Known as ACESA (American Clean Energy Security Act), the United States House of Representatives has passed an Energy Bill in July requiring utility companies to produce 15 per cent of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020.  Also known as cap-and trade, the bill is designed to reduce total carbon-dioxide emissions from large sources, such as power plants and factories, while mandating that these emissions be reduced by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020

The Bill passed in the House on a 241-172 vote, despite strong opposition.

Comments from the White House were favorable: “Today, the House of Representatives took historic action with the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.  It's a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs; decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil; and strictly limiting the release of pollutants that threaten the health of families and communities and the planet itself.  Now it's up to the Senate to take the next step.  And I'm confident that in the coming weeks and months the Senate will demonstrate the same commitment to addressing what is a tremendous challenge and an extraordinary opportunity."

An international consensus is emerging that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on the order of 30 to 40 percent are needed in the next decade or so to prevent a slide toward uncontrollable global climate chaos, with reductions on the order of 85 to 95 percent required by mid-century.  This ACESA bill is one of the first attempts at addressing climate change at a federal level, and it shifts the terms of the discussion by measuring emissions relative to 2005 levels rather than the accepted Kyoto Protocol benchmark of 1990. It promises a 17 percent reduction by 2020, relative to 2005, which translates into a 5 percent reduction in global warming pollution than the United States produced in 1990.

While the actions represented by the passage of this bill are good news for the climate and national security, many believe economically this bill is too convoluted a compromise to have the best impact.  It is feared that the forces lobbying against this bill undermined its objectives and overstuffed it with complex exceptions and misdirected incentives.

At Inerjy, we applaud the efforts of all those who recognize the need for the US to achieve energy independence and act on those beliefs. We are paving the way for future arguments beyond the traditional nuclear and bio fuel alternatives by working on “true” renewable energies that offer even more long term protection for both our environment and our standard of living. 

We live in a society largely reliant on unsustainable resources. As if that weren’t enough of a problem on its own, by some estimates nearly 10% of our GDP is spent on imported energy. What key technologies could serve our growing energy needs and stabilize our economy?

Utility-scale wind power in a class 4 or higher resource area (16 MPH average wind speed) is currently the only widely deployable (renewable) technology that makes economic sense without government mandated incentive. Utility-scale solar thermal, again in a strong resource area like the Mojave Desert, is also close to economic viability. But what about the majority of the US, areas without these resources?

It is here that many opinions diverge. Some think nuclear is the answer, some believe cleaning up coal will push the problem out in the future, and others feel we can achieve huge reductions in energy usage through conservation and efficiency.

While all of these solutions may have future roles, don't we have a long history of developing technology and improving cost effectiveness when there's an economic need? Computers, mobile phones, and even cars are examples of how markets drive technology to affordable levels. In the 1980's it wasn't widely accepted that in just 20 years nearly everyone over 13 years old would have a phone in their pocket. Along those same lines it isn't generally accepted today that in 20 years nearly all of our energy could come from renewable resources.
So back to the question at hand: what technologies are needed?

Here are my picks:

(1) More efficient wind power. By this I mean less expensive turbines that produce more output with lower wind velocities. These efficiencies would allow development in much broader geographical regions, and would also foster more non-utility scale development. For this reason these new turbines wouldn't all need to be multi-megawatt machines. Imagine every school, housing development, or office building having a wind production machine on-site.
(2)  Ocean energy. Whether OTEC (ocean thermal), ruggedized offshore wind, wave power, ocean current power, or all of the above; the ocean is a very powerful resource. In Florida we have the Gulf Stream, a 50 mile wide and nearly one mile deep stretch of ocean that flows at a vigorous pace of about 3 knots. The kinetic energy of this is the equivalent of terawatts of continuous electrical power. It is only now that the very first turbines are being considered for testing here.
(3) Solar assisted air conditioning. AC is under the highest load when buildings are in direct sunlight, and the compressor is the highest energy consumer in a typical system. Concentrating solar power can heat fluids or gases to extremely high temperatures. It would seem that this heat could be used with minimal energy conversion to compress refrigerant for the AC system. This is just one of many possible solutions for using our prime heater, the sun, to keep us cool too.
(4) Renewable, carbon-free fuels. T. Boone Pickens says it best “you can’t run an 18 wheeler on a battery”. It is clear that transportation applications will need energy storage densities far greater than near-term electron-based storage mediums. Hydrogen has proven to be difficult to achieve high storage densities, but there are alternatives. One promising candidate is ammonia (NH3). It stores like propane, has a similar energy density, and is carbon-free.