This article ignores the elephant in the room, the 50-year stagnant 33%efficiency of the U.S. electric industry.  Traditional generation has long-since hit major physical efficiency limits.  No matter what the design, electricity-only power plants still convert half or more of the fuel's energy into byproduct thermal energy, which 93% of U.S. plants simply vent to atmposphere.

The electric utility trade association weighs in with its usual blinders. Per the article, "Achieving efficiency improvements going significantly beyond those already in the pipeline will be a major undertaking," says Diane Munns, executive director at Edison Electric Institute.

Studies for EPA indicate the U.S. could support 65 gigawatts of new power by recycling industrial waste energy streams.  These wasted energy recycling projects all deliver power at less than the cost of any new central power generation and produce no incremental pollution, no CO2.  Why is it a 'major undertaking' to recycle industrial waste energy?

Studies for DOE indicate the U.S. could build 135 gigawatts of new combined heat and power (CHP)that recycles the byproduct thermal energy to displace boiler fuel and thus achieves at least twice the fossil efficiency of our aging electric-only generation fleet.  These CHP plants cost less to build than new coal plants, need no new transmission wires, burn half as much fuel, and provide savings to the hosts, making U.S. manufacturing more competitive.  Why is building doubly efficient CHP plants a 'major undertaking'?

Ken writes ".. energy conservation is critical -- as is the need for more controversial fuel sources. None of the ideas comes free of charge and energy conservation is no different. It necessitates new technologies and perhaps some government incentives."

Whoa!  What is the basis for stating that 'none of the ideas comes free of charge'?  This assumes the aging power system, largely designed and built during an era of falling real fuel prices and prior to global warming concerns is nonetheless economically optimal.  Amazing assumption!  Nothing we can do to change the electric system would come 'free of charge'.

How long will we continue to ignore the elephant in the room?  Rules stack the deck against local generation that can recycle energy waste and double efficiency.  Utility commissions guarantee financial performance for new electric-only plants, and then allow the monopoly utilities to offer peanuts for new local generation.  The Clean Air Act gives old plants grandfather rights to pollute and makes new clean plants pay all the cost of cleaning the air.  Many other rules, designed by generation monopolies and enacted by compliant legislators, stack the deck against clean energy.  All of these rules  protect the elephant in the room - the 50-year stagnant efficiency of the entire electric system.

How long are we going to keep needlessly polluting the air by burning twice as much fuel as an optimal system, without demanding modern rules that will induce a building boom in profitable clean energy generation?

Tom Casten