guest commentary
Real Energy Solutions for Today and Tomorrow
By Bob Ekey, Guest Writer, 8-20-08
 |
|
 | |
| Prairie Reef, Rocky Mountain Front, Montana | |
|
I like the brief look of surprise when friends asked where we vacationed this summer and I reply: “We went to Montana!”
Last winter, our summer plans looked much different – and a lot more distant. But, like many Americans, the price of gasoline and jet fuel prompted us to reconsider. Gasoline prices and their domino effect on the price of food, tires and other goods has many of us changing our practices. Now, if we can only change our energy policies too.
I’m old enough to remember traveling cross-country during gasoline shortages in the 1970s, which prompted people to change their practices then too – for a few years. But as energy prices dropped our political leadership fell back into a slumber like kids in the backseat of a car on a long trip.
One similarity with today and the experience of the 1970s is that while people might change their practices our politicians fail to change policies that could have at least lessened the impact of energy prices. Unfortunately, some politicians are on the same track to repeat our mistakes from three decades ago.
Today, there are some Congressmen back in Washington, D.C., railing against gas prices and saying we need to drill our way out of the price crisis. They blame the work of conservationists for the record high prices, trying to tap the outrage we all feel at the pump to appease their industry backers. I figure that anytime an elected official decides to talk to an empty room on television instead of real people at home, those Congressmen are wrong.
Many of The Wilderness Society’s members have worked hard to get Congress and our federal agencies to keep their oil rigs out of some of America’s most special and sensitive lands, and to adopt best practices in the areas they do go into. At the same time, our members have lobbied for energy policies that will carry us into the future by protecting the environment and enhancing national security.
Despite what the oil industry claims, the amount of land that is off limits to drilling – places like Yellowstone national Park, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Bob Marshall Wilderness – have not affected energy industry or prices. In fact, right now there are more drilling rigs operating on American soil than the entire rest of the world (1,900 versus 1,300). And the oil and gas industry holds leases on nearly 44.5 million acres of just federal land for oil and gas drilling, but they actually drill on less than 12 million of those acres – barely one-fourth of the land available to them.
Putting all that land into oil production would take a decade and, when it came online, it would hardly make a dent in world supply. With only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, and 25 percent of the world’s oil consumption, even old oilman T. Boone Pickens says “we can’t drill our way out” of this crisis.
We need policies that encourage development of wind, solar, other renewable energy sources and conservation, which are far more powerful tools than drilling for easing demand for oil – and the quickest way to reduce prices.
But we have done the opposite. Since 2001, the Bush Administration has approved 35,000 applications for oil and gas drilling without approving a single solar project. In the same time span, only 500 megawatts of wind energy have been approved.
In addition, this administration continues to oppose technologies that move away from oil, such as blocking adoption of reliable tax credits for solar and wind energy, incentives for hybrid and electric cars, and a national Renewable Electricity Standard.
Last year, President Bush declared that we are “addicted to oil.” Then, he and some congressional leaders immediately began to lobby to increase the supply – sustaining the addiction. The next time we hear congressional or administration leaders saying we need to drill our wild places to sustain our addiction, I hope you call them on it and say we need to be weaned, and we need leadership to get there.
We faced a hard choice in the 1970s and failed in the long term. Today we face that admittedly hard choice again. We can embark on a new energy future that will undoubtedly have its challenges and drawbacks, but will also have advantages including less pollution and increased national security. Or, we could look to the past and open up the last of our nation’s best most sensitive places to a failed energy approach of the past.
Rather than taking a rear-view mirror approach to energy policy, I think that today we need to get over our outrage at fuel prices by getting started working on real solutions for today and tomorrow.
Bob Ekey is Northern Rockies regional director for The Wilderness Society. He can be reached at bob_ekey@tws.org.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
>>>>>>>
Asked whether drilling for oil should be allowed everywhere, Pickens answered "I say yeah, let's go ahead and do it."
<<<<<<<<<<<<
In my opinion, nuclear, not the options you mentioned, is the means to energy transition and our future. The others simply are not cost effective.
Your article in New West Missoula 8/20/08, Real Energy Solutions for Today and Tomorrow, put forth no solutions. It was merely a rant against oil. Would you propose putting up huge wind turbines that chop to death millions of migrating birds and bats? Creatures that would combat the mosquito and grasshopper infestations we experienced this summer. Or perhaps covering vast expanses of wilderness with solar collectors like in the Mojave Desert that diminishes the “view-scape” and destroys thousands of acres of sensitive desert habitat and the endangered species that cling to life there? Is it possible that these ridiculous contrivances could even contribute to climate change by slowing the wind just enough to cause changes in weather patterns, and reflect radiation back into the atmosphere increasing the ‘warming’ effect?
What is driving demand for energy? POPULATION. Start your campaign where the seeds of the problem are. Instead of railing against resources that our culture and economy has come to depend on [and your summer vacation too], I suggest you would put your efforts to limiting over-development, protecting land for agriculture [FOOD not FUEL], and radical reduction of immigration.
>>>>>>>>>
Proposed wind farm shrinks in size
By MATTHEW BROWN
Associated Press
A 500-megawatt wind farm north of Glasgow that was shelved after running into opposition from environmentalists will be revived as a 50-megawatt project, the chief executive behind the proposal said Monday.
The Valley County wind farm had been suspended earlier this year after several environmental groups lined up against the project over concerns its 400-foot tall turbines would loom over an adjacent wilderness area.
After local officials lobbied aggressively to have it restored, Gary Evans, chief executive of GreenHunter Energy Inc. of Grapevine, Texas, said his company decided it would return to Valley County with a pared-down project.
"We've cut it down to 10 percent of its original goal, from 500 megawatts to 50 megawatts," Evans said. "It's now probably a $60 million project versus something that was half a billion before."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not exactly pro wind advocacy in my book.
The SUV was popularized during the Clinton Administration, and the violent protesters against nuclear power approved of, and gave us, more coal power.
The point is, all parties and persons must work together to reduce energy consumption. We did it during WWII, and the early 1970's.
Your mantra of anti Bush is destructive and not valid because all former administrations have failed, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, who at least vocalized the need for conservation and the end of dependency on foreign energy.
Wind Energy: A Future for All of Us
By Peter Aengst
October 2, 2007
The United States needs clean, renewable electric power. That’s why The Wilderness Society supports harnessing wind as an increasingly appealing option toward meeting our nation’s energy needs while also grappling with challenges such as global warming, air pollution, and energy independence.
Recent news accounts may have created a wrong impression concerning a specific wind energy proposal, and it’s important to clarify the record: The Wilderness Society wants to see wind energy succeed, and to succeed here in Montana.
To that end, we place a high importance on working with industry, communities, private land owners, and others to develop energy. We strongly support a process where Montanans together can literally and figuratively build a map toward success – working with the Governor or other elected officials, experts, companies, communities, and land management agencies to find and develop those places that have suitable wind and transmission lines, garner community support, and allow protection of other conservation values.
Montana is a big state with a lot of open country and a lot of wind. We are confident that many places – such as the recently built wind farm at Judith Gap south of Lewistown – can be found to appropriately develop wind energy. These places would likely be closer to existing transmission lines, in areas already developed with road networks for servicing the wind generators, and places with fewer conflicts with birds.
As we look to increase the use of wind power, some discussion about the suitability of specific sites for wind development makes sense. Just as there are a lot of opportunities in the state for wind energy development, there are also some places are better left as they are today.
That’s the crux of the concern that The Wilderness Society and other conservation and sportsmen organizations expressed concerning a proposed wind project in Valley County, Montana. A Texas-based company, called Wind Hunter, proposed developing a 20,000 acre project on BLM, state, and private land that included 334 turbines and a new 34 mile transmission line.
The project was proposed for development immediately adjacent to one of the most remote, wild, and picturesque places left on America’s northern prairie – the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area/Area of Critical Environmental Concern (WSA/ACEC). Here one finds still native prairie without any roads, power lines, houses, lights, or towers. Even fencing is minimal. As public land, it’s renown for birding and hunting opportunities as well as its unmarred, forever vistas.
Wind facilities need to go where entrepreneurs want to put them, where there are suitable wind conditions, and where power can be transmitted economically. We strongly support wind power in Montana and Valley County and asked the BLM to review several alternative locations that that would develop wind power in the region while reducing impacts on Bitter Creek. The BLM, so far, has refused.
The first alternative location was along consolidated state land to the southeast of the proposed site that has similar wind performance data. Such a location would generate more revenue for Montana schools while also shortening transmission line requirements. Another possibility is the former military base at Saint Marie, now called the Valley Industrial Park. It is relatively close to the proposed site and already has power lines and good access to roads.
As a third option, the Bowdoin Gas Field encompasses a huge swath of Montana prairie west of Valley County with an existing road network. Public lands in this area already are impacted and would make a good location for an industrial wind facility. The Judith Gap wind facility was established among Air Force missile sites. Surely, wind turbines could be combined with gas wells. Also, the Fort Peck Reservation also has expressed interest in wind power development.
Unfortunately, Wind Hunter and the BLM have refused to consider anything other than the one location immediately next to Bitter Creek. Now, even before any final BLM decision, Wind Hunter says it’s going somewhere else that is easier to do business. If the company wants to blame us, so be it. But with a little more effort and cooperation, Montana could have wind power and pristine prairie. One does not need to be sacrificed for the other.
A newspaper editorial recently called for local leaders to “help develop wind energy projects where they are appropriate in the state.” On that, we are in full agreement. Together we can promote this new clean energy source in locations that work well for Montana, both today and tomorrow.
-----------------------------
Peter Aengst is the Deputy Director for the Northern Rockies office of the Wilderness Society, based in Bozeman.
Bitter Creek is one of the most unique non-protected wilderness areas in all of the northern plains. The area has plant communities that have been totally eradicated almost everywhere else, it is roadless for the most part, and it lies just below the Palliser Triangle, and in the heart of the Glaciated Plains, but was left relatively undisturbed during the great plow-up that led to the Dust Bowl. Like the Flint Hills of Kansas, the diversity of prairie grasses and wildlife here is like a living museum of what evolved
over eons to adapt and survive in this place. It is extraordinarily valuable, both in an aesthetic sense- there ain't many places left on earth like it- and as an ecological and seed bank. (last time I checked, grass seed mix from native prairie on the Flint Hills was running $24 an ounce)
This objection to this development is not NIMBYism, and I am surprised that you, who I consider extremely well-informed, would
call it so.
I look at the Bitter Creek proposal and the support for it from all quarters, the anger at any objection to it, and I see something very disturbing. I see a worldview, the view that nothing has any value, and that everything should be sacrificed in the pursuit of energy, or money, or whatever, and that anyone who objects is guilty of NIMBYism, or is being "impractical" or "standing in the way of ...fill in the blank.
People are using the objections to the development of Bitter Creek to try and show how utterly stupid any objection, to any kind of development, is. When really, nobody in their right mind would put this giant project here, in this unique place, produce electricity to squander in a power grid that would be the laughingstock of any first year efficiency expert.
There is a world view that says nothing matters, that we will destroy every last place, any time we want, and we will justify it, however we want, and we will crush our opposition by whatever means necessary. This worldview has powerful proponents, with deep pockets and endless access to media.
But there is another worldview, that has other values, which include respect for Creation, and practical ideas that include not destroying ecological systems that we don't fully understand, just to get something that we could, by using our brains and our abilities, use less of - its called being efficient. It is called using innovation, so that we do not have to destroy every last place to serve a power grid that wastes almost half of every kilowatt we put into it. That side points out that we are blowing up mountains in Appalachia to get coal that we burn to power air conditoners that waste, at their very best, 20% of the power that goes into them. Millions of tons of coal, hundreds of square miles of forest, billions of gallons of water contaminated, so that people can cool themselves with systems that waste 1/5 of all the power that goes into them. Good idea?
The other side- the ones that argue we don't have to do it like this, that we don't have to sacrifice Bitter Creek and pour the power into nothingness, just because money can be made in the short run, will also not bow down.
It's a trick question, I know, but which side do you think God is on?
I know this area as I have hunted it in the past.
When I travel along I-90 and see the windmills near Ellensburg and the Columbia banks, aren't the arguments on both sides the same?
The new facility that is being built near Ethridge, aren't the arguments the same as it affects wildlife habitat near the Marias and the Cut Bank rivers?
The only thing missing is the wilderness label.
Instead of saying, "Go somewhere else!" isn't it far more constructive to explore how to have both co-exist successfully? I don't know the reasons why the initial Glasgow site was chosen versus other areas but I don't think they chose it to put a sharp stick in anyone's eye. A discussion about possibilities might have been fruitful rather than just obstructionism. In the op-ed that is quoted there is nothing about the wilderness folks efforts to initiate that discussion. Just self-justification and finger pointing. Just my opinion.
And Hal, I can't understand your perspective at all. It is only humans that care how habitat looks. The animals and plants care only how it works. As for God, I think He's busy...or maybe just patient.
Never mind that a pilgrimage to "pristine" Bitter Creek involves a fair amount of modern technology and dead dinosaurs, unless of course you feel like hiking from the Low Line.
It is a fact that TWS MWA et al fought the Bitter Creek wind farm on viewshed issues alone. The plants in the Bitter Creek area don't have eyes, and I'm sure the beasties that can see don't care much either way what towers do to their view.
The only legitimate problems with the location are the same trade-offs as any other wind facility: Avian mortality and minor sound and visual impacts. Those can be moderated.
This is just more two-faced weasel-wording hypocrisy, from both Ekey and Aengst. One either supports wind energy or one does not. I am sick and tired of the deceptive line "wedon'topposeallthingswejustopposethemHERE."
Here's my plan. People who oppose resource production, especially of resources they use every day, should be denied such use.
Then the price would go down for the rest of us, and we'd have more to use and enjoy wisely. There would be less guilt all around...
That being said, since the stars are aligning to push wind power, then suffering Montana communities should have a shot at the economic rejuvination those projects bring. But I hate those GD towers. I hate the hypocrisy of the wilderness folks. Just say
you oppose it rather than loving it to death. AND if they really mean to support wind, then engage in conversations of possibility with the developers.
Obama has an excellent record for energy independence. (100% rating)
McCain:
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
* 0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
* 30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
* 70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)
Voted YES on "defunding" renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Obama: (Note more votes because McCain did not vote on many energy issues)
# Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
# Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
# Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
# Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
# Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
# Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
# Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
# # GovWatch: $150B for electric car batteries & new technology. (Jun 2008)
# GovWatch: Supports nuclear power if it's clean & safe. (Jun 2008)
# GovWatch: Opposes Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. (Jun 2008)
# Gas tax holiday is a classic Washington gimmick. (May 2008)
# Raise fuel efficiency standards to reduce long-term demand. (Apr 2008)
# Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. (Feb 2008)
# Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism. (Sep 2007)
# Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007)
# Cheney met environmentalists once; but Big Oil 40 times. (Jul 2007)
# Wants Detroit to build more hybrids & use more ethanol. (Oct 2006)
# We cannot drill our way out of our addiction to oil. (Oct 2006)
# Conserve, develop alternative fuels, increase efficiencies. (Oct 2004)
# 20% nation's power supply from renewable sources by 2020. (Sep 2004)
# 20% renewable energy by 2020. (Jul 2004)
# Invest in alternative energy sources. (Jun 2004)
# Increase CAFE to 40 mpg. (Jun 2004)
It would be nice if you'd indicate where you Ctrl Ced that stuff from.
And Craig, I sure don't love towers either, like you I think a nice nuke plant tucked in a draw would be way better.
That said, those marks on the landscape are one way we are made aware of our habits. Like Seattle City Council ranting about the Snake dams when the city itself is juiced by Seattle Power and Light facilities at not only Snoqualmie Falls but all up the Skagit. I wonder what the Skagit ran like before Diablo went in....
Thing is, the council really had no clue what keeps their lights on, how their tofu gets to their plates.
Nor do the green elite in Nantucket. They cut their checks to Sierra, while the wind farms go upstate New York. Flip the switch and let the lower classes deal with reality.
Embarrassing, really.
As for the instant on hot water....come on, gang, why does the GOVERNMENT have to spiff you a check? Can't you pencil it out? All this stuff about subsidies and "incentives" is nuts. If it is economic, it's gonna happen. If not, then it really shouldn't.
http://www.issues2000.org/John_McCain.htm
Another thought on the hypocrisy angle you raised. In my first comment here I linked to where Pickens has said that we should drill everywhere. When Pickens is quoted to say that we "can't drill ourselves out of this" the quote clippers disregard his true drill eveywhere intentions. Like Carl Pope, who use to heap vicious scorn upon Pickens, for the Wilderness Society to hold hands with Pickens and carry his water for him will get them both dirty. For a full discussion see: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3533windmills_for_suckers.html#fnB1
August 8, 2008
McCain's new ad touts "renewable energy," but his energy plan offers little to support it.
Summary
A McCain ad shows pictures of wind-driven turbines while the narrator says: "Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain." But, in fact, his energy plan doesn't specify any new federal spending for renewable energy and says only that he'd "rationalize" existing tax credits to provide incentives. In the past, however, he's opposed extending such tax credits when paid for by tax increases elsewhere.
The ad also insinuates that Obama would bring "higher taxes" for "your family," another in what has become a pattern of misrepresentations of Obama's tax plan. Obama actually proposes to cut taxes for all but the most affluent families. He wants to restore tax rates to pre-Bush levels only for those making over $250,000 a year.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wind_power_puffery.html
Obama’s comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:
Provide Short-term Relief to American Families
• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
Barack Obama will close energy industry market loopholes and increase transparency to prevent traders from unfairly lining their pockets, while driving up oil prices at the expense of the American people.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
With oil prices doubling in the past year, Barack Obama believes we have an economic emergency that requires a limited, responsible swap of light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) for heavy crude oil to help bring down prices at the pump.
Eliminate Our Need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan Oil within 10 Years
• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
Create Millions of New Green Jobs
• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source -- Energy Efficiency.
Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal -- to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from projected levels by 2020.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
Obama will make a national commitment to weatherize at least one million low-income homes each year for the next decade, which can reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.
Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Obama's cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future and rebates and other transition relief for families.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.
Obama will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. He will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
More Detail
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
I did talk to a cousin tonight who is a copmmercail refrigeration guy, but also builds houses and he doesn't think they would save all that much, so I don't know. I'm going to see if the REA has any info on them, I called today, but the guy I needed to talk to was out.
As those of you who live in long time oil country know that once the well is drilled and pumping the footprint left is relatively small, especially compared to wind towers. Folks get balistic over the sight of all of those drilling rigs.
I also feel strongly that nuclear is going to be the wave of the future, perhaps technology will bring us solar at an affordable cost, but it sure isn't there yet. Right now we need oil and natural gas, even if we could afford to switch to alternatives overnight, we do not have the infrastructure, and ordinary people cannot afford it anyway..
Colorado announced today they are closing two existing coal plants because of carbon emissions. A portent of things to come.
-Jon Cheever
======================
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 2:58 PM
Colorado Utility to shut down coal power plants
Denver Business Journal
"State regulators have approved a plan by Xcel Energy Inc. to shut down two coal-fired power plants in Colorado, citing benefits to public health and concerns about carbon-dioxide emissions. It’s the first time in the nation a utility has volunteered, and regulators have approved, a plan to shut down power plants because of CO2 emissions, which are linked to global warming.
“Gov. Ritter last year called for a 20 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emission by 2020. These closures will reduce our emissions by 1.4 million tons a year and put us well on the way toward meeting the governor’s goal."
With the commissioners’ approval, the Cameo plant near Grand Junction is scheduled to close by December 2010. The Arapahoe station in Denver is slated for closure by December 2012.
The commissioners also approved adding at least 200 megawatts of power from renewable-energy sources that have storage capabilit. That’s likely to mean Colorado will get a concentrated solar power plant that uses materials like molten salt to store the power of the sun’s heat for hours after sunset. State regulators also approved adding 850 megawatts of power supplies from wind and solar generating plants."
===========
The TIMING of wind and solar generation, as well as seasonality, is important, not only in terms of the 24 hour but annual cycle.
Bottom line, anyone who thinks the big central power plants that provide base load can be replaced with "sustainable alternatives" is ignorant of reality. And anyone who claims such things is either ignorant -- or more likely, cognizant and fundamentally dishonest.
Wind farms and solar collectors are there forever. Nuclear does leave a huge footprint, but it is confined to an area, much smaller than a town.
A recent California Public Utility Commission study puts the cost of
power from new nuclear plants at 15 cents per kWh. Energy
efficiency, wind, and solar all beat that price--sometimes by a factor of three or more.
Efficiency and renewable energy can quite easily handle the current and future energy needs of the United States. Take wind, for example. A May 2008 report by the US Department of Energy concluded Americans could get 300 gigawatts of wind by 2030 at a cost of under 8.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Try doing that with coal or nukes—it won’t happen.
But energy efficiency is the big winner for America. California's efficiency programs have cut total electricity demand by 40,000 gigawatt hours at a cost of only 2 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. California plans to more than double those savings by 2020.
If this California model for investment in energy efficiency were reproduced nationwide, efficiency would deliver enough savings to avoid the need to build any new U.S. power plants.
-Jon Cheever