Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
to cleaner electricity generation in order to support its December 2009
pledge made at the Copenhagen COP15 (Conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC) conference to reduce US GHG emissions to 17% below 2005 lev-
els by 2020. As of 2010, US GHG emissions were 92.6% of 2005 levels, sug-
gesting that a lot of work is still yet to be done to reach this watered-down
target. In order to meet the commitment of 6% below 1990 levels that it
agreed to in the lead up to the Kyoto Protocol, the United States would have
to reduce GHG emissions by 15.6% from 2010 levels.
As Figure 7.1 (next page) suggests, the transition toward cleaner electric-
ity production has been a slow, counterproductive process. In 1990, coal-
ired power supplied 51.84% of the nation's energy. By 2011 this percentage
had dropped to 44.92%, but over the same 21-year period, aggregate energy
use increased by 26%. he net result was an aggregate 10% increase in the
amount of energy provided by coal-ired production from 16.5 million
British hermal Units (BTUs) to 18 million BTUs.
16
hese aggregate trends mask more commendable developments at the
state level. Table 7.2 breaks down the power generation proile in states
with the highest levels of electricity generation in 2010. Indiana, Ohio, and
Florida all generated more than 86% of electricity from fossil fuel sources.
At the other extreme, Washington State generated only 19% of its electricity
from fossil fuel sources thanks to a rich endowment in hydropower. Illinois
generated nearly half of its electricity by nuclear power while Indiana did not
use any nuclear power. Washington, California, and New York utilized siz-
able contributions from renewable energy, while Ohio had negligible renew-
able energy capacity. When the US electricity generation sector is broken
down into state-level statistics, it becomes apparent that the state electric-
ity mixes difer signiicantly. In the case of a state like Washington, a high
level of renewable energy capacity stems from its abundant water resources
which enable exploitation of hydropower. However, as this chapter will illus-
trate, for most states, the diference in electricity proile is explained more
by political decisions made at the state level than by geographic attributes.
As a testament to this, as of March 2013, the Texas Renewable Energy
Industries Association reports that the total contribution from renewable
energy to the state electricity grid is now at 8.9%, an expansion of approxi-
mately 75% since 2010. his is largely attributed to wind power capacity
expansion, which has been driven by aggressive state-level wind power
development policy.
Nevertheless, despite pressure to diversify the electricity mix to reduce
GHG emissions, there has been profuse and efective resistance from fossil
fuel advocates. Consequently, in addition to large-scale investment in natu-
ral gas projects, US oil production has also been on the rise, with production
