|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - January/February 2008 / No juice, no jobs |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
No juice, no jobs |
|
|
|
Written On: January/February 2008 |
|
|
|
Written By: Don C. Brunell, AWB President |
|
|
|
Regardless of where you stand on the question of global warming, reducing our "carbon footprint" is in our self-interest. Rapidly developing nations like China and India are gobbling up the world’s supply of fossil fuels, raising prices and cutting supplies. To remain competitive, we must become more fuel-efficient.
While many agree that we should burn less fossil fuel in our cars, power plants and production facilities, there is less agreement on suitable alternatives.
For example, I switched from a gas-powered lawn mower to an electric one. That makes sense in the Pacific Northwest where the bulk of our power comes from dams that emit no carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. However, in the Midwest and Atlantic states, electric mowers aren't the answer because most of the electricity generated there comes from coal.
So, if everyone switches to electric cars and mowers, where will all that electricity come from? Would we actually increase our carbon footprint?
The Edison Electric Institute estimates that the demand for electricity will grow 40 percent by 2030. Much of that increase will come from larger, more energy-hungry homes.
The National Association of Home Builders reports that in 1978, the average house was 1,755 square feet and used 1.07 kilowatt hours of electricity. By 2003, the average house was 33 percent larger and used 20 percent more energy. While modern homes are better insulated and feature energy-efficient appliances, larger homes, personal computers, big-screen televisions and electronic gear eat up more electricity. That trend is expected to continue, and by 2030 the average household usage is expected to climb to 1.45 kilowatt hours, 38 percent more than in 1978.
Juice for jobs
So, the burning question is, "How will we provide enough 'juice' for the homes and workplaces in our region without accelerating a warming of the planet?"
The U.S. Department of Energy believes the answer lies — at least to some extent — in coal.
Last year, coal accounted for half of our nation’s electricity generation. By 2030, coal will supply nearly 60 percent, even with added conservation and new non-carbon producing wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power plants.
Coal is the world's most abundant source of electricity. It is also the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. But today's modern gasification power plants burn coal with 40-percent efficiency, compared to the 33-percent efficiency of conventional plants. In fact, the U.N. recently announced that the cleanest-burning coal power plants would qualify to offer carbon offsets under the Kyoto Protocols.
But promising new technology could make burning coal even cleaner. Researchers are working on technology that will allow them to capture the carbon emitted from burning coal and store it underground. The technology is called CCS — carbon capture and storage.
How do we plan to meet the world's growing need for energy in this era of concern over global warming?
First, we need to put things in perspective. Our planet has been warming for centuries. Most of the land Americans live on was once covered by thick sheets of ice. Retreating glaciers formed most of our river valleys, lakes and even Puget Sound. Does that mean we should just throw up our hands and say, "Oh well, that's just natural planetary evolution, so there is nothing we can do about it?"
Step up clean coal research
No. First, we need to step up our research into clean coal and alternative energy technologies, increase conservation, and use all types of energy more wisely and efficiently.
Second, we need to keep our current "non-greenhouse" electrical production on line. For example, some of those most concerned about the impact of climate change and reducing our "carbon footprint" are the very same people who want to remove the four Snake River dams in eastern Washington. Those dams generate enough power to light Portland. The Bonneville Power Administration estimates it would cost between $600 million and $875 million each year to replace the dams' electricity. A chunk of that new generation would be from natural gas — and even coal — if we couldn’t find enough wind power.
When it comes to slowing climate change while preserving our economy and our way of life, there are no silver bullets, no easy answers. Whatever we decide, the price of energy will continue to increase. Drivers today may be shell-shocked when they pull up to the pump, but just wait until they get their future electric bills.
The best outcome of our efforts will be to produce enough energy from reliable supplies to keep our economy running efficiently at the lowest possible cost and with the least impact on our environment. Remember, even under the best of circumstances, we cannot achieve that goal without coal — clean coal.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
