The biggest positive result of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi could be renewed public support for the development of renewable energy technologies.

Many influential policy makers, including President Obama, continue to insistthat we must expand nuclear power to help meet our energy needs. But plenty of experts disagree.

As the chart below illustrates, renewable energy sources (including hydropower and biofuels) already account for almost the same share of total energy consumption in the United States as nuclear power.

More important is the rate of change in the cost and utilization of these technologies, particularly those that rely on wind, water or solar power and will not contribute to global warming.

The cost per kilowatt hour of generating electricity from wind and solar power has declined steadily in recent years and is projected to decline further. Energy Secretary Steven Chu predicted that they would be no more expensive than oil and gas by the end of the decade.

The cost of nuclear power, by contrast, has increased, even without factoring in the huge social costs imposed by accidents. These costs include the disruptive effects of major evacuations such as those under way in the vicinity of Fukushima Daiichi, as well as ominous — and difficult to measure — health risks.

In “Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly,” Amory Lovins, a physicist with the Rocky Mountain Institute, and two colleagues argued that expanded nuclear power does not represent a cost-effective solution to global warming and that investors would shun it were it not for generous government subsidies lubricated by intensive lobbying efforts.

In The Wall Street Journal, Prof. Benjamin K. Sovacool of the National University of Singapore recently argued, in “The Business Case Against Nuclear Power,” that subsidies for nuclear power during its first 15 years of use in civilian power generation far exceeded those provided to solar power and wind power in their initial years.

The private sector is clearly moving rapidly in the renewable direction. Clean Edge, a research and advisory group, asserts that the clean energy market grew 35 percent in 2010, and global installation of photovoltaics doubled.

Still, the big question remains. Can wind, water and solar power be scaled up in cost-effective ways to meet our energy demands, freeing us from dependence on both fossil fuels and nuclear power?

Yes, they can, say two highly respected scientists, Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University and Mark A. Delucchi of the University of California, Davis. In 2009 they published “A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet With Renewables” in Scientific American.

The article persuasively addresses a number of concerns, such as the worldwide spatial footprint of wind turbines, the availability of scarce materials needed for manufacture of new systems, the ability to produce reliable energy on demand and the average cost per kilowatt hour.

A more detailed and updated technical analysis can be found in a two-part article (see Part I and Part II, recently published in the journal Energy Policy.

As Paul Krugman pointed out in his New York Times blog, projections of energy cost and supply are always hypothetical, based on assumptions that may or may not be borne out. This objection applies to all energy supply and demand projections.

The proven dangers of nuclear power amplify the economic risks of expanding reliance on it. Indeed, the stronger regulation and improved safety features for nuclear reactors called for in the wake of the Japanese disaster will almost certainly require costly provisions that may price it out of the market.

The role of the market, however, is small relative to political battles over relative levels of subsidy to fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewable energy. While both the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries are dominated by large companies with considerable political clout, renewable energy is a more decentralized, small-business-oriented sector that often finds itself outmaneuvered on Capitol Hill.

As Professors Jacobson and Delucchi put it, “The barriers to a 100 percent conversion to wind, water and solar power worldwide are primarily social and political, not technological or even economic.”

Research like theirs will help energize new efforts to overcome those barriers.

Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

If a Clean Energy Standard is enacted, what will that mean for fossil fuels? Interestingly, the emphasis on the development of sustainable fuels is not at the exclusion of coal and natural gas.

President Obama has shifted the focus away from enacting carbon constraints and more toward the formation of cleaner energy sources. He wants 80 percent of all such energy forms to come not just wind and solar but also nuclear, natural gas and “clean coal.”

Not all fuel forms, however, are created equal. And while nuclear and natural gas have the opportunity to thrive in a low-carbon environment, coal will be the most challenged. That’s because of all the pending regulations seeking to control sulfur and nitrogen oxide as well as mercury and carbon. That is making any fixes expensive, not to mention the construction of new coal plants that would capture and bury carbon dioxide.

“In the near term, the electric industry is focused on coal retirements, not carbon restrictions,” says Mark Griffith, managing director of Black & Veatch Corp., at a conference sponsored by Wartsila in Vail, Colo. “If greenhouse gas regulations are eventually enacted, there will be an increased reliance on natural gas, nuclear and renewables.”

If greenhouse gas regulations are later approved, Griffith would expect a “real flip” in the nation’s energy mix: Coal, which now provides about 45 percent of the nation’s fuel to make electricity, would drop to 21 percent by 2035. Natural gas would rise from about 20 percent today to 40 percent during that time while renewables would go from 2 percent now to 11 percent.

Environmental issues dominate the decision making process. Next year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that it will implement its Clean Air Transport Rule. After that, it is expected to enforce the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards that relate to mercury. On the horizon: those involving disposal of coal ash and greenhouse gas emissions.

Altogether, Black & Veatch anticipates 52,000 megawatts of coal-fired capacity to be retired in the short run and in response to those regulations. About 300,000 megawatts of coal-burning generation now exist.

Green Goals

To be sure, coal will be vital to the nation’s economy. And the thinking in some corners is that coal will not sit idle while other fuels vie for its share of the pie. The industry, in fact, is working feverishly with the utility sector to develop new technologies that it says will give it new life while others are also cautioning that natural gas prices cannot be expected to stay so low.

That said, coal has a tough road ahead. Reports are suggesting that will it cost as much as $70 billion to comply with all of the rules. Utilities are finding that for their older, smaller coal units, it is easier and cheaper to retire them. Natural gas will be one of the beneficiaries.

“Natural gas is 50 percent cleaner than an existing coal plant,” says Saya Kitasei, sustainable energy fellow at Worldwatch Institute, at the Wartsila conference. “We think natural gas has a future in a low-carbon economy. We have taken a lot of flack from our comrades in the environmental space for this position.”

The green movement has been concerned about the use of unknown chemicals to extract shale-gas deposits and the effect those fluids are having on drinking water. If this issue can be resolved, natural gas would have key roles in electricity production: First, as peak generation to meet high energy demand and second, as backup power for renewables. Others think it could become a base-load fuel.

Indeed, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank say that if natural gas prices stay around $4-$6 per million Btu, then utilities would be hard pressed to avoid this option. Prices have remained low for two years now and are projected to rise only nominally. That’s all because of the gold rush to find shale gas and the modern drilling techniques that allow developers to access those deposits.

Ultimately, though, the goal of the Obama administration and its backers in the environmental community is to advance wind and solar, and other renewables. Until then, they will need subsidies — monies that the Obama administration has proposed to come out of the pockets of the mature oil and gas industries.

That kind of leadership gives the developers of everything from solar panels to wind turbines to energy storage devices the faith they need to innovate, says Erik Ela, an engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Vendors have the ingenuity, he says, but tenuous markets often make such progress impractical.

The landscape is changing. The pressure is on to reduce emissions and to develop cleaner and greener energy. With a push from the president, the changes will occur more rapidly and result not only in more wind and solar power but also more advanced coal and natural gas generation.

EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN.

So what do you think? Please share your thoughts by posting a quick comment below, or by sending a longer reply to energybizinsider@energycentral.com.

Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/freehand1200

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

A common argument from wind turbine opponents is that wind farms will significantly increase our electric bills.

Renewable energy critics might have to retool their talking points in light of a recent state report on the implementation of the state’s 2008 renewable energy mandates.

Initial utility contracts for electricity from renewable energy sources show substantially lower costs than the power generated from new coal plants, the state reports.

Also changing the debate is news out of Consumers Energy that its renewable energy plan to meet the standards in the 2008 law will cost substantially less than first anticipated.

However, the bottom line is that electricity will cost more in the future whether from coal, natural gas, nuclear or renewable sources such as wind and solar. But renewable energy sources are not at a cost disadvantage compared to other new sources of power.

State law now mandates that electric utilities like Consumers Energy must obtain 10 percent of the power it sells from renewable energy sources such as wind farms, solar arrays, landfill gas and bio-digesters. Consumers Energy currently gets about 5 percent of its power from renewable sources.

Few realize that all Consumers Energy electric customers have been paying for the state’s renewable energy mandate since 2009. Residential electrical customers now pay $2.50 each month. The “renewable energy” item on all residential bills was approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission under Michigan law.

“A good chunk of our customers actually support paying for renewable energy,” said Consumers spokesman Dan Bishop about a lack of pushback on the specific charge that has raised $25.6 million from the company’s residential customers through 2010.

“But I am sure a majority of our customers are not even aware of it,” Bishop said.

That “renewable energy” charge might be lowered by the Public Service Commission after it received Consumers’ modified renewable energy plan last week. The initial plan to meet the 10 percent renewable power mandate in 2015 was estimated to cost $78 million, however the power company now says those costs are expected to be only $23 million.

Officials from the public utility said lower costs come from “changing economic conditions, improvements in wind turbine technology, accelerated renewable energy projects and extension of federal tax credits for renewable energy.”

The Public Service Commission issued a report two weeks ago to the Michigan Legislature reviewing the state’s 2008 energy law that included the renewable energy mandates. The utility regulators concluded that the state’s power companies were on target to meet the 2015 standard and that costs in doing so are lower than anticipated.

“The actual contract prices for renewable energy are much lower than forecasted in 2009 renewable energy plans,” the Public Service Commission stated.

Russ Harding, former director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, has called for the repeal of the 10 percent renewable energy standard.

Harding — now a senior environmental analyst for the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland — said national studies of the states with renewable energy standards have electric rates 40 percent higher than those without such mandates.

“It is not fair to say all the high costs are attributable to renewable energy but a significant amount is due to that,” Harding said. “And I think that mandating and subsidizing renewable energy will actually hurt the industry in the market.”

The state’s electrical power system is based on the foundation of coal-fired power plants. But Consumers Energy has a group of aging coal power plants like the 60-year-old B.C. Cobb Generating Plant in Muskegon. The newest Consumers Energy coal generating unit was built in 1980.

The renewable energy sources will not be competing against older, cheaper coal plants but new facilities either producing electricity with coal, nuclear material or natural gas. State regulators find the current cost of a new coal power plant over the life of the facility is $133 per mega watt hour of production.

Based on more than two dozen actual renewable energy contracts for solar, wind and bio-gas generated electricity, the average price is about $100 per mega watt hour of production. Bio-mass incineration is at $98, wind $101, landfill gas $113, digesters $128 and several small-scale solar installations at approximately $500.

“Wind is competitive with coal and natural gas on cost as long as you find the best winds,” said Paul Isely, the head of Grand Valley State University’s economic department. Isely is part of a GVSU West Michigan Wind Assessment Project and is in the process of publishing a research paper on the economics of wind energy in West Michigan.

The competitiveness of wind-generated electricity is based upon the cost of turbines being half what they were 10 years ago and each unit’s efficiency doubling over the past five years, Isely said. Wind power also provides economic certainty compared to the price fluctuation of natural gas and the expected increase cost of coal due to environmental issues, the economics professor said.

“The advances in wind technology have drastically change the calculus to make wind power a no-brainer,” Isely said, pointing to newly installed U.S. electrical generation that has come from 40 percent from wind. “Big energy companies don’t install wind power if it is not economical.”

The improving economics of renewable energy is not a surprise, said Greg Northrup, former Consumers Energy economic development director and current president of the West Michigan Strategic Alliance. The alliance is a regional collaborative that has developed economic strategy partly based on advanced manufacturing in the emerging renewable energy sector.

“Renewable energy had been a cottage industry that is now becoming a player in electrical generation in West Michigan,” Northrup said. “That just reinforces the fact that we need a diversity of electrical generation in West Michigan and that we work with local manufacturers to build the needed equipment.”

But wind power and other renewable sources have their limits, Isely said. Because wind does not blow consistently all of the time, heavy reliance on wind power becomes more costly if it is more than 10 percent of production, he said.

“Capacity factor” is a major issue with wind power, Consumers Energy’s Bishop said. Where a 100-megawatt coal plant will produce nearly 100 megawatts of power, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week year after year, the variability of the wind allows a 100-megawatt wind farm to only produce on average 30 megawatts of power.

“People want consistent, reliable electricity day in and day out no matter the season,” Bishop said. “Fossil fuels have the capacity to deliver very large amounts of power and very low costs.”

Mackinac Center’s Harding said that as long as winds do not blow steady all the time, the only way wind power is economical is with electrical storage systems.

The only utility-sized “battery” the state has is the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant in Mason County. Owners Consumers Energy and Detroit Edison announced earlier this month that they will invest $800 million to upgrade the generating facility. It is able to store wind-generated electricity with the water that is pumped into a huge reservoir on a bluff above Lake Michigan, utility officials said.

Those that sat through the hours of public hearings in 2010 on the Scandia Offshore Wind proposals for massive wind farms on Lake Michigan or the ongoing debate on land-based wind turbines in Mason County south of Ludington have heard the simplistic arguments:

Wind turbines are more expensive than coal-fired power plants, they argue. And many of the critics give the impression that the closer an electric user is to the proposed wind farm, the more it is going to cost them in their residential electric bill.

Those arguments are too simplistic, Bishop said.

“Electric rates are complicated,” he admitted.

Renewable energy is just one of the charges on electric bills, which are regulated by the state through the three-member Public Service Commission.

The basic charge for electricity is blended depending upon how much power a resident uses each month. The first 600 kilowatt hours of electricity cost roughly 7 cents a kilowatt hour but all electricity after that costs 13 cents.

Beyond a renewable energy charge, the residential electric bill includes a charge for electric distribution, an energy efficiency program and paying off old debt on nuclear power plants. Taking into consideration the varying prices for coal and natural gas, Consumers also is allowed a “power supply cost recovery” charge that can add or subtract to the monthly bill.

When all rates and charges are calculated, Consumers Energy residential customers now pay $36.52 for 250 kilowatt hours a month, $70.92 for 500 kilowatt hours and $133.83 for 1,000 kilowatt hours, according to state utility regulators. Those residential electric charges are below the national average, Bishop said.

Northrup said electric bills are put into perspective by the current surge in the price of a barrel of oil.

“If you want a reality check on energy costs, drive past a gas station,” Northrup said of $3.40 a gallon gasoline with reports that the price could easily reach $4 a gallon in the coming weeks.

Email: dalexander@muskegonchronicle.com

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Nuke Plant Eyed

By Andy Vuong for The Denver Post

WESTMINSTER — Amid growing criticism about its heavy reliance on coal-fired power, the state’s second-largest utility is considering the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado.

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association’s board of directors voted recently to have its staff study nuclear as a possibility for the site in Prowers County near Holly.

The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.

Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company’s generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal’s high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground.

At Tri-State’s annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future.

“We’re at a crossroads here, in more ways than one,” Thompson said.

Environmentalists and some of Tri-State’s member electric co-operatives have questioned its proposal to build two new coal-fired units, at a cost of $3.6 billion, at an existing power plant in Kansas. The concerns come in the face of the nation’s booming green movement and prospects of a carbon tax.

Colorado regulators have zeroed in on the utility since the proposed 1,400-megawatt expansion — in partnership with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan. — was shelved because of an air permit denial in October. That ruling by the state of Kansas came over concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. Tri-State and Sunflower have appealed.

Unlike Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility, Tri-State is not rate-regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Tri-State sells power to rural electric cooperatives.

The PUC oversees only Tri-State’s construction of new plants or transmission lines in the state. But at the request of PUC chairman Ron Binz, Tri-State has agreed to a public hearing, expected to occur within the next two months, to discuss how the company plans to meet consumer electric needs going forward.

“Part of the logic behind us exploring their resource plan with them is we want to be fully equipped when and if they come before us with a proposal to build a power plant or a transmission line,” Binz said.

Incoming GM to be on hot seat

Tri-State’s backup plan for the Kansas plant is the Prowers County project, dubbed the Colorado Power Project. The company said it secured water rights in 2007 and plans to eventually construct a plant at the site even if the Kansas clean-coal project gains approval.

Tri-State’s incoming general manager Ken Anderson, currently a senior vice president, will be on the hot seat once he takes over in July. He said he is committed to coal because of its relatively low cost, but is open to other sources of power.

“We own coal, we have faith in coal, we know about its reliability,” he said. “It’s still the proper resource decision for the nature of resources that we need.”

The company said it has to continue to rely on coal because its rural customers require a constant load and renewables aren’t suitable for base-load generation and natural gas prices are too volatile.

Tri-State sells wholesale power to 44 member rural utilities in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming. Its members serve 1.4 million people, with 62 percent in Colorado.

Tri-State doesn’t answer to shareholders or financial regulators. It is owned by its member cooperatives, which, in turn, are owned by their customers. Each cooperative has a seat on Tri-State’s board.

The wholesale power provider’s detractors have decried its reliance on coal.

“There’s been a lot of concern that these big coal investments are going to turn out to be much more expensive than Tri-State has been saying,” said Ned Farquhar, an official with environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. “Coal-plant costs have been going up almost geometrically around the world.”

Forty-two of Tri-State’s members are locked into contracts to buy power from the utility through 2050, and two have contracts through 2040.

The long-term deals restrict members from pursuing alternative power, although Tri-State amended the contracts last year to allow members to buy up to 5 percent of their power from renewable sources.

Wes Perrin, a board member at Tri-State customer San Miguel Power Association, which serves the Telluride area, said the utility should put more efforts into energy- efficiency programs to cut down on usage.

“I don’t think they share the concerns that the rest of us do about the harmful effects of carbon, although they understand it,” Perrin said.

Several initiatives undertaken

J.M. Shafer, Tri-State’s outgoing general manager, noted several initiatives that the utility is undertaking on the renewable front. Among them:

• Considering bids this year for up to 100 megawatts of renewable power. The company received 46 proposals, and a decision will probably come in the third quarter.

• Partnering in a proposed concentrating solar power project in New Mexico.

• Joining the National Renewable Cooperative Organization as a founding member to focus on the development and deployment of renewable energy by electric cooperatives.

Tri-State is required by Colorado law to boost its renewable generation to 10 percent by 2020.

Shafer, 64, and Anderson, 48, said the main factor the company considers when deciding on a new generation source is cost. Despite criticism to the contrary, Shafer said Tri-State factors in the possibility of a carbon tax into its cost projections.

Asked for specifics, the company was vague, stating that it uses a carbon tax estimate of anywhere from $5 to $50 per ton, and beyond.

“If it ever reaches a point where coal becomes more expensive than some other resource, that will be our recommendation,” said Shafer.

Nuclear could be a possibility

That’s where nuclear could be a possibility because maintenance and fuel costs have dropped an estimated 30 percent since 1995. Also, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas.

But nuclear plants are expensive to build, far exceeding the construction costs of traditional coal and natural-gas-fired plants. The price tag on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is estimated at roughly $2 billion. And it could take a decade or more to go through the necessary permitting process and complete construction.

Concerns also exist over the proper storage of nuclear waste and the safety hazards of using radioactive materials to generate power. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation’s power, but no new nuclear plant has come online in the U.S. in more than a decade.

Colorado’s only nuclear plant, Fort St. Vrain in Weld County, shut down in the 1990s because of operational problems.

Told of Tri-State’s plan to consider nuclear power, Perrin, an energy consultant, said he was “conflicted.”

“I see the benefits of it, and I see the dangers of it,” he said.

He said a nuclear plant faces a stiff uphill battle, but added, “We know that carbon is our biggest problem right now, and it wins that race.”

Andy Vuong: 303-954-1209 oravuong@denverpost.com

Read more:Talk runs hot ‘n’ coal – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_8818169#ixzz0yUGpleba

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

As President Obama rounds the corner and heads into the second year of his administration, he is discovering what nearly all of his predecessors have — that voters become disenchanted during the midterm and tend to elect more of the opposition.

With that comes the challenge of how to enact what he and his supporters have determined to be the country’s greatest priorities. To that end, Obama has not forsaken the issues to which he got elected. Instead, he has chosen to extend a hand to Republicans and Independents and offer them a chance to influence the course of history.

In his State of the Union Speech, the president continues to endorse the creation of a clean energy economy built on carbon constraints and the expansion of a modern infrastructure that involves new generation and the intelligent utility. But he is also becoming increasingly vocal in his support for new nuclear power plants as well as the development of clean coal technologies and more offshore oil and gas drilling.

“I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,” the president intoned. “But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future — because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

While the president’s more accommodating tone is the result of the loss of his super-majority in the upper chamber that allowed him to avoid filibusters, it is also an extension of what he had said on the campaign trial. Recognizing that the president was first elected as a U.S. senator from Illinois, Obama had been inherently in tune with the coal and nuclear industries there. His earlier trepidation, however, was that his friends on the left were generally not in synch with these causes.

While running for office he became a latent supporter of more oil and gas drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico — a change-of-heart that occurred at the time of ever-soaring prices and added pressures to find new, domestic energy resources.

By putting nuclear, advanced coal and extra drilling rights atop the agenda, the president has now made his energy bill more appealing to fence-sitting Democrats and moderate Republicans. But with each action comes an equal and opposite one. And now he must worry whether the liberal wing of his party will stay with him.

“We continue to believe that passing cap and trade legislation this year will be a very steep uphill battle; however we’ll be watching closely as alternative ‘hybrid’ approaches for pricing carbon are discussed,” says Whitney Stanco, energy policy analyst for Concept Capital’s Washington Research Group.

Practical Path

Beyond the political realities, the president also faces the practical ones. Today’s energy mix is no secret: The preponderance comes from coal, nuclear and natural gas. The renewables sector, hydro power included, accounts for around 8 percent. Diversification is a must, given that energy producers will be spread thin as developing nations demand ever-increasing fuels to run their economies.

What then? The president’s supporters are heartened by his firm stance to usher in the New Energy Economy whereby more of the nation’s resources are going to research and to build more wind and solar plants. But this movement has gotten ensnared not just in Washington politics but also in mainstream economics. And while the president says that climate change is a national priority, the odds of passing a bill this year are now reduced.

That would give the advantage to natural gas, at least as a bridge until the country can cost-effectively produce and use more sustainable fuels. It’s particularly true given that the older coal plants are nearing retirement and as the demand for energy will eventually resume. This, then, would require easing the drilling restrictions in areas now forbidden.

“Obama’s corporate colors have been showing for some time but now they are on full display,” says Linda Gunter, with Beyond Nuclear a national environmental advocacy group. “How he can see oil, coal and nuclear as compatible with climate change is breathtaking.”

The president’s task of holding together a coalition that can pass a comprehensive energy bill is noticeably difficult. More than likely, he will have to pare down his aspirations and focus on those elements that have broad backing.

As such, the funding and tax breaks provided to green energy will continue. But more concessions will be made to the fossil fuel industries, giving increasing leeway to coal producers that invest in best-available technologies and to gas shale developers who have access to rich deposits around the country.

While recession has chipped away at energy demand, it is still expected to rise at 1.5 percent a year. The ultimate objective is to meet that challenge with the cleanest possible fuel sources. Getting there is a national goal but it will require compromise.

“We can and we must forge a practical path that will address the country’s immediate economic needs while laying the foundation for a clean, cost-effective, low-carbon energy future,” says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

That process presents opportunity: to jumpstart the American economy by advancing modern energy technologies. That’s the foundation of the president’s message and one that has not waned during this midterm transition.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

The energy policy GPACE supports would continue to move Kansas toward currently accepted goals for electricity production by 2020, as illustrated by CEP.

• Maximize energy efficiency statewide – per already accepted goals – for both supply and demand side systems.
• Maximize Kansas wind energy production and integration – per already accepted goals – and based upon production not just nameplate capacity.
• Develop Kansas natural gas resources to firm wind and meet peak demand.
• Maintain existing coal-fired capacity, and back down outdated facilities as they reach the end of their operational lifespan with renewable energy production, native natural gas, and energy efficiency.
• No new investment in increasingly costly coal plants until national regulatory and economic picture is clear, and so called “clean coal” technologies are proven or abandoned.
• Maintain existing nuclear capacity, but no costly new nuclear plants until national regulatory and economic picture is clear.

The CEP illustration reflects the goals already embraced by Kansas utilities, not a shift in policy – unless that course is further hijacked by efforts like the proposed new coal plants.

GPACE believes there is much to gain for Kansas if we aggressively develop our native renewable energy resources and energy efficiency in the coming decade.  Once we have maximized those options, and once the national policy regarding climate and carbon is more certain, the questions about using coal and nuclear energy to produce electricity can and must be addressed.

Download a more detailed PDF of this document here.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.