energy/GNP		16.1	11.1	7.7	4.8
	CO2/Energy		123.3	112.0	91.7	48.8


There are extensive details and breakdowns for energy use by industrial
sector and transportation type, for different types on construction and
so on.

Long-term economic modeling of this type is highly controversial and some
people feel that it is a total waste of time.  Others will just take it
with a grain of salt.  Nevertheless, many want to
get the best estimates that are available and when people start throwing
around these "trillions of dollars" and "millions of deaths" claims, some
type of analysis should be performed, IMHO.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

Newsgroups: sci.environment