Page images
PDF
EPUB

Q1.5 The specific assumptions that were made concerning energy conversion ratios, if they were assumed in the calculations.

Q1.6 The specific assumptions that were made concerning energy prices for each energy source and each energy using sector for each year, before, during and after the beginning of adoption of the technologies.

Q1.7 The specific assumptions that were made concerning the role of existing or potentially new taxes in the calculation, when the taxes would be adopted and by whom they would be paid.

Q1.8 The specific assumptions that were made concerning the emissions that are presumed to be associated with each energy or other emissions source, in terms of emissions per unit of energy and total emissions for each pollutant and each energy source (e.g., energy using sector) in each year.

Q1.9 Any energy, energy cost, or other cost or savings that was not taken into account in the calculations leading to the quoted conclusion.

Q1.10 Any other assumption or calculation that played an part in the reaching the conclusion reflected in the above quoted phrase.

Q1.11 Names and specific page and/or table numbers for any references documents that identify or explain the technologies, and/or assumptions.

A11-A1.11 The specific assumptions referred to in these questions can be found in detail in Scenarios of Carbon Reductions Appendices (hereafter, Appendices) which is enclosed with this response. The appendices found in this volume provide a comprehensive set of assumptions and information regarding specific technology performance, type of energy user, capital and operating costs, quantities of energy consumed, energy conversion ratios, energy prices, energy taxation, carbon emissions, omitted considerations and references.

Five-Lab Study Specific Calculations

Q2.

A2.

DOE's September 25, 1997 press release on the Five-Lab study reflects DOE's claim that a carbon emissions reduction of 390 million tons would be required, that the potential cost would be $50 to $90 billion per year, and the energy cost savings would be $70 to $90 billion per year through 2010. The Subcommittee is interested in learning about the calculations that support the conclusion in the Press Release. Please provide a copy of that spreadsheet or spreadsheets showing the detailed calculations.

See Appendices for detailed calculations supporting the conclusion of the above

Five-Lab Study Peer Reviewers

Q3. Please provide the name and organization for each person who participated in the "peer review" of the study and indicate which parts of the study were reviewed by that person. Also, please indicate whether each of the peer reviewers is now or has been employed by DOE or DOE contractor, grantee, or subcontractor.

A3.

For purposes of clarity, a distinction is made regarding the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Persons who actually worked for the Department of Energy or one of its National
Laboratories;

Persons who worked in an area of an organization that received a direct grant or
contract with the Department; and

Persons who worked for a large organization that had received a contract or grant from the Department in some area of the company wherein the reviewer had limited contact.

The following is the list of the reviewers of the Five-Lab study:

Dr. William Fulkerson, Chairman

University of Tennessee

Dr. Fulkerson was previously employed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Economics

Dr. Stephen DeCanio

University of California

Santa Barbara

Dr. DeCanio is employed by the University of California system which has received grants from the Department of Energy. However, he has not:

actually worked for the Department of Energy or one of its National Laboratories;

worked in an area of an organization that received a direct grant or contract with the Department;

and

Dr. Al Link

Greensboro, North Carolina

Dr. Link indicates that he has never been employed by DOE, DOE contractor,

grantee, or subcontractor.

Buildings

Dr. Morton H. Blatt

Electric Power Research Institute

EPRI has been a Department grantee.

Industry

Dr. Daniel E. Steinmeyer

Monsanto Chemical Company

Was a contractor on a recent study issued by Argonne National Laboratory published in July, 1997, and has a temporary affiliation with Argonne National Laboratory.

Transportation

Dr. Robert A. Frosch

Kennedy School

Harvard University

Served with the President's Council on Science and Technology as a reviewer, but

not otherwise affiliated with the Department.

Electricity

Dr. Douglas C. Bauer

National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Bauer was previously employed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Methodology

Hillard G. Huntington

Energy Modeling Forum

Stanford University

Dr. Huntington is currently working on a contract from DOE at the Energy Modeling Forum.

Thomas Roose

Gas Research Institute

GRI has cofunded projects with the Department. He has not been otherwise

affiliated with the Department.

Cost of Five-Lab Study

Q4.

Please provide an accounting of any costs that have been or will be incurred in completing the study and preparing the report, including a breakdown of those costs by DOE organization, contractor, grantee or subcontractor.

[blocks in formation]

Q5.

A5.

An International Energy Agency report, Technological Solutions for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, concluded that the mitigation of CO2 emissions is feasible but costly. For example, it estimates that the capture of CO2 from flue gas could increase the cost of electricity generation by at least 40 to 50 percent above current levels. Do you agree with this assessment, and what can we do to bring costs down?

We agree. The cost of capture of CO2 from flue gas is expensive, and the Department is working with industry to reduce these costs. Research on technologies that capture CO2 after combustion and those which remove CO2 from fossil fuels before combustion look promising as an option which may be cost-effective in the long-term.

However, the Five-Lab study did not address the cost of capturing CO2 from flue gas in coal-fired electricity generation, because it examined implementation of technologies which are more cost-effective in the near-term. At this time, it is generally more costly to capture CO2 emissions after a fossil fuel is oxidized than it is to reduce the amount of carbon-based fuel needed to provide a given level of energy service. In other words, compared to coal plant ?scrubbers,? the following strategies are less costly:

increasing the efficiency of homes, appliances, cars and generating plants, or

· switching from coal to lower carbon fuel sources such as renewables and natural gas.

We can do a great deal to lower the costs of climate change mitigation. Indeed, this is one of the major conclusions of the Five-Lab Study. With a vigorous national commitment to develop and deploy energy-efficient and low-carbon technologies, our Nation has the potential to achieve 1990 levels of carbon emissions in 2010 without high cost. In fact, in the high efficiency/low carbon technology scenario of the Five-Lab study, the value of energy saved is roughly equal to or exceeds the costs of deploying "clean"

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Q6.

It is estimated that the average American produces more than five times the greenhouse gas emissions of the average person on Earth. Concerning this:

Q6.1 How much does the average American produce in economic output compared to the average person on Earth?

A6.1

In 1993, the Gross Domestic Product per capita was the following:

[blocks in formation]

Source: World Resource Institute, World Resources Guide to the Global
Environment, 1996-1997 edition.

Q6.2 Is the U.S. average of CO2 emissions per unit of economic output above, below, or equal to the world average?

A6.2 The world average CO2 emissions per unit of economic output is about the same as the U.S. average of CO2 emissions per unit output.

Fuel Cells

Q7.

Sources: Climate Action Report 1997 (U.S. submission to U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change), Conference Report, 1997 (compilation of U.S.
Commerce Department data), Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United
States 1996, (Energy Information Administration, October 1997).

The DOE recently announced a breakthrough in the development of fuel cells that can operate on gasoline.

Q7.1 How long will it be before automobiles equipped with this technology will be available to consumers?

A7.1 Automobiles equipped with this technology are projected to be available commercially between 2005 and 2010. This would achieve one goal of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). Progress in fuel cell and fuel processing technology has been rapid, both in the United States and in Europe and Japan as well. The PNGV envisions that gasoline-fueled fuel cell vehicles with on-board fuel processors would be the first vehicles to market in the U.S. because of the ability to utilize the existing fueling infrastructure.

« PreviousContinue »