Affordable power in a changing climate

[Capt Worley PE]

An excellent editorial from the local paper.

Columbia, SC — Conquering climate change is expensive. To whom shall we give the invoice?

President Obama on Tuesday announced executive action to curb the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Many scientists say those gases create a dome over the earth that holds in warm air, raising the average temperature. The carbon dioxide from coal- and gas-fired power plants and automobile tail pipes is a greenhouse gas.

We didn’t get to this point quickly, and we won’t improve the environment without decades of commitment. The cost is almost incalculable.

That’s why electric cooperatives started long ago:

We partnered with the Coastal Conservation League and other environmentalists to look for substantive ways to work together toward affordable, reliable and environmentally responsible power supplies. Through such consensus-building, electric cooperatives effectively pulled the plug on a proposed coal-fired power plant in Florence County in 2009.

We researched the real potential of solar, wind and other renewable energies in the Palmetto State. There’s potential to do more, but the amount that is practically available is less than some would have you believe. We currently sell renewable energy generated from methane gas-fired power plants on landfills.

We examined the potential for real energy savings through improved energy efficiency. We recently completed a 125-home pilot program testing the feasibility of financing energy-efficiency improvements for those who cannot afford the up-front cost.

What did we learn? Using more renewable resources now and achieving greater energy efficiency in S.C. homes is possible, but it’s not cheap. Hence my question: To whom shall we give the invoice for changing the climate in the way the president hopes to?

The South Carolinians we serve in rural areas are 50 percent more likely to live below the poverty line than those in urban or suburban areas, and one in four of our members resides in a manufactured home, frequently challenged by energy inefficiency.

No matter how well you think the public good will be served by the president’s plan, it will be costly to implement.

An $8 billion pledge to research cleaner-burning coal plants? Bring it on. South Carolina already has some of the best “scrubbed” coal plants in the country. Santee Cooper, a significant source of electric cooperative electricity, added emissions scrubbers to its coal plants years ago. New coal-fired power plants may not be built, but with more than 500 in the United States (South Carolina’s electric cooperatives get nearly 70 percent of their power from coal), solar and wind energy won’t replace them anytime soon, nor will my personal favorite, energy efficiency, or what I call replacing megawatts with negawatts.

Directing the EPA to work with us to limit carbon-dioxide emissions? We welcome it, as long as EPA does as much listening as talking. Telling us to reduce carbon emissions without hearing of and planning for the pain consumers will feel is not sufficient.

Removing barriers to local climate-resilient investment? Yes, help us. Our research on our state’s energy-efficiency potential already has national recognition. Our ideas have been presented to Congress. Our field tests have shown good potential, too. Again, we partnered with the Coastal Conservation League to successfully urge our state’s policymakers to upgrade our state’s building codes to improve the efficiency of new home construction.

Leading international efforts to address global climate change? That’s a must, because America can’t fix climate change alone, and neither can bill-paying S.C. co-op members. The president alluded to exceptions for the poorest countries; electric cooperatives will be concerned also about poor South Carolinians for whom we believe cost will be a bigger-than-expected issue.

We agree that we cannot use challenges as excuses. They can be used as opportunities. The 1.3 million South Carolinians who use power from electric cooperatives — and our children and grandchildren — are counting on us to do so. But we still have that invoice to deal with.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/06/30/2839466/couick-affordable-power-in-a-changing.html#storylink=cpy

 

[mudpuppy]

We welcome it, as long as EPA does as much listening as talking.

Ha, now there's a pipe dream. The know-all EPA doesn't listen to anyone.

 

[mizzoueng]

That is the problem with requiring new emission programs, the cost of the research, planning, design, construction, and operation is rarely truly considered when the EPA/Gubment is coming up with them. Even if the EPA says it will cost $8 Billion to correct the GHG effect, people rarely think about where that money comes from, which is their pockets.

The local utilities here tried changing the financing rules so they could start rolling the construction costs into the rates upfront, once construction started, to help alleviate the financial burden of these improvements. As we all know, the EPA puts hard and fast deadlines on the compliance rulings, but usually get tied up in court which can extend the deadlines but the damage is already done as the Utilities have purchased equipment and contracts are set.

I think renewable energy is possible, but will not overtake coal in the foreseeable future. Natural Gas generation is a short term fix for reducing emissions. Nuclear is a possibility, but we need more done with extending the life of fuel rods.

I would like to see more done on biofuels. Syngas from digestors, gasifiers, etc is viable but is woefully underfunded. There are many crop wastes that have no function after harvest. The same could be said for many food wastes that could be composted and utilized for syngas. Methane gas from landfills was a good start, but retrofitting to old landfills has issues as the landfills were not designed for it and do not produce enough for significant generation.