 |
| Beijing smog in January 2013 |
A couple of weeks ago, the
New York Times published an article about the successful roll back of green energy mandates in Ohio. The writer made
it sound as though the evil fossil fuel lobby convinced gullible legislators to
“freeze the phase-in that utilities must buy from renewable energy sources”.
What disturbed me about
the article is that it made no mention of the economic considerations. If the original plan, passed in 2008, was
allowed to go forward, what would happen to the cost of energy in a state that
has seen its manufacturing jobs heading for other places for many years?
As a society, we prefer a
clean environment. No one wants his or
her kids to breath dirty air or drink polluted water. We have all seen pictures of the smog in
Beijing. And, Ohioans over the age of 50 can remember the sight of the Cleveland's Cuyahoga River on fire in 1969.
But, can we have our cake
and eat it too? Can we eliminate fossil
fuel energy without causing economic calamity?
That question will be
subject to the usual partisan politics that have affected all of the important
issues of our time. And, once the new
EPA mandates are made effective next year, there are bound to be battles fought
in court.
But, if we can get past
all that, is it feasible?
The new mandates require
each state to reduce its output of carbon by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Ten states have already met that requirement. Four of them (New York, New
Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts) – members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative – have reduced carbon by nearly 40%.
 |
| Cuyahoga River on fire in 1969 |
So, how will we get there?
Everyone has a theory, it
seems. Many are intriguing. Fresh Energy CEO Michael Noble posits that an ultra low carbon system can be set up through a hybrid of nuclear and renewables. The idea of nuclear energy
sets off alarm bells in the minds of many Americans. However, it has been used safely to provide
75% of the power in France for over 30 years.
And, new technologies, such as the use of thorium rather than more volatile light-water reactors, make nuclear safer than it has been in the past.
A Stanford University
research team led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson has developed a roadmap for
each of the 50 states to reach 100% sustainable energy by 2050 using existing
technologies. Stanford’s roadmap
suggests we replace fossil fuel plants as they age out so as not to drive up
costs.
Whatever roadmap we, as a
nation or state-by-state, decide to pursue, there will be bumps along the
way. Projects will stall. There will be cost overruns. The promised benefits will be under
delivered. And, whenever that happens,
opponents on the political right will say, “I told you so”.
From the left, we hear
that the green lobby has criticized the new EPA mandates as not being
aggressive enough. Any suggestions of
energy sources that will provide a “bridge” to a sustainable future are
unacceptable to them. However, economic
feasibility is an important criterion in order to maintain the support of the
consuming and voting public. In the near
term, converting power plants from coal to natural gas will reduce both cost
and greenhouse gas emissions.
New methods of extracting
natural gas (hydraulic fracturing or fracking) have made this alternative to
coal inexpensive and available. The
conversion from coal to natural gas can be done so quickly and cost-effectively
that 15% of US power plants will have converted by the time the new government
mandates kick in at the end of next year.
The abundance of natural
gas within our borders promises to reduce oil imports and provide cheaper
electricity while the alternatives are being developed and scaled. Bans on fracking and pipeline construction
that will deliver natural gas safely and cheaply are counterproductive.
Further, fears about the
dangers of fracking are unfounded. According
to Scientific American the question isn’t whether it can be done safely. It’s “will it be done safely?”
What are essential are
careful planning, flexible regulations and the support of a well-educated
public. If we can get past the usual tug-of-war
between the extreme left and right, we can achieve a sustainable energy future
without damaging our economy.
The only question…
WHO WILL LEAD?
