Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One predominant theme in American energy and electricity policy is the idea of a “portfolio approach,” or that society must embrace an assortment of different energy technologies simultaneously. This article argues that such a strategy, in practice, is (a) biased, since fossil fuel and nuclear technologies have been heavily favored; (b) opaque, obscuring the different full social costs of energy systems; (c) inequitable, promoting technologies that contribute to climate change; and (d) unsophisticated, ignoring important qualitative differences among technologies. The article estimates the full social costs of electricity generation, concluding that the five cheapest forms of electricity generation are all renewable resources; that intermittency is not a reason to reject renewable energy technologies; that nuclear power has significant technical and environmental problems, especially from a greenhouse gas emissions and climate change perspective; and that “clean coal” and carbon capture and sequestration technologies face significant challenges to deployment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer, C. L., & Jacobson, M. Z. (2007). Supplying baseload power and reducing transmission requirements by interconnecting wind farms. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 46, 1701–1717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banales-Lopez, S., & Norberg-Bohm, V. (2002). Public policy for energy technology innovation: A historical analysis of fluidized bed combustion development in the USA. Energy Policy, 30, 1173–1180. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00013-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnaby, F., & Kemp, J. (2007). Secure energy? civil nuclear power, security, and global warming. Oxford, UK: Oxford Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. A., Chandler, J., Lapsa, M., & Sovacool, B. K. (2007). Carbon lock-in: Barriers to the deployment of climate change mitigation technologies. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL. U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, TM-2007(124). Available at http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/PDFs/Carbon_Lock_In_Report.pdf.

  • Cooper, C., & Sovacool, B. K. (2007). Renewing America: the case for a national renewable portfolio standard. New York, NY: Network for New Energy Choices.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (1979). On thinking about future energy requirements. In C. T. Unseld, D. E. Morrison, D. L. Sills & C. P. Wolf (Eds.), Sociopolitical effects of energy use and policy (pp. 232–240). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denholm, P., Kulcinski, G. L., & Holloway, T. (2005). Emissions and energy efficiency assessment of baseload wind energy systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 39, 1903–1911. doi:10.1021/es049946p.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Wind Energy Association. (2005). Large scale integration of wind energy in the european power supply: Analysis, issues and recommendations. Paris: EWEA.

  • Felder, F., & Haut, R. (2008). Balancing alternatives and avoiding false dichotomies to make informed U.S. electricity policy. Policy Sciences, 41(2), 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenpeace. (1997). Oiling the machine: fossil fuel dollars funneled into the U.S. political process. Washington, DC: Greenpeace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, R., Heptonstall, P., Anderson, D., Green, T., Leach, M., & Skea, J. (2006). The costs and impacts of intermittency: An assessment of the evidence on the costs and impacts of intermittent generation on the british electricity network. London, UK: Imperial College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, J. (1999). Tipping the scales: Why congress and the president should create a federal interim storage facility for high-level radioactive waste. Journal of Land, Resources, and Environmental Law, 19, 293–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, A. (2006). ‘The Impact of Renewable Portfolio Standard on Future Rate Hikes in Virginia’, Power-Point Presentation to the Energy Virginia Conference, October 17.

  • Hultman, N. E., Koomey, J. G., & Kammen, D. M. (2007). What history can teach us about the future costs of U.S. nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(7) 2088–2099.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAEA—International Atomic Energy Agency. (2001). Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050. Geneva: IAEA.

  • IEA—International Energy Agency. (2005). Variability of wind power and other renewables: management options and strategies. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA—International Energy Agency. (2007). World energy outlook, Available at http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/WEO2007SUM.pdf.

  • Karmis, M., Abiecunas, J., Alwang, J., Aultman, S., Bird, L., Denholm, P., et al. (2004). A study of increased use of renewable energy resources in Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, C. (2007). What is the Percentage of Federal Subsidies Allotted for Wind Power? Renewable Energy Access, April 10. Available at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=48070.

  • Logan, J., & Venezia, J. (2007). Weighing U.S. energy options: The WRI bubble chart, WRI policy note on energy security and climate change. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, J., Venezia, J., & Larsen, K. (2007). Opportunities and challenges for carbon capture and sequestration. WRI Issue Brief, 1, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovins, A. B. (1979). A target critics can’t seem to get in their sights. In H. Nash (Ed.), The energy controversy: Soft path questions and answers (pp. 15–34). San Francisco, CA: Friends of the Earth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, P. (2006). Market penetration rates of new energy technologies. Energy Policy, 34, 3317–3326. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2005.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, P. (2007). Effectiveness of policy measures in transforming the energy system. Energy Policy, 35, 627–639. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midwest Independent System Operator. (2006). Final report—2006 Minnesota wind integration study. Knoxville, TN: EnerNex Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (2007). Energy & environmental giving in the states. New York, NY: National Institute on Money in State Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namovicz, C. (2006). Issues in wind resource supply data and modeling, Presentation at the ASA committee on energy statistics, fall 2006 meeting, October 5, 2006. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/smg/asa_meeting_2006/fall/files/nemmodel.pdf.

  • Nayak, N. (2005). Redirecting America’s energy: The economic and consumer benefits of clean energy policies. Washington, DC: Public Interest Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, P. (1988). Introduction: Nailing Jelly to the Wall’. In P. Novick (Ed.), That noble dream: The ‘objectivity question’ and the American Historical Profession, (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ottinger, R. L., & Williams, R. (2002). 2002 Energy law symposium: Renewable energy sources for development. Environmental Law (Northwestern School of Law), 32, 331–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, W. (2007). Keeping the lights on: Towards sustainable electricity. London, UK: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pehnt, M. (2006). Dynamic life cycle assessment of renewable energy technologies. Renewable Energy, 31, 55–71. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2005.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D., Herz, M., Glickstein, M., Zimmerman, M., Allen, R., Becker, K., et al. (2002). Renewable energy: Current and potential issues. Bioscience, 52, 1111–1120. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[1111:RECAPI]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piwko, R., Osborn, D., Gramlich, R., Jordan, G., Hawkins, D., & Porter, K. (2005). The effects of integrating wind power on transmission system planning, reliability, and operations, report on phase 2: System performance evaluation. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2006a). PUCHA Repeal: Higher prices, less R&D, and more market abuses? Electricity Journal, 19, 85–89. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2005.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2006b). Using distributed generation and renewable energy systems to empower developing countries. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability, 2, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2007). Coal and nuclear technologies: creating a false dichotomy for american energy policy. Policy Sciences, 40, 101–122. doi:10.1007/s11077-007-9038-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2008a). Distributed generation (DG) and the american electric utility system: What is stopping it? Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 130, 16–25. doi:10.1115/1.2824296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2008b). Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, 36, 2940–2953. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundqvist, T. (2004). What causes the disparity of electricity externality estimates? Energy Policy, 32, 1753–1766. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00165-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundqvist, T., & Soderholm, P. (2002). Valuing the environmental impacts of electricity generation: A critical survey. Journal of Energy Literature, 8, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. [EIA] Energy Information Administration. (2006). Annual energy outlook 2006: With projections to 2030, (pp. 78–84). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

  • U.S. [EIA] Energy Information Administration. (2007). Annual energy outlook 2007. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/earlyrelease.pdf.

  • Vine, E., Kushler, M., & York, D. (2007). Energy myth ten—energy efficiency measures are unreliable, unpredictable, and unenforceable. In B. K. Sovacool & M. A. Brown (Eds.), Energy and American society—thirteen myths (pp. 265–288). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilbanks, T. J., Leiby, P., Perlack, R., Ensminger, J. T., & Wright, S. B. (2007). Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: Some preliminary findings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 713–725. doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9095-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the U.S. National Science Foundation for grants SES-0522653, ECS-0323344, and SES-0522653, which have supported elements of the work reported here. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Toby J. Carroll also provided invaluable suggestions in the revision of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469C Bukit Timah Rd., Singapore, 259772, Singapore

    Benjamin K. Sovacool

Authors
  1. Benjamin K. Sovacool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin K. Sovacool.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sovacool, B.K. The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy. Policy Sci 41, 245–261 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9063-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-008-9063-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation