Recycled Energy Development
The web’s resource for energy recycling news and information
U.S. energy policy needs an electric shock. Last December’s much-anticipated Copenhagen conference on climate change failed to produce a binding agreement to slash greenhouse gas emissions. And today, the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the U.S. House has been stalled in the Senate.
Underlying both of these setbacks is a nagging belief among Americans of all ideological stripes that curbing climate change will hurt the economy. Whether people believe climate change is real or the hoax of the century, everyone assumes that serious economic pain is part of the deal.
Sure, many political leaders have used terms like “green jobs” to frame environmental spending as inherently stimulative. But the sense remains that all paths to reduced greenhouse gas emissions will increase energy prices. In a time of recession, that doesn’t bode well for the prospects of reform. Any workable, lasting solution to climate change must be simultaneously pro-profit and pro-planet.
Sound impossible? It isn’t. Outside the parameters of the current Washington debate lie a slew of market-based solutions. These proposals, which would induce profitable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, transcend the stale categories of left and right, pro-environment and pro-business. Their premise is simple: global warming is the defining challenge of our time — and if we’re going to tackle it, we must find a way to grow the economy in the process.
No matter how dire our climate crisis is, the best of intentions won’t solve the problem. As Adam Smith, the original free market economist, taught us back in the 18th century, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Similarly, we cannot expect results from the benevolence of the utility, the independent power producer, or the manufacturer. We must adopt policies that harness self-interest to serve both the economy and the planet.
Unfortunately, a century of regulations and vested interests in the energy markets have violated Smith’s vision. Perhaps most importantly, market distortions are hindering efficiency in the way we produce power, effectively forcing citizens to pay to warm the planet. These barriers make it virtually impossible to cope with the climate crisis. But with a little creativity, we could use Smith’s 18th century wisdom to rescue our planet from a 21st century calamity.
How? This policy paper provides part of the answer. First, it traces a brief history of the energy industry, showing how a system created with the best of intentions has become calcified, destructive, and profoundly anti-competitive. It outlines the origins of these problems and explores why the electric grid’s efficiency gains ground to a screeching halt in 1960.
As a case study, this paper looks at the restraints this system has imposed on energy recycling, an approach to power that’s far more efficient than the typical power plant. Combined heat and power and waste heat recovery, two of the most common forms of energy recycling, achieve double the efficiency of today’s conventional power generation. Deploying these approaches would lower energy costs and global warming pollution.
This paper ends by explaining nine steps Congress can take to harness the power of self-interest — of markets — to achieve real reform. Each part of the plan provides a resounding “yes” to four key questions:
With solutions that satisfy these criteria, there’s no reason why energy reform can’t happen this year.
Contact us to discuss how energy recycling can help your organization.
