|
THE NEWS & OBSERVER Point of View: Published: N.C.'s greener energy future A report
commissioned by the General Assembly and financed by the state Utilities
Commission was made public last month. La Capra Associates, consultants
selected by Water power,
wind power and byproducts from our agriculture, forests and landfills can
produce that 10 percent. To be sure,
the consultants considered the 10 percent level to be a stretch -- but they
did not include solar electricity or solar hot water, even though these
sources will become even more cost-competitive well before 2017. Indeed, SunEdison, a for-profit company, seeks to build
solar-electric facilities for A study
accompanying the report confirms the evidence of dozens of in-state
researchers: efficiency gains can reduce electricity needs by another 14
percent over the 10-year period. Implementing these measures -- using more
efficient appliances and lights, building less leaky houses and offices --
will save energy and, of course, dollars. There are also
possibilities of installing more combined-heat-and-power facilities in
factories and commercial buildings, thus providing even more electricity.
These are not mentioned in either report. Will In a way, the
state has already achieved a similar gain in efficiency. In the 1970s and
1980s we added 1 million new homes, but total residential energy use went
down. This was an era of rising oil prices and much attention to energy
conservation; there were dramatic reductions in home fuel use, mostly for
heating. Homes were weatherized, and new construction had much better
insulation. Now is the
time to revisit that attention to wise energy usage, but with particular
emphasis on electricity. Rates may rise
somewhat if the state adopts a goal of creating 10 percent of electrical
power from renewable sources, but most customers will see a drop in their
power bills if they take advantage of the assistance offered in becoming more
energy-efficient. Rates are sure to go up, perhaps even more, if new coal and
nuclear plants are built. Fortunately,
the State Energy Office is well-positioned to enhance existing efficiency
programs and to institute many new ones shown effective in other states. Choosing the
10 percent renewable goal as outlined by La Capra will involve the
development of wind generation. In The choice,
between these developments on the one hand and nuclear or coal plants on the
other, is one that Beyond that,
the renewable sources represent relatively minor and invisible changes in the
energy system. There would be upgrading of some hydroelectric stations, some
generators installed in existing dams and some run-of the-river generators.
Methane from hog-farm waste would represent a huge environmental (and
olfactory) gain. La Capra
concludes that turning to these power sources would create thousands of new
jobs -- far more than would be created by building and operating more coal
and nuclear plants. And clean energy jobs could be distributed across the
state, rather than concentrated in one or two counties. The other
path, unaccountably favored by the large utilities, leads to huge and risky
investments in coal and nuclear power plants. The utilities' shareholders and
ratepayers, along with taxpayers, would bear the risks of huge investments in
those obsolete and archaic behemoths, while the rest of the nation moves
belatedly into a new energy era. (John Blackburn is professor emeritus and former head of
the economics department at |