Energy: Living between a rock, hard place
By Bill Settlemyer
President and CEO, Setcom Media
A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll reveals a marked shift in the views of Americans regarding the threat of global warming. The just-released poll indicates that 56% of those polled believe global warming has been proven and can be largely blamed on human activity.
In 2001, 52% believed the United States should do what it could to reduce global warming even if other nations didn’t act. The most recent poll shows that number rising to 66%.
These findings form a backdrop for the growing debate about the wisdom of building new coal-fired power plants. Two weeks ago, a Kansas regulator turned down a permit for a new plant on the basis of the added risk of global warming posed by coal as a source of energy.
In the meantime, China continues plans to bring coal plants online at the rate of one per week and, even worse, lags far behind the United States in the technology, cleanliness and efficiency of their plants.
The rock
“The rock” in this scenario is the reality that our modern industrial economies are dependent on massive and growing amounts of energy consumption, most of it from coal and oil. While conservation, efficiency and alternative-energy sources can lessen the rate at which we would otherwise need to consume fossil fuels, if we froze our consumption at current levels, economic growth would grind to a halt.
As Molly Parker’s article in this issue of the Business Journal illustrates, the debate about the impact of coal-fired power plants is hitting close to home in the context of Santee Cooper’s request for approval of a new coal-fired facility in rural Florence County.
Santee Cooper says it will run out of power to meet the needs of its growing commercial and residential customer base in less than a decade if this and other coal-fired facilities are not brought online as planned.
I have no doubt that they are correct. The impact could be devastating to our economy regionally and statewide. Not surprisingly, the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, among others, has come out strongly in support of Santee Cooper’s proposed new facility.
The hard place
“The hard place” is the place that humanity may find itself in a matter of decades if the worst fears about the pace of global warming are realized. Evidence of the impact of warming is becoming apparent around the globe. The U.S. Coast Guard is planning a new base at Barrow, Alaska, in anticipation of the opening of trade routes though heretofore ice-bound stretches of the Artic regions. Farmers in British Columbia, Canada, foresee a growing opportunity to cultivate grapes for wine as warming softens the brunt of winters there, while vintners in Napa Valley and France worry that rapid warming will destroy the delicate climactic balance that has allowed the wine industry to flourish in those areas.
More alarming than those stories are recent findings that permafrost in Russia has begun to thaw and release methane gas, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Concern is growing over the risk that a tipping point will be reached and unleash rapid, dramatic and irreversible warming.
Living between the rock and the hard place
So here we are, all of us, living between the rock of our energy needs and the very real possibility of catastrophic climate change. The energy needs are immediate, but so is the need for every nation on the planet to take action to reverse the continuing growth in worldwide carbon emissions.
We can’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels overnight, yet our children and grandchildren may look back on our time in history and say that our failure to take immediate and radical action to reduce carbon emissions was the biggest mistake in the history of the human race.
How does that relate to Santee Cooper’s plans to expand its use of coal to power our homes and businesses? I’ve had the privilege of getting to know Santee Cooper’s leaders and managers over the years. They are good people, as good as you’ll find anywhere, just trying to do what the state and its residents have asked them to do for decades: Provide the power we need to enjoy our lives and the benefits of economic growth.
Recently, Santee Cooper’s board of directors approved an ambitious goal: Create 40% of their energy from non-greenhouse gases by 2020. It’s no surprise that the company is responding to local and global concerns about climate change, as are other power companies in the Southeast and elsewhere.
The main point I want to make is that we’re all in this dilemma together. It’s not “us vs. the power companies;” instead, it’s us vs. the consequences of our consumption of fossil fuels to power our lifestyles and drive economic growth. Like a smoker who finally realizes he’s setting himself up for heart disease and lung cancer, we’re now waking up to the risks inherent in our fossil fuel habits. These were not obvious even a decade ago, but they are now.
Should more coal plants be built? The answer is both “yes” and “no.” Yes, because there’s no short-term energy solution without coal, and no, because the consequences may be catastrophic. That’s where we’re all living now, between the rock or our energy needs and the hard place we may find ourselves if global warming continues to accelerate.
What we really need is a serious worldwide commitment to energy conservation, alternative energy sources (including nuclear power) and a collaborative “Manhattan Project” funded by governments throughout the world to develop and rapidly implement carbon sequestration systems for coal plants. Is that possible? Yes, because it must be possible. We must make it so, and soon, lest we leave an uninhabitable planet as our legacy to future generations.
View as PDF
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version