No need for new power plants

Joe Romm, a Clinton Administration expert on energy issues, says we don’t need any new power plants if we will just get serious enough about conservation.

A 2007 report from the international consulting firm McKinsey and Co. found that improving energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and factories could offset almost all of the projected demand for electricity in 2030 and largely negate the need for new coal-fired power plants. McKinsey estimates that one-third of the U.S. greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 could come from electricity efficiency and be achieved at negative marginal costs.

Romm notes new building standards in California is already showing how this could be done nationally. I agree. New home building ordinances across the nation, mandating high insulation standards, use of recycled materials, etc., would be a serious step forward.

Along with that MUST go, as in California, close inspection. (One in seven houses in a new development gets inspected for energy issues out there. California already has a reputation as being a stickler on structural inspections.)

Another benefit? Costs of energy efficiency, per kilowatt-hour, are only about one-fifth as high as from building new power plants.

On the corporate side, Romm cites Dow Chemical, which has an annual energy efficiency contest.

Beyond that, Romm says the energy return can happen quickly and at high scale:

In my five years at DOE, working with companies to develop and deploy efficient and renewable technologies, and then in nearly a decade of consulting with companies in the private sector, I never saw a building or factory that couldn't cut electricity consumption or greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent to 50 percent with rapid payback (under four years). My 1999 book, "Cool Companies," detailed some 100 case studies of companies that have done just that and made a great deal of money.

Read the full story, for more, including how to ramp this up to the federal level.