By the end of last year, nine months after passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), $263 billion had been disbursed of the $787 billion available.
While Fox News disagrees, independent economists do agree that 1.5 million to 2 million people are now working as a result of stimulus funds disbursed to businesses and city, county and state governments so far, but the bulk of ARRA funds will be disbursed in 2010.
To grow the clean energy economy – $90 billion was set aside, with one third being disbursed by the end of 2009, and of that amount, $60 billion is in direct spending and $29.5 billion is tax incentives to build renewable energy. How that is allocated is in this graph:
Read more of this story »
Link to Source
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12621
Energy efficiency technologies that exist today or that are likely to be developed in the near future could save considerable money as well as energy, says a new report from the National Research Council. Fully adopting these technologies could lower projected U.S. energy use 17 percent to 20 percent by 2020, and 25 percent to 31 percent by 2030.
Achieving full deployment of these efficiency technologies will depend in part on pressures driving adoption, such as high energy prices or public policies designed to increase energy efficiency. Nearly 70 percent of electricity consumption in the United States occurs in buildings. The energy savings from attaining full deployment of cost-effective, energy-efficient technologies in buildings alone could eliminate the need to add new electricity generation capacity through 2030, the report says. New power generation facilities would be needed only to address imbalances in regional energy supplies, replace obsolete facilities, or to introduce more environmentally friendly sources of electricity.
Many cost-effective efficiency investments in buildings are possible, the report says. For example, replacing appliances such as air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, and hot water heaters with more efficient models could reduce energy use by 30 percent. Opportunities for achieving substantial energy savings exist in the industrial and transportation sectors as well. For example, deployment of industrial energy efficiency technologies could reduce energy use in manufacturing 14 percent to 22 percent by 2020, relative to expected trends. Most of these savings would occur in the most energy-intensive industries, such as chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, and cement.
Although there is great potential, many barriers exist to widespread adoption of energy efficiency technologies, the report points out. The upfront costs can be high, which can deter investment despite the possibility of long-term cost savings. Volatile energy prices can cause buyers to delay purchasing more efficient technology due to a lack of confidence that they will see an adequate return on their investment. In addition, there is a shortage of readily available, trustworthy information for consumers hoping to learn about the relative performance and costs of energy-efficient technology alternatives. Investments in energy-efficient infrastructure are particularly important, as these can lock in patterns of energy use for decades. Therefore, taking advantage of windows of opportunity for infrastructure is crucial.
Overcoming these barriers will require significant public and private support, and sustained effort. Many energy efficiency initiatives have been successful, such as the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star labeling program. Efforts undertaken by California and New York have yielded large energy savings for those states. These experiences provide valuable lessons for national, state, and local policymakers on enacting effective energy efficiency policies.
This is the final report in a series from the National Academies' America's Energy Future project, which was undertaken to stimulate and inform a constructive national dialogue about the nation’s energy future.
...
Some cost-benefit highlights include:
- The potential for large, cost-effective energy savings in buildings is well-documented. Median predictions of achievable, cost-effective savings are 1.2 percent per year for electricity and 0.5 percent per year for natural gas, amounting to a 25-30 percent energy savings for the buildings sector as a whole over the next 20-25 years.
- Average Cost of Conserved Energy and Retail Energy Prices Sector:
Residential Electricity 2.7 ¢/kWh (average cost of conserved energy), 10.6 ¢/kWh (retail energy price)
Residential Natural Gas $6.9/million Btu (average cost of conserved energy), $12.7/million Btu (retail energy price)
Commercial Electricity 2.7 ¢/kWh, 9.7 ¢/kWh
Commercial Natural Gas $2.5/million Btu $11.0/million Btu
...
The panel roster is as follows:
Lester B. Lave (chair) 1, Maxine L. Savitz 2 (vice chair), R. Stephen Berry 3, Marilyn A. Brown 4, Linda R. Cohen 5, Magnus G. Craford 6, Paul A. DeCotis 7, James DeGraffenreidt, Jr. 8, Howard Geller 9, David B. Goldstein 10, Alexander MacLachlan 11, William F. Powers 12, Arthur H. Rosenfeld 13 and Daniel Sperling 14
1. Harry B. and James H. Higgins Professor of Economics, and University Professor Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
2. General Manager, Honeywell Inc. (retired)
3. James Franck Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Gordon Center for Integrative Studies, Department of Chemistry and James Franck Institute, The University of Chicago
4. Professor of Energy Policy, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
5. Professor, Department of Economics, University of California Irvine
6. Chief Technology Officer, LumiLeds Lighting, San Jose, Calif.
7. Vice President of Power Markets, Long Island Power Authority, Albany, NY
8. Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, WGL Holdings, Inc., Washington, D.C.
9. Executive Director, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Boulder, Colo.
10. Energy Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco
11. Senior Vice President, Research and Development, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (retired), Wilmington, Del.
12. Vice President of Research, Ford Motor Company (retired), Ann Arbor, Mich.
13. Commissioner, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, Calif.
14. Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, and Director, Center of Transporation Studies, University of California, Davis
Madeline Woodruff, Study Director
The America's Energy Future project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, BP America, Dow Chemical Company Foundation, Fred Kavli and the Kavli Foundation, GE Energy, General Motors Corp., Intel Corp., and the W.M. Keck Foundation. Support was also provided by the National Academies through the following endowed funds created to perpetually support the work of the National Research Council: Thomas Lincoln Casey Fund, Arthur L. Day Fund, W.K. Kellogg Foundation Fund, George and Cynthia Mitchell Endowment for Sustainability Science, and the Frank Press Fund for Dissemination and Outreach. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.
National Academy of Sciences www8.nationalacademies.org
National Research Council Division of Earth and Life Studies and Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences and National Academy of Engineering and Transportation Research Board, Committee on America's Energy Future: Energy Efficiency Technologies: Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs
Press Release dated December 9, 2009
Link to Source
(0)
(0)
(0)
