Architecture 2030: Efficiency Could Save 20 Coal Plants

Written by on May 1, 2008

We’ve got to do something about climate change now. Unfortunately, carbon capture technology is 20 years away, it takes more than a decade to build a nuclear plant, and renewables like solar and geothermal have a huge barrier to overcome before they can be cost competitive.

So what do we do? Well, Architecture 2030 has created their blueprint to the future (PDF), which outlines how to reduce emissions by massive amounts without changing our energy mix at all. By implementing existing technologies at low costs, Architecture 2030 has determined that we could save far more energy far cheaper than we could ever hope to manage in the near-term with even old, established technologies like nuclear power.

The results of their $21 B investment scenario are insane; they’ve calculated that it would:

  1. Replace 22.3 conventional coal-fired plants
  2. Reduce CO2 emissions by 86.7 MMT
  3. Save 204 billion cubic feet of natural gas
  4. Save 10.7 million barrels of oil
  5. Save consumers $8.46 billion in energy bills
  6. Create 216,000 new jobs.

Investing that same money in clean coal or nuclear infrastructure would, in the best case, only replace 8 coal plants.

It’s obvious where the money needs to go, and Architecture 2030 is calling on the global architecture community to adopt standards that will make this a reality.


3 Responses to “Architecture 2030: Efficiency Could Save 20 Coal Plants”

  1. ozi ozi says:

    Upside down Miss Jane
    I haven’t seen figures for the USA. Over here, another ~25% of most people’s carbon footprint is their food. They also seem to have avoided looking at embodied energy in construction, designing smaller buildings with greener materials.
    Seriously, the global architecture community has been looking at this stuff intensely since the 70s.
    I’m calling on the global non-architectural community to adopt standards that will make this a reality.

  2. curt says:

    Very, very intelligent post!
    Far the most efficient carbon capture are plants and natural forests, and we don’t need to wait 20 years or even a second to perform them worldwide.
    Renewable energy sources, such as solar power (heat collection, PV electricity generation), geothermal, wind, tidal power, ocen currents, need only and only a few months of serious Government/Congress work to make a final breakthrough, if only they would have wanted to achieve total energy independence.
    Saving energy is far the cheapest way of addressing most of the mentioned problems.
    $21billion is just a few weeks of Iraq war and it doesn’t represent a lot in US budget, especially if we consider truly fantastic positive effects to national economy and to environment, as well.

  3. james says:

    energy cost
    What would it mean to this world if the huge price we pay currently for energy would become much less as we became deeply involved in renewable sources plus far greater efficiency? What a huge amount of capital would be freed up for other things, such as decent health care, and a myriad of other worthy directions.
    I wonder how much better life could be with more intelligent planning.