TODAY’S STUDY: GOOGLE ON WHY NEW ENERGY IS THE WAY

When the story of this moment in history is told, it will be about the huge numbers of people in emerging economies coming out of poverty and the transition to New Energy that will make that emergence possible without further eroding the ecosystem and climate. An important part of that story may be Google’s role in facilitating the U.S. New Energy economy.

Google has recently invested
[1] $280 million in SolarCity for rooftop solar financing,
[2] $100 million in Oregon’s 845 megawatt Shepherd’s Flat project, the world’s largest wind farm,
[3] $38.8 million in 169.5 megawatts of North Dakota wind,
[4] power purchase agreements (PPAs) it access to 114 megawatts from an Iowa wind farm and 100 megawatts from a wind farm now under construction in Oklahoma,
[5] $168 million in a BrightSource Energy solar power plant now under construction, [6] $5 million in a solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant in Germany,
[7] over $100 million in California wind farms,
[8] one-third of the $6 billion for Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC), a transmission backbone system for offshore wind along the eastern seaboard, and
[9] in 9 or more ventures in startups, including ActaCell (batteries), Aptera (electric vehicles), Next Autoworks (advanced efficiency carmaker), Alta Rock (geothermal producer), RelayRides (car sharing), WeatherBill (weather insurance), Silver Spring Networks (smart grid technologies), Cool Planet Biofuels (next generation biofuels), Transphorm (power conversion).

And the corporation continues to invest in energy efficiency implementation at its data centers and in cutting edge advanced New Energy ventures.

Rick Needham, one of the Google execs leading the charge, recently told NewEnergyNews the company intends to show its business community peers that New Energy is as economically practical as it is environmentally sound.

Though the company has yet to prove that proposition with numbers demonstrating the benefits it has derived from buying New Energy and Energy Efficiency, the paper from Google researchers highlighted below effectively makes the general case. As it demonstrates, the logic of turning to this good earth’s sun, wind, deep heat and flowing waters in ultimately undeniable.

Still, Google needs to make the concrete business case. The corporate world will only slowly respond to theoretical statements like the Google paper below. What it needs to know is that a working company’s bottom line will be boosted by New Energy. Google is one of the few members of the business community in a position to prove that.

Hopefully, Google will do so before New Energy’s opponents begin demanding it either put up or shut up. History's next chapter awaits its champion.

The Impact of Clean Energy Innovation; Examining the Impact of Clean Energy Innovation on the United States Energy System and Economy
June 28, 2011 (Google.org)

Executive Summary

Our need for energy must be balanced against the often competing interests of the economy, environment, and national security. Clean, sustainable, safe, and secure sources of energy are needed to avoid long-term harm from geopolitical risks and global climate change. Unless fully cost-competitive with fossil fuels, the adoption of clean technologies will either be limited or driven by policy. Innovation in clean energy technology is thus needed to reduce costs and maximize adoption. But how far can energy innovation go towards meeting economic, environmental, and security needs? This analysis attempts to estimate the potential impact clean energy innovation could have on the US economy and energy landscape.

The analysis assumes aggressive hypothetical cost breakthroughs (BT) in clean power generation, grid-storage, electric vehicle, and natural gas technologies and compares them to Business as Usual (BAU) scenarios modeled to 2030 and 2050. The model also compares innovation scenarios in combination with two clean energy policy paths: 1) comprehensive federal incentives and mandates called “Clean Policy” and 2) a power sector-only $30/metric ton price on CO2 called “$30/ ton Carbon Price.” Our modeling indicates that, when compared to BAU in 2030, aggressive energy innovation alone could have enormous potential to simultaneously:

• Grow the US economy by over $155 billion in GDP/year ($244 billion with Clean Policy)

• Create over 1.1 million new net jobs (1.9 million with Clean Policy)

• Save US consumers over $942/household/year ($995 with Clean Policy)

• Reduce US oil consumption by over 1.1 billion barrels/year

• Reduce US total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 13% (21% with Clean Policy)

By 2050, innovation in the modeled technologies alone reduced GHG emissions 55% and 63% when combined with policy, while continuing positive economic and job growth. This analysis indicates that aggressive clean energy innovation could simultaneously help address the US’ major long-term economic, environmental, and security goals.

click to enlarge

Introduction

What is the value of clean energy innovation? How much could cheaper clean energy technologies contribute to our economy and energy security? How much could they reduce GHG emissions to mitigate global warming? Examining innovation’s potential and limitations in clean energy is critical for understanding its potential role in addressing the world’s economic, security and climate challenges.

To attempt to answer these questions, we modeled the impact of breakthroughs in key energy sectors: clean power, energy storage, electric vehicles, and natural gas.
Technologies were modeled on their own and in combination with clean energy policies and carbon pricing. This analysis does not attempt to predict innovations, model the best ways to drive innovation, or model the optimal mix of innovation policies. Rather, it sets out to estimate energy innovation’s potential impact based on assumed hypothetical breakthroughs.

Based on our modeling, we estimate that by 2030, innovation in the modeled technologies alone could have a transformative impact on the US, adding over $155 billion per year in GDP and 1.1 million net jobs, while reducing household energy costs by $942 per year, oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year, and GHG emissions by 13% relative to BAU. By 2050, annual gains in GDP increase to $600 billion, net additional jobs to 3.9 million, and emissions reductions to 55%.

click to enlarge

Methodology

US energy supply and demand is comprised of five major sectors: electrical generation and use, transportation (primarily oil for vehicles), buildings, industrial use, and agriculture. This analysis looked intensively at electrical generation and transportation, with a more limited assessment of building efficiency. Industrial efficiency and agricultural energy usage were not modeled in detail.

For each sector, we modeled several major technologies (e.g., in the clean power sector: solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc.). For each technology, we developed target “breakthrough” cost-performance levels for 2020 and 2030 through our own analysis and extensive consultation with outside experts. These states of innovation were assumed as fact, then modeled to estimate outcomes of achieving those levels of cost and performance. The modeled breakthrough levels are highly aggressive and would be challenging to reach even with a much more concerted push on innovation than at present.

We used the breakthrough cost-performance levels as inputs to McKinsey & Company’s Low Carbon Economics Tool (LCET).1 The LCET uses detailed micro-economic analysis to determine the impact of technologies and policies on demand and prices (e.g., how large would be the demand for technology X if it reached price Y and were supported by regulation Z?). These impacts are then fed to a macro-economic engine that estimates the resulting impact on GDP, jobs, and other key statistics. The LCET models each sector of the US economy in detail and by state. This analysis relied primarily on the power, transportation, and building units of the LCET.

For the reference control scenario, we modeled a Business As Usual (BAU) case based on technology cost-performance and commodity price assumptions from the US Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011 and our own perspective on current pricing.2

click to enlarge

Power Sector

We modeled breakthroughs in utility-scale and rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), geothermal including Enhanced Geothermal Systems, nuclear, retrofit and new build Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), and on- and off-shore wind. The rate of innovation for each technology was determined by improving capital expenditure, fixed and variable operating expenses, capacity factor, and heat rate (where applicable). This influenced the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) for each technology.

At the core of the power sector model is an hour-by-hour dispatch model that estimates hour-by-hour power dispatch by utility district for the entire US generating fleet and determines power pricing accordingly. Deployment of renewable resources is then modeled from the investor perspective, such that the cost of a new asset is measured against the lifetime returns from either the sale of electricity on the wholesale market or through power purchase agreements (PPAs). In order for an energy source to be deployed, its LCOE must be less than the regional wholesale electricity price, which in most regions is based on the marginal cost of generation from traditional sources such as coal and natural gas.

We optimistically assumed that all necessary transmission is built for new generation. Transmission costs were factored for a given generation source when deployed, which in most cases added between $5–10/MWh to its LCOE. Renewable energy costs were also influenced by resource distribution and availability, based on historical time-of-day generation performance.

Grid-Storage

We modeled two primary storage technologies: short duration storage capable of discharging loads for less than one hour; and larger scale storage capable of discharging for over one hour. We then modeled five business cases for storage: 1) Frequency Regulation; 2) Load Following; 3) Price Arbitraging; 4) Capacity Deferment; and 5) Grid Reliability.

Similar to the process described above for new generating capacity, storage deployment is modeled from the investor perspective. Batteries are installed when future cash flow for the five business cases above, less any operating costs over the lifetime of the battery, is greater than the capital cost. Modeling storage is done iteratively as increasing storage capacity eventually degrades the market for its services, inhibiting the deployment of more storage. Some storage capacity can serve multiple business cases, which is also captured by our modeling. For instance, batteries performing price arbitrage by charging at off-peak hours and discharging at on-peak hours could also bid into spinning reserve markets and perform load following.

click to enlarge

Transportation

To model breakthroughs in transportation, we set breakthrough cost performance levels for vehicle battery technology. Energy capacity cost ($/kWh), energy density (kWh/kg), duty life (charge cycles), and range (miles) were all improved at optimistic rates. These parameters then influenced vehicle cost and range, which drove vehicle purchasing.

Our estimate of vehicle adoption relied on a consumer choice model that estimated vehicle purchasing preferences as a function of sticker price, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and range, including realistic customer segmentation based on average vehicle miles driven, local climate (which affects heat and air conditioning use), and urban vs. rural driving patterns.

Modeled vehicle options included Electric Vehicles (EV), Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV), Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), and Internal Combustion Engine vehicles (ICE) in light, medium, and heavy duty variations (LDV, MDV, HDV). We assumed that charging infrastructure would be built in response to demand and would not act as a bottleneck.

Natural Gas

To model the impact of continued innovation in natural gas extraction and its effect on the energy system, we assumed an optimistically low Henry Hub spot gas price of $3/million British Thermal Units (MMBTU) and held it constant until 2030. We optimistically assumed that all gas demand triggered by the low price is able to be satisfied with production from domestic gas basins. The low natural gas price consequently increases the competitiveness of natural gas generation and Compressed Natural Gas vehicles.

click to enlarge

Policy

The impact of innovation was explored within three policy scenarios (see appendix for full descriptions and policy assumptions):

1. BAU (Current Policies), which held existing state and federal energy policies as they exist today and expiring on their approved timeline.

2. Clean Policy, a collection of existing or proposed federal policies including a Clean Energy Standard (25% CCS, renewables, and new nuclear by 2030), Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS), increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), increased EPA regulations on coal, extended Investment and Production Tax Credits, and a Loan Guarantee credit facility capped at $15 billion per year. This scenario optimistically assumes a very high level of effectiveness and efficiency in implementing these policies. For example, we assume that the energy efficiency regulations trigger only the most cost-effective among potential energy-savings measures.

3. $30/ton Price on Carbon, a power sector-only carbon price used to fund a cut in personal income tax rates. The $30/ton price was chosen because it can cause natural-gas generation to be dispatched ahead of coal, since the carbon intensity of coal generation can be more than double that of combined cycle gas turbines. Absent very aggressive cost reductions in clean energy, much higher natural gas prices, or regulation on natural gas, a price on carbon below $30/ton may not sufficiently incentivize cleaner sources.

Since we did not model all potential clean energy policies (e.g. economy-wide cap-and trade, smart grid policies, utility deregulation, etc.) or assess optimal mixes of policies, these scenarios offer a limited assessment of the potential impacts of clean energy policies.

click to enlarge

Key Findings

I. Innovation Could Pay Off Big

1. Innovation Benefits GDP, Jobs, Security and Emissions. Clean Energy Innovation could accelerate economic growth and improve energy security while significantly reducing carbon pollution. All the breakthrough technology and policy scenarios examined here created substantial economic and net job growth across the country by 2030. Breakthrough innovations in clean energy added $155 billion per year in GDP, creating 1.1 million net jobs, while reducing household energy costs by $942 per year, oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year, and GHG emissions 13% by 2030 vs. BAU.

Innovation drove job creation and economic growth in two primary ways. First, innovation reduced energy costs, which increased productivity, competitiveness, and demand. Lower-cost energy also created consumer savings on the order of $942 per household by 2030. These consumer savings, when circulated back into the economy, drove substantial economic and job growth outside the energy sector. Second, lowering the costs of clean technologies increased their deployment – driving associated manufacturing, construction, and operational employment.

The bulk of innovation’s benefits by 2030 were attributed to advances in battery technology, enabling adoption of EVs, PHEVs, and HEVs. Overall benefits from power breakthroughs were less than EVs by 2030 for two reasons. First, most consumers spend less on electricity than on gasoline, leading to less household savings from cheaper power. Second, due to the very low cost of coal in the US, clean power technology did not attain as large a cost advantage over fossil alternatives as was the case in the transportation sector with electric vehicles by 2030 .

The benefits of breakthroughs pay even larger dividends out to 2050. By 2050, annual gains in GDP increased to $600 billion, net additional jobs to 3.9 million, reduced oil consumption by 3.7 billion barrels per year, and emissions reductions of 55% vs. BAU.

click to enlarge

2. Reaching tipping points in Electric Vehicle (EV) battery technology could be transformative. Breakthroughs in battery technology could push EVs over cost-performance tipping points, enabling mass adoption. In our model, rapid decreases in battery costs and increases in energy density by 2030 enabled the production of electric vehicles with 300 mile range and a total cost of ownership (TCO) lower than that of internal combustion vehicles. This led to EVs, Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) and PHEVs achieving 90% market share of new light duty vehicle sales in 2030, reducing oil consumption by 1.1 billion barrels per year — or more than Canada’s entire 2009 production.

The outcomes of battery breakthroughs are striking. By rapidly reaching TCO and driving range tipping points, battery breakthroughs enabled EV, PHEV, and HEV light duty vehicles to comprise 58% of the US light duty vehicle fleet by 2030. The high rate of sales held even when EV breakthroughs were modeled against increasingly efficient internal combustion vehicles mandated by (CAFE) standards. Gasoline prices also heavily affected the hurdle for EV adoption. For example, at gasoline costs of $3.50/gal., breakeven TCO is reached at battery costs of ~$255/kWh for a 125 mile range BEV, while at $5/gal., breakeven TCO is reached at ~$355/kWh.

Electrifying transportation, even in scenarios where coal remained the dominant source of electricity, still reduced total transportation emissions (from all energy sources including electricity) by 9%, despite increasing electricity consumption by 13%. This resulted from two factors. First, much of the incremental electricity demand was met with incremental generation from natural gas and (in some scenarios) renewables sources. Second, electric drivetrains have a higher conversion efficiency (i.e., the power plant that generates the incremental electricity has a higher thermal efficiency than a vehicle’s internal combustion engine).

Oil consumption was cut by 1.1 billion barrels per year by 2030 in the EV breakthrough scenario. This equals a reduction of nearly 14% vs. BAU demand and over 26% of projected US oil imports in 2030…

By replacing high cost gasoline with cheap electricity, battery breakthroughs in our model also yielded substantial economic benefits from new manufacturing and consumer savings. GDP increased by $86 billion per year by 2030 and jobs by 560,000. Perhaps most compelling, EV breakthroughs alone generated net savings of $699 per household by 2030.

click to enlarge

3. Cheap Grid-Storage: Significant Opportunity and Unintended Consequences. In the long run, cheap grid-scale electricity storage can create large economic and environmental benefits for the US. Storage improved power quality and reliability, lowered power prices by allowing more efficient dispatch, and enabled much higher penetrations of intermittent solar and wind than would otherwise be possible.

In the absence of storage, wholesale prices in regions rich in renewable resources can plummet when wind or solar energy peaks and supply overwhelms demand. For example, this has already forced some wind farms in Texas to shut down at night, inhibiting additional deployment. Storage can alleviate this constraint by charging at times when renewable sources are strongest and then discharging when other demand is available.
When storage and power breakthroughs were combined, we estimated that storage enabled an additional 35% renewables generation by 2050.

In the short term, much cheaper storage, absent innovations in wind and solar that reduce their cost to below coal, could actually drive an increase in coal consumption. Cheaper storage would enable already cheap coal units to run at peak efficiency 24 hours/day, store energy at night and dispatch it during the day — reducing the demand for load-following natural gas capacity and ultimately resulting in a slight (0.3%) increase in CO2 emissions.

When storage breakthroughs were modeled alone, electricity prices decreased by 1%, job creation was modest at 52,000 jobs, and emissions slightly increased by 0.06 GT, or 0.3% by 2030. Storage alone created $8.6 billion in annual economic opportunity by 2030, with $4.4 billion accounted for by grid reliability services. However, when combined with power breakthroughs, storage enabled significant increases in wind and solar generation after 2030. When combined with storage, onshore wind, offshore wind, solar PV, and CSP accelerate from 18% of total generation in 2030, to 48% of total generation by 2050.

click to enlarge

II. Speed Matters

4. Delaying Breakthroughs = Delaying Benefits. Breakthroughs in clean energy can provide enormous benefits to the economy, national security, the environment, and the job market. But the longer we delay achieving those breakthroughs, the greater the benefits we stand to give up.

In the delay scenario, the same rates of innovation were assumed as in the All Tech Breakthrough scenario (Power, EVs, Storage), except that they started in 2015 from the projected 2015 BAU level, rather than in 2010.

In our model, a mere five year delay in starting aggressive cost reduction curves could cost the economy an aggregate $2.3–3.2 trillion in unrealized GDP gains,1.2–1.4 million net jobs and 8-28 gigatons of potential avoided CO2 emissions by 2050 (Delay Breakthrough vs. All Tech Breakthrough and $30/ton Carbon + Breakthrough)

5. Technologies that Innovate Fastest Win. The technologies that become cheaper than coal and oil fastest will dominate our clean energy future. An “innovation arms race” between clean technologies will encourage healthy competition, while benefiting consumers.

For example, in transportation, we explored EV and PHEV competition against Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). In the EV Breakthough scenario, EVs rapidly became cost competitive against CNG, leading to dominant market share for EVs, PHEVs, and HEVs. However, in a sustained era of cheap gas ($3/MMBTU), if EV breakthroughs do not happen quickly, CNGs will dominate the market and make it much harder for EVs to reach scale.

click to enlarge

III. Policy and Innovation Can Enhance Each Other

6. Smart Energy Policies and Breakthroughs are Mutually Beneficial. Breakthroughs in clean energy technology can reduce the cost associated with implementing policies such as Clean Energy Standards or carbon prices — growing the economy while de-carbonizing our energy use. Policies can also amplify the economic, security, and pollution benefits of breakthroughs by creating markets, dis-incentivizing the highest-emitting technologies, and leveling the playing field for clean energy, leading to increased adoption.

When $30/ton carbon price on the power sector was modeled on its own, with revenues returned to consumers through a cut in personal income tax rates, by 2030 annual GDP and job growth numbers were $53 billion and 558,000 respectively, while GHG emissions dropped by 9%. Consumer energy bills increased $152 per household by 2030 in this scenario. But, when combined with All Tech Breakthroughs, GDP growth increased to $182 billion, job growth to 1,558,000, while also reducing emissions 22% vs. BAU. Consumers now saved $761 per household when combined with breakthroughs.

When Clean Energy Policy was modeled on its own without breakthroughs, by 2030 annual GDP and job growth were positive at $37 billion and 458,000 respectively, while achieving a 16% reduction in GHG emissions. When combined with All Tech Breakthroughs, GDP growth increased to $244 billion, job growth to 1,959,000, while reducing emissions 21% vs. BAU. Consumer savings for the combined scenario was $995 per household.

click to enlarge

Breakthroughs on their own did not create as much value as when combined with policy. In the All Tech Breakthrough scenario, by 2030 annual GDP and job growth were slightly higher than Clean Policy at $155 billion and 1,117,000 respectively, and achieved a 13% reduction in GHG emissions vs. BAU.

The differences between All Tech Breakthrough’s impact with and without policy, were due to the difficulty reducing coal-fired generation without policy support for the technologies modeled. The marginal cost of coal is so low that existing coal was displaced only when cost breakthroughs were almost fully realized, which occurred after 2030 for most renewable generation technologies.

On the other hand, policy was a much stronger lever for reducing carbon from coal in the near term — either through pollution regulation, mandated retirements, or a carbon price. However, without the cheaper technologies produced by innovation, policy-only options led to fewer jobs and lower GDP than when combined with aggressive innovation.

7. Reaching 80% reductions in GHG emissions by 2050 requires multiple solutions based on the scenarios and technologies we modeled. We set very optimistic rates of innovation, pushing technologies hard on cost and performance. Even with aggressive breakthroughs, by 2050 we achieved only a 49% reduction in GHG emissions vs. 2005 emissions in the All Tech Breakthrough scenario, well short of the standard, IPCC-inspired reduction targets of 80% by 2050…

However, we only modeled innovations in a limited group of energy technologies. We did not model innovations in many promising sectors, including low-carbon fuels, internal combustion engines, industrial efficiency, advanced building materials, advanced building energy management, or agricultural practices. Since the subset of technologies we modeled achieved 49% emissions reduction, it is possible that a more comprehensive mix of innovations could achieve 80% reductions.

click to enlarge

Energy policies alone also did not develop trajectories for 80% reductions by 2050. But when carbon pricing was combined with breakthroughs, reductions reached 59% vs. 2005 levels. This indicates that policy and innovation combined likely increase the potential for reaching climate mitigation targets.

Reaching 80% reductions by 2050 will be difficult and likely require much more aggressive innovation and policy than we currently have today. Thus, this analysis supports the need for a multi-pronged US strategy, combining both aggressive innovation and policy to mitigate climate change while growing the economy.

8. Coal is Very Hard to Displace on Economics Alone: Coal power is abundant and cheap, especially from older and fully depreciated plants. Major displacement of coal generation did not occur until clean energy became cheaper than the marginal cost of coal, which occurred predominately after 2030 even with breakthroughs.

We used LCOEs of $66/MWh and $28/MWh for new and existing coal respectively. In BAU, coal use is held roughly flat to 2020 by existing state CES laws and EPA regulations. But once RPS targets are achieved, coal use increases again in tandem with demand, rising a net 12% by 2030.

Only our breakthrough assumptions for Solar PV and Geothermal were cheap enough to replace existing coal by 2030. Thus, none of the breakthrough-only runs reduced 2030 coal generation by more than 5%.

Policies alone also did not reduce much coal use by 2030. Clean Policy reduced coal use 17% and $30/ton Carbon reduced coal by 15% vs. BAU. Clean Policy’s higher impact was driven by aggressive EPA regulations, increasing compliance costs, and driving retirements of existing coal units. The highest reductions seen were from the $30/ton + Breakthrough scenario, which achieved nearly 20% reductions vs. BAU.

Post-2030, breakthroughs in generation become cost advantaged and start to pay off significantly. As clean power reaches its lowest price points, displacement of coal accelerates rapidly from 2030 to 2050. By 2050, All Tech Breakthrough reduced coal 66%, and the $30/ton CO2 + Breakthrough scenario reduced coal use 87%.

click to enlarge

9. Cheap natural gas could reduce GHG emissions in the short term but also slow the deployment of clean energy sources in the long term. Initially, the improved economics of natural gas in our hypothetical $3/MMBTU price environment led to coal-to-gas switching and made coal plant retirements more economical. In the long term, when prices were held low, gas out-competed carbon-free energy. By 2030, in our Cheap Gas scenario, total generation from gas surged by 86%, overall emissions were reduced slightly by 6% from coal displacements, and households saved an average of $555 through switching to CNG vehicles and cheaper electricity. But cheap gas on its own reduced the total deployment of renewables, CCS and nuclear by 47% vs. All Tech Breakthrough and 57% vs. Clean Policy + Breakthrough.

When combined with breakthroughs, the benefits of cheap gas increased. As EV breakthroughs kicked in, EVs became advantaged vs. CNG vehicles, leading to higher household energy and oil savings. The cheaper electricity prices created by cheap gas actually increased EV, PHEV, and HEV combined sales by 100,000 vehicles per year. By increasing EV penetrations and some breakthrough low-carbon generation, Cheap Gas + Breakthroughs reduced overall emissions 15% by 2030.

However, the breakthrough renewables, CCS, and nuclear technologies needed for deep long-term GHG reductions, struggled in competition with cheap gas. Even with breakthroughs, their deployment was reduced 26% vs. All Tech Breakthrough and 40% vs. Clean Policy + Breakthrough by 2030.

Our hypothetical future of cheap gas is clearly optimistic as gas prices are notoriously volatile. But the advent of abundant and cheap unconventional resources has pushed gas spot-prices to the low $4/MMBTU range. Thus, it is critical to understand the impact sustained cheap gas could have on the energy system.

click to enlarge

Conclusion

Energy innovation is a powerful tool capable of simultaneously addressing society’s goals of economic growth, enhanced energy security, environmental health, and de-carbonization.

This project’s analysis suggests that breakthroughs in clean energy technologies could meaningfully improve the quality of our lives. Some of these benefits could accrue quickly, such as switching away from oil to electric transportation. Others, like lower-cost clean generation technologies, are long-term investments which begin paying enormous dividends around 2030, increasing through 2050.

Getting there will take the right mix of effective policy, a major sustained national investment in innovation by public and private institutions, and the increased mobilization of the private sector’s entrepreneurial energies.

The benefits are clear, so let’s go!