Advanced Energy Technologies
Key Challenges to Their Development and Deployment Gao ID: GAO-07-550T February 28, 2007For decades, the nation has benefited from relatively inexpensive energy, but it has also grown reliant on fossil fuels--oil, natural gas, and coal. Periodic imported oil supply disruptions have led to price shocks, yet the nation's dependence on imported energy is greater than ever. Fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide--linked to global warming--have also raised environmental concerns. The Department of Energy (DOE) has funded research and development (R&D) on advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies. GAO's report entitled DOE: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs examined the (1) R&D funding trends and strategies for developing advanced energy technologies; (2) key barriers to developing and deploying advanced energy technologies; and (3) efforts of the states and six selected countries to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies. GAO reviewed DOE R&D budget data and strategic plans and obtained the views of experts in DOE, industry, and academia, as well as state and foreign government officials.
DOE's budget authority for energy R&D, when adjusted for inflation, fell 85 percent from its peak in fiscal year 1978 to fiscal year 2005. Energy R&D funding in the late 1970s was robust in response to constricted oil supplies and an ensuing energy crisis, but R&D funding plunged when oil prices returned to their historic levels in the mid-1980s. DOE's R&D efforts have resulted in steady incremental progress in reducing costs for renewable energy, reducing harmful emissions of coal-fired power plants, and improving safety and efficiency for nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the nation's dependence on conventional fossil fuels remains virtually the same as 30 years ago. Further development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies face several key challenges. High Capital Costs: The high capital costs of advanced energy technologies worry risk-averse investors. For example, solar cells made to convert solar energy into electricity for homeowners and businesses have been typically too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. DOE's R&D efforts include developing new materials for solar cells that could decrease manufacturing costs. Environmental Concerns: Advanced energy technologies need to address harmful environmental effects, including bird and bat fatalities cause by wind turbines, carbon dioxide and mercury emissions by coal-fired power plants, and spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors. Technology-Specific Challenges: Challenges that are unique to each technology also create barriers to development and deployment. Ethanol, for example, will need to be manufactured with more cost-competitive technologies using agricultural residues or other cellulosic materials in order to expand beyond corn. Other challenges include developing new wind technologies to expand into low-wind and offshore locations; developing advanced coal gasification technologies to further reduce harmful emissions and high capital costs; and working with the nuclear power industry to deploy a new generation of reactors and develop the next generation to enable reactors to reprocess highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel or produce hydrogen. Many states and foreign countries have forged ahead of the federal government by successfully stimulating the deployment of renewable energy technologies. For example, renewable energy accounts for 3 percent of Texas' electricity consumption because Texas enacted legislation in 1999 and 2005 requiring its electric utilities to meet renewable energy capacity standards. Similarly, Denmark has used mandates and financial incentives to promote wind energy, which provided 19 percent of its electricity in 2005.
GAO-07-550T, Advanced Energy Technologies: Key Challenges to Their Development and Deployment
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-550T
entitled 'Advanced Energy Technologies: Key Challenges to Their
Development and Deployment' which was released on February 28, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Wednesday, February 28, 2007:
Advanced Energy Technologies:
Key Challenges to Their Development and Deployment:
Statement of Jim Wells, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-550T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-550T, a testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
For decades, the nation has benefited from relatively inexpensive
energy, but it has also grown reliant on fossil fuels”oil, natural gas,
and coal. Periodic imported oil supply disruptions have led to price
shocks, yet the nation‘s dependence on imported energy is greater than
ever. Fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide”linked to global
warming”have also raised environmental concerns. The Department of
Energy (DOE) has funded research and development (R&D) on advanced
renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies. GAO‘s report
entitled DOE: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying
Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs examined the (1) R&D
funding trends and strategies for developing advanced energy
technologies; (2) key barriers to developing and deploying advanced
energy technologies; and (3) efforts of the states and six selected
countries to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies. GAO
reviewed DOE R&D budget data and strategic plans and obtained the views
of experts in DOE, industry, and academia, as well as state and foreign
government officials.
What GAO Found:
DOE‘s budget authority for energy R&D, when adjusted for inflation,
fell 85 percent from its peak in fiscal year 1978 to fiscal year 2005.
Energy R&D funding in the late 1970s was robust in response to
constricted oil supplies and an ensuing energy crisis, but R&D funding
plunged when oil prices returned to their historic levels in the mid-
1980s. DOE‘s R&D efforts have resulted in steady incremental progress
in reducing costs for renewable energy, reducing harmful emissions of
coal-fired power plants, and improving safety and efficiency for
nuclear energy. Nevertheless, the nation‘s dependence on conventional
fossil fuels remains virtually the same as 30 years ago.
Further development and deployment of advanced renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy technologies face several key challenges:
* High Capital Costs. The high capital costs of advanced energy
technologies worry risk-averse investors. For example, solar cells made
to convert solar energy into electricity for homeowners and businesses
have been typically too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. DOE‘s
R&D efforts include developing new materials for solar cells that could
decrease manufacturing costs.
* Environmental Concerns. Advanced energy technologies need to address
harmful environmental effects, including bird and bat fatalities cause
by wind turbines, carbon dioxide and mercury emissions by coal-fired
power plants, and spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power reactors.
* Technology-Specific Challenges. Challenges that are unique to each
technology also create barriers to development and deployment. Ethanol,
for example, will need to be manufactured with more cost-competitive
technologies using agricultural residues or other cellulosic materials
in order to expand beyond corn. Other challenges include developing new
wind technologies to expand into low-wind and offshore locations;
developing advanced coal gasification technologies to further reduce
harmful emissions and high capital costs; and working with the nuclear
power industry to deploy a new generation of reactors and develop the
next generation to enable reactors to reprocess highly radioactive
spent nuclear fuel or produce hydrogen.
Many states and foreign countries have forged ahead of the federal
government by successfully stimulating the deployment of renewable
energy technologies. For example, renewable energy accounts for 3
percent of Texas‘ electricity consumption because Texas enacted
legislation in 1999 and 2005 requiring its electric utilities to meet
renewable energy capacity standards. Similarly, Denmark has used
mandates and financial incentives to promote wind energy, which
provided 19 percent of its electricity in 2005.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO‘s report recommended that the Congress consider further stimulating
the development and deployment of a diversified energy portfolio by
focusing R&D funding on advanced energy technologies.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-550T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jim Wells, at (202) 512-
6877 or wellsj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges that our nation
faces in meeting its future energy needs. The United States has
primarily relied on market forces to determine its energy portfolio.
These market forces have generally succeeded in providing us with
plentiful, reliable, and generally inexpensive gasoline to power our
vehicles and electricity to run our homes and businesses. However, most
of this energy comes from conventional fossil fuels--oil, natural gas,
and coal--the dependence on which has brought increased economic and
national security risks and adverse environmental impacts. In 1973,
1979, 1991, and 2005, the nation's crude oil supplies were constricted
contributing to major energy price shocks. Despite these price shocks
and related energy crises, the United States is even more dependent on
imported crude oil and natural gas today than it was 30 years ago. And,
without dramatic change, the nation will become ever more reliant on
imported oil and natural gas with corresponding threats to the U.S.
economy and national security. Perhaps equally important, the growing
recognition that global warming is linked to carbon dioxide emissions
from burning coal and oil will need to be addressed. Given these
threats, the nation will almost certainly need to make much more
tangible progress than has been achieved to date to diversify our
energy portfolio by reducing conventional fossil fuel usage and
developing and deploying advanced energy technologies.
Since its inception in 1977, the Department of Energy (DOE) has had
leadership responsibility for energy research, development, and
demonstration (R&D) that enable the nation to deploy advanced energy
technologies for meeting future demands and diversify its energy
portfolio.[Footnote 1] During the past 29 years, the Congress has
provided DOE about $50 billion for R&D in renewable, fossil, and
nuclear energy technologies.[Footnote 2] Regrettably, however, the
nation is still not currently positioned to deploy alternative energy
technologies in the next 25 years that will reverse our growing
dependence on conventional fossil energy.
My testimony today is based on our December 2006 report on key
challenges to developing and deploying advanced energy
technologies.[Footnote 3] Specifically, my testimony will address (1)
funding trends for DOE's energy R&D program, (2) key barriers to
developing and deploying advanced energy technologies, and (3) efforts
of the states and six selected countries to develop and deploy advanced
energy technologies.
Summary:
DOE's budget authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D
declined by over 85 percent (in inflation-adjusted terms) from 1978
through 2005, dropping from about $5.5 billion in fiscal year 1978 to
$793 million in fiscal year 2005.
Figure 1: DOE's Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear
R&D, Fiscal Years 1978-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
Note: Budget authority is in real terms, adjusted to fiscal year 2005
dollars to account for inflation.
[End of figure]
DOE's R&D efforts have made renewable technologies more cost
competitive, reduced harmful sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
pollution by coal-fired power plants, and improved the safety and
operating efficiency for nuclear reactors. However, DOE and the energy
industry still need to overcome enormous technological and financial
challenges before advanced energy technologies are likely to supplant
fossil fuels on a national scale. For example, because many high-wind
sites have been developed, for the wind industry to expand, it will
need to develop low-wind and offshore sites that require new designs,
technologies, and materials, and will face higher upfront capital
costs. Similarly, development and use of advanced coal gasification and
carbon sequestration and storage technologies to control harmful carbon
dioxide emissions is dependent upon additional technological
breakthroughs and lowered costs.
While federal R&D funding has declined and the government has relied on
the market to make advanced energy technology deployment decisions,
many states have assumed higher profile roles by enacting standards,
mandates, and financial incentives primarily to stimulate renewable
energy technologies that address their growing energy needs and
environmental concerns. For example, in Texas over 1,900 megawatts of
new renewable capacity was installed and renewable energy now accounts
for 3 percent of electricity consumption because legislation enacted in
1999 and 2005 requires Texas' utilities to meet renewable energy
capacity standards. In addition, each of the six countries we reviewed-
-Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain, and France--has used mandates
and/or financial incentives to deploy advanced energy technologies that
are providing, or are expected in the future to provide, significant
amounts of energy. For example, Brazil has replaced all of its imported
oil with ethanol, wind energy provides 19 percent of Denmark's
electricity, and Germany's renewable energy technologies generate 10
percent of its electricity.
Background:
For the past several decades, the United States has enjoyed relatively
inexpensive and plentiful energy supplies, relying primarily on market
forces to determine the energy mix that provides the most reliable and
least expensive sources of energy--primarily oil, natural gas, and
coal. In 1973, oil cost about $15 per barrel (in inflation-adjusted
terms) and accounted for 96 percent of the energy used in the
transportation sector and 17 percent of the energy used to generate
electricity. As shown in figure 2, the 2004 U.S. energy portfolio is
similar to the 1973 energy portfolio. In 2004, oil accounted for 98
percent of energy consumed for transportation, and coal and natural gas
accounted for about 71 percent of the energy used to generate
electricity. Renewable energy--primarily hydropower--remains at 6
percent of U.S. energy consumption.
Figure 2: Comparison of the U.S. Energy Portfolio in 1973 and 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of EIA data.
[End of figure]
However, since 1973, U.S. crude oil imports have grown from 36 percent
of consumption to 66 percent of consumption today, and crude oil prices
have jumped particularly in recent years to today's $60 per barrel
level.
DOE's Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear Energy R&D
Has Declined by Over 85 Percent in Real Terms Since 1978:
Despite growing dependence on foreign energy sources, DOE's budget
authority for renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D dropped from
$5.5 billion (in real terms) in fiscal year 1978 to $793 million in
fiscal year 2005--a decline of over 85 percent. As shown in figure 3,
renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy R&D budget authority each peaked
in the late 1970s before falling sharply in the 1980s. Total budget
authority for the three energy R&D programs has risen after bottoming
out in fiscal year 1998.
Figure 3: DOE's Budget Authority for Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear
R&D, Fiscal Years 1978 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
Note: Budget authority is in real terms, adjusted to fiscal year 2005
dollars to account for inflation. Excludes DOE program management costs
and indirect facilities costs of DOE laboratories.
[End of figure]
DOE's renewable R&D program has focused on ethanol, wind, and solar
technologies, making steady incremental progress over the past 29 years
in reducing their costs. DOE's goal is for biofuels production in 2030
to replace 30 percent of current gasoline demand, or about 60 billion
gallons per year. In 2005, ethanol refiners produced 3.9 billion
gallons of ethanol, primarily from corn, that was used (1) as a
substitute for methyl tertiary-butyl ether, known as MTBE, which oil
refineries have used to oxygenate gasoline and (2) to make E85, a blend
of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline for use in flex fuel
vehicles. To achieve its production goal, DOE is developing additional
sources of cellulosic biomass--such as agricultural residues, energy
crops, and forest wastes--to minimize adverse effects on food prices.
In recent years, DOE's wind program shifted from high-wind sites to low-
wind and offshore sites. Low-wind sites are far more plentiful than
high-wind sites and are located closer to electricity load centers,
which can substantially reduce the cost of connecting to the
electricity transmission grid. Low-wind and offshore-wind energy must
address design and upfront capital costs to be competitive. DOE's solar
R&D program focuses on improving photovoltaic systems, heat and light
production, and utility-size solar power plants. DOE is exploring thin-
film technologies to reduce the manufacturing costs of photovoltaic
cells, which convert sunlight into electricity. Similarly, DOE's solar
heating and lighting R&D program is developing technologies that use
sunlight for various thermal applications, particularly space heating
and cooling. DOE is also working with industry and states to develop
utility-size solar power plants to convert the sun's energy into high
temperature heat that is used to generate electricity.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, DOE's fossil energy R&D provided funding
through the Clean Coal Technology Program to demonstrate technologies
for reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. DOE also has
focused on developing and demonstrating advanced integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technologies. More recently, DOE
proposed a $1 billion advanced coal-based power plant R&D project
called FutureGen--cost-shared between DOE (76 percent) and industry (24
percent)--which will demonstrate how IGCC technology can both reduce
harmful emissions and improve efficiency by integrating IGCC with
carbon capture and sequestration technologies for the long-term storage
of carbon dioxide. According to DOE, FutureGen is designed to be the
first "zero-emissions" coal-based power plant and is expected to be
operational by 2015.
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, DOE's nuclear energy R&D program shifted
from improving safety and efficiency of nuclear power reactors to
developing advanced reactor technologies by focusing on (1) the Nuclear
Power 2010 initiative in an effort to stimulate electric power
companies to construct and operate new reactors; (2) the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, or GNEP, to develop and demonstrate technologies
for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that could recover the fuel for
reuse, reduce radioactive waste, and minimize proliferation threats;
and (3) the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, or Gen IV,
to develop new fourth generation advanced reactor technologies intended
to reduce disposal requirements and manufacture hydrogen by about 2020
to 2030.
Advanced Renewable, Fossil, and Nuclear Energy Technologies Face Key
Barriers to Market Deployment:
Advanced renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies all face
key challenges to their deployment into the market. The primary
renewable energy technologies with the potential to substantially
expand their existing production capacity during the next 25 years are
ethanol, a partial substitute for gasoline in transportation, and wind
and solar energy technologies for generating electricity. For advanced
fossil technologies, the primary challenge is controlling emissions of
mercury and carbon dioxide generated by conventional coal-fired plants
by using coal gasification technologies that cost about 20 percent more
to construct than conventional coal-fired plants and demonstrating the
technological feasibility of the long-term storage of carbon dioxide
captured by a large-scale coal-fired power plant. For advanced nuclear
technologies, investors face substantial risk because of nuclear
reactors' high capital costs and long construction time frames and
uncertainty about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) review of
license applications for new reactors.
One of ethanol's biggest challenges is to cost-effectively produce
ethanol while diversifying the biomass energy sources so it can grow
from its current 3-percent market share. DOE is exploring technologies
to use cellulosic biomass from, for example, agricultural residues or
fast-growing grasses and trees. In addition, ethanol requires an
independent transportation, storage, and distribution infrastructure
because its corrosive qualities and water solubility prevent it from
using, for example, existing oil pipelines to transport the product
from the Midwest to the east or west coasts. As a result, fewer than
1,000 fueling stations nationwide provide E85 compared with 176,000
stations that dispense gasoline. Ethanol also needs to become more cost
competitive. Even with the recent spikes in gasoline prices, ethanol
producers rely on federal tax incentives to compete. In October 2006,
Consumer Reports estimated that drivers paying $2.91 per gallon for E85
actually paid about $3.99 for the energy equivalent amount of a gallon
of gasoline because the distance vehicles traveled per gallon declined
by 27 percent. Finally, congressional earmarks of DOE's biomass R&D
funding rose from 14 percent of the fiscal year 2000 funds to 57
percent ($52 million) of the fiscal year 2006 funds, according to a DOE
program official.
Both wind and solar technologies have experienced substantial growth in
recent years, but both wind and solar technologies face important
challenges for future growth. In particular, wind investors pay
substantial upfront capital costs to build a wind farm and connect the
farm to the power transmission grid, which can cost $100,000 or more
per mile on average, according to DOE officials. Because both wind
energy and solar energy are intermittent, utilities have been skeptical
about using them, relying instead on large baseload power plants that
operate full time and are more accessible to the transmission grid. In
contrast, wind turbines operate the equivalent of less than 40 percent
of the hours in a year because of the intermittency of wind. In
addition, the electricity that is generated must be immediately used or
transmitted to the grid because it cannot be cost effectively stored.
For the wind industry to expand from high-wind sites to low-wind and
offshore locations, DOE needs to also develop bigger wind turbines with
longer blades mounted on taller towers, requiring improved designs and
materials for blade and drive train components. In addition, offshore
wind development faces such technical challenges as understanding the
effects of wave and ocean current loads on the base of the structures.
The wind industry also faces concerns about environmental impacts,
including bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Finally,
investors interested in developing wind energy have relied on the
federal production tax credit as a financial incentive to construct
wind farms. The credit has periodically expired, resulting in a boom-
and-bust cycle for the wind power industry.
Solar energy also faces a challenge of developing inexpensive
photovoltaic solar cells. As a result of R&D efforts, photovoltaic
cells, consisting mostly of crystalline-silicone materials, are
becoming increasingly efficient, converting nearly 40 percent of
sunlight into electricity for some applications, but the cells are
expensive for the typical homeowner. DOE is exploring how to reduce
manufacturing costs through thin-film technologies, but at a cost of
efficiency. DOE's challenge is to increase efficiency and reduce costs
in the thin-film technologies.
Reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants continues to be the
priority for DOE's fossil energy R&D. Having significantly reduced
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, DOE is now focusing on reducing
mercury and carbon dioxide emissions. Gasification technologies, such
as the IGCC configuration, holds the most promise, but at a 20 percent
higher cost than conventional coal-fired power plants. To address
global warming concerns, DOE's challenge is to reduce the cost of
gasification technologies and demonstrate the large-scale sequestration
and long-term storage of carbon dioxide.
A significant obstacle facing nuclear power is the high upfront capital
costs. No electric power company has applied for a NRC license to
construct a new nuclear power plants in almost 30 years in large part
because of a long legacy of cost over-runs, schedule delays, and
cancellations. Industry officials report that new nuclear power plants
can cost between $1.5 billion and $4 billion to construct, assuming no
problems in the licensing and construction process, with additional
expenses for connecting the plant to transmission lines. In addition,
investors have grown concerned about the disposal of a legacy of spent
nuclear fuel. While NRC has revised its licensing process to address
past concerns over licensing delays and added costs because of
requirements to retrofit plants, investors are uncertain of the
effectiveness of the revised regulations. Recently, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of Chicago issued
studies comparing nuclear power's costs with other forms of generating
electricity.[Footnote 4] Both studies concluded that, assuming no
unexpected costs or delays in licensing and construction, nuclear power
is only marginally competitive with conventional coal and natural gas
and, even then, only if the nuclear power industry significantly
reduces anticipated construction times. MIT also reported, however,
that if carbon were to be regulated, nuclear energy would be much more
competitive with coal and natural gas.
The States and Countries We Reviewed Have Implemented a Variety of
Initiatives to Encourage the Development and Deployment of Advanced
Energy Technologies:
While federal R&D has declined in recent years, the states have enacted
legislation or developed initiatives to stimulate the deployment of
renewable energy technologies, primarily to address their growing
energy demands, adverse environmental impacts, and their concern for a
reliable, diversified energy portfolio. As of 2006, (1) 39 states have
established interconnection and net metering rules that require
electric power companies to connect renewable energy sources to the
power transmission grid and credit, for example, the monthly
electricity bill of residents with solar-electric systems when they
generate more power than they use; (2) 22 states have established
renewable portfolio standards requiring or encouraging that a fixed
percentage of the state's electricity be generated from renewable
energy sources; and (3) 45 states offer various tax credits, grants, or
loans. For example, renewable energy accounts for 3 percent of Texas'
electricity consumption because Texas enacted legislation in 1999 and
2005 that created a renewable portfolio standard requiring electric
utilities to meet renewable energy capacity standards.
We identified six countries--Brazil, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Spain,
and France--that illustrate a range of financial initiatives and
mandates to stimulate the development and deployment of advanced
renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy technologies. Through mandates
and incentives, Brazil initiated an ethanol program in 1975 that
eventually led to an end to Brazil's dependence on imported oil.
Denmark focused on wind energy and, in 2005, derived 19 percent of its
electricity from wind energy. Germany began a more diversified
renewable energy approach in 2000 and has a goal to increase the share
of renewable energy consumption to at least 50 percent by 2050. Japan
subsidized the cost of residential solar systems for 10 years,
resulting in the installation of solar systems on over 253,000 homes
and the price of residential solar systems falling by more than half.
Spain hopes to lead the way for European Union investments in an IGCC
coal power plant, improving efficiency and generating fewer emissions
than conventional coal-fired plants. Finally, France has led Europe in
nuclear energy and plans to deploy new nuclear power plants within the
next decade.
Concluding Observations:
The United States remains the world's largest oil consumer. In the wake
of increasing energy costs with the attendant threat to national
security and the growing recognition that fossil fuel consumption is
contributing to global climate change, the nation is once again
assessing how best to stimulate the deployment of advanced energy
technologies. However, it is unlikely that DOE's current level of R&D
funding or the nation's current energy policies will be sufficient to
deploy advanced energy technologies in the next 25 years. Without
sustained high energy prices or concerted, high-profile federal
government leadership, U.S. consumers are unlikely to change their
energy-use patterns, and the United States will continue to rely upon
its current energy portfolio. Specifically, government leadership is
needed to overcome technological and market barriers to deploying
advanced energy technologies that would reduce the nation's
vulnerability to oil supply disruptions and adverse environmental
effects of burning fossil fuels.
To meet the nation's rising demand for energy, reduce its economic and
national security vulnerability to crude oil supply disruptions, and
minimize adverse environmental effects, our December 2006 report
recommended that the Congress consider further stimulating the
development and deployment of a diversified energy portfolio by
focusing R&D funding on advanced energy technologies.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Richard Cheston, Robert Sanchez, and Kerry Lipsitz
made key contributions to this statement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] DOE is also responsible for energy efficiency programs, which are
integral to addressing future energy challenges by reducing demand.
[2] All historical DOE R&D budget authority totals are presented in
real terms by adjusting them to fiscal year 2005 dollars to account for
inflation.
[3] GAO, Department of Energy: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and
Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs, GAO-07-106
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2006).
[4] MIT. The Future of Nuclear Power (Cambridge, MA: July 2003);
University of Chicago, The Economic Future of Nuclear Power (Chicago,
IL: August 2004).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
