Search

The benefits of biomass as an alternative fossil fuel can be realized mainly through biomass consumption. This paper examines the growth rate and spatial patterns of biomass consumption in the United States (hereafter US) during the period 2000–2012, using the SLOPE index, Moran's I and local Moran's I. Results indicate that US States show either slow growth or slow decline in biomass consumption during the period 2000–2012. The number of States that have slow growth in biomass consumption is slightly larger than the number of States showing slow decline. The pattern of growth rate of biomass consumption revealed by the SLOPE index and the observed pattern of the temporal variation of biomass consumption ensures that the SLOPE index can catch the growth rate of biomass consumption. This pattern does not align with the increased annual investment in biomass, indicating that the investment in biomass does not flow down to the biomass industry effectively. The pattern of growth rate of biomass consumption will provide additional evidence for the debates about the effectiveness of State renewable energy policy, and demonstrates an urgent need for appropriate State renewable energy policies. There is a High-High spatial cluster around the Southeast of the US and a Low-Low spatial cluster in the Middle of the US in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. The regional spatial cluster in biomass consumption has somewhat relationship with the growth rate of biomass consumption, which can help the understanding of the growth rate of biomass consumption. • The SLOPE index is used to investigate the growth rate of biomass consumption. • The pattern of growth rate does not align with the increased annual investment. • There is an urgent need for appropriate State renewable energy policies. • There are regional clusters in biomass consumption in 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. • The regional spatial cluster has somewhat relationship with the growth rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American electric utility industry is entering a moment of transition. Once viewed as a stable and secure consortium of publicly regulated monopolies that produce and distribute electricity, the industry has weathered market restructuring only to face the ever-present risk of natural disasters, price fluctuations, terrorist attacks, and blackouts. This paper uses five criteria—technical feasibility, cost, negative externalities, reliability, and security—to evaluate the broad portfolio of energy technologies available to American electricity policymakers. Upon close inspection, energy efficiency practices, renewable energy systems, and small-scale distributed generation technologies appear to offer many advantages over large and centralized nuclear and fossil fueled generators. Contrary to the mimetic commentary produced by the media, these three approaches would present policymakers a superior alternative for curbing electricity demand, minimizing the risk of fuel interruptions and shortages, helping improve the fragile transmission network, and reducing environmental harm [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]