Southern Lawmakers Holding Up Progress on Renewable Energy
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07.15.07
Opposition to national mandates requiring energy utilities to move towards using cleaner renewable energy have typically come from two quarters: said energy utilities and a predictable group of Southern legislators. When you consider that 6 of the country's 10 largest emitters of carbon dioxide are coal-fired power plants in southern states, this all begins to make a bit more sense.
A coalition of southern Republican senators contributed about half the votes necessary to kill a bill that would've required utilities to obtain 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. They've tried to defend their position by claiming that the South, unlike the West and Southwest, is not amenable to solar or wind power. Because these senators have continued to drag their feet and, in so doing, brought the Congress to a virtual standstill on national clean energy legislation, many states have taken the lead in adopting their own mandates (almost half to date). One notable exception: Texas.
"If you look at other regions of the country where renewables have taken off, it's been because of mandates, and that's why you haven't seen it take off in the South," said Nicholas Rigas, director of the South Carolina Institute for Energy Studies at Clemson University and a firm believer in the South's renewable energy potential. "Once the development starts it will be just as successful as it is in other states." As much as environmentalists and scientists choose to speak out about the issue, however, they will have a hard time matching the influence (and money) of Southern Co. and Duke Energy Corp., the South's two largest utilities.
Both companies produce close to two-thirds of their power from coal and are some of this country's top emitters of GHG. Indeed, Duke Energy ranks as the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide while Southern Co. weighs in at number one. In addition, their plants spew some of the largest amounts of mercury into the air, as well as several pollutants that cause acid rain, smog and respiratory problems.
Chris Hobson, who serves as the senior vice president for research and environmental affairs at Southern Co., apparently didn't do the math when he claimed that such an "irrational" bill could "cripple our economy or cripple our industry." According to the Energy Department, the legislation would have barely affected their costs (and huge profits): only increasing them by about 1% through 2030.
Fortunately, all is not lost: the South could still emerge as a national leader in renewable energy if it takes the lead in producing biomass-based fuels from grasses, timber residue and agricultural waste. Steven Taylor, who is chairman of the bioenergy program at Auburn University, said southern states regularly produce record amounts of biomass from their expansive farmlands and forests and could use it to fuel an upsurge in the state's biofuel industry. "We've got the ability to generate a pretty good proportion of our power or liquid fuel from biomass," he said.
That sure doesn't sound "irrational" to us.
Via ::Associated Press: US Southern utilities, lawmakers resist call for renewable power (newspaper), ::Cleanergy.org: Senate Passes Energy Bill But End Product is Far From Comprehensive (blog)
See also: ::Global Renewable Energy Policies and Measures Database Provides Wealth of Information, ::Energy Bill? What Energy Bill?, ::New Hampshire Moves Closer to Renewable Energy Standard
I hope not to offend any southerners, but I personally believe that a large part of the problem in these southern states has to do with a political culture that tolerates inappropriate ties between business and money interests and elected, and unelected, government officials. Part of it can be called corruption, but a lot of it is buddy-buddy you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch yours mentality. Yes, other parts of the country have this, but it seems to me particularly pernicious in the South where it infests many members of both political parties. And this infestation results in large southern businesses dictating the position of their states rather than the citizens of those states dictating the position of their respective states. Political representatives do not represent the people, they seem to represent the businesses.
no offense taken~ speaking as a texan, i whole-heartedly agree that the politicians who represent us are woefully out of touch with a fast-growing constituency that wants something done. and wind power being "not amenable?" i'm not sure where he got his information but several areas in west texas are being used as sites for wind turbines- maybe those speaking for us should take a spin around the state once in a while...
I'm far more concerned about the unconstitutional and wasteful federal support for agricultural subsidies and corn/ethanol. I'm sure ADM is loving it.
I thought the head of Duke Power had embraced emissions standards. He was balleyhooed in the media as having done so several months ago, and having "broken with the pack".
Southern plants may not be amenable to cleanup, but I also see that southern cities are not amenable to more violent hurricanes and flooding.
Its bull just recycled laws would save millions of dollers and resources like florescent light bulbs common sense coil and oil are old technology we should move on to better more efficient technology duh
Is there any truth to the claim that the southern U.S. is at a disadvantage (in terms of cost and/or availability of resources) vs. other regions of the country when it comes to generating clean electricity?
I am not trying to defend the southern senators -- just wondering because I just looked at a wind map (http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-01m.html) and solar map (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ilands/fig12.html), and the south does seem to be somewhat more lacking in these particular resources.
Is biomass cost competitive vs. wind and solar? If not, maybe the energy bill should provide more financial help to southern states -- not let them off the hook, mind you -- just level the playing field.
Or am I way off base?
I am a Texan working for the Oil and Gas Industry in Houston, Texas. Let me first state that I do not speak for the majority of my neighbors, when I applaud this article!!!
We have a problem in this city, in this state, in this country, and in this world!!! The problems are (1) global warming from petroleum combustion, and (2) we are running out of oil. These facts lie in the fact that "we" are not collectively thinking about our future as a society. Hubbert's peak has passed (November, 2005), and unfortunately, we'll be cooking this world until the very last well runs dry.
I am quite certain that you already think of me as a hypocrite, and that's fine. Unfortunately, I cannot begin to tell you how much time I spend thinking about what else I would rather be doing in life to provide for my family before Peak Oil happens. But....am I really any different than you? What would you do without petroleum? I'm not talking about whether you get "Paper or plastic." Would you be able to get to work? Would you have the food your family needs? Would you have the electricity to power your computer? Would you even have life's first essential: potable water?
Everyone is familiar with a bell curve with normal distribution, but this is not the story of OIL. Instead of a gradual hike in prices as supply tries to keep pace with demand, we are headed off the cliff and into straight the abyss as everyone in the world gobbles as much oil as quickly as they can. Meanwhile, our environment has been destroyed for the sake of the neighborhood Walmart parking lot. Thinking about the near-term future, crops aren't going to grow too well on asphalt, are they?
TAKE ACTION TODAY TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY!
Plan a safe haven out in the country and go there the very minute that gasoline gets to $5/gallon. Bring a gun and plenty of ammunition, and be prepared to live the way mankind lived 300 years ago.
Now you think I'm crazy? I was part of the Hurricane Rita evacuation out of Houston. I can tell you firsthand that there is nothing more important than water, fuel, and personal security.
As long as we keep using oil, eventually it will run out. That is a consequence of the simple fact that the size of the Earth is not infinite. Whether or not climate change will hit first, or oil depletion first, or both at once depends on the estimates and data one is using. Some oil-depletion anaylsts suggest that we may have only 50 years of oil left, particularly when growth is factored in, and as it depletes the prices will skyrocket and crash the economy even before then. By contrast, it is suggested that it will take at least 100 years for climate changes to really ruin things -- ie. oil depletion hits first.
What is more important - carbon / global warming or oil depletion?
IT DOESN"T MATTER!!!!!!!
We all die in the end - unless you are ready.
to get them to agree to the 15% rps we need a Marshall Plan for the Southern states: the Brown states
Turning Brown States Into Green States
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/1/14304/79631
I don't like living in the South (I live in Houston, TX), but that doesn't mean it's all bad.
I hate how many people like to point fingers at Republicans and The South.
The South may have lots of dummies, malicious racism, widespread hatred towards gays, be all country like, have lots of crime-infested casinos, hot all the time, and tons of stuff, but it's not all bad.
And about the public towards how green Republicans are (or aren't), I somewhat support Republicans, and I'm green too. I'm as green as I can be. Doesn't mean that Republicans can't be green. It's just some of them.
Texas is also trying to be the green state (especially in wind energy). Texas is trying to push itself to be the most highest producer of wind energy. Solar a close 2nd. So it's not all bad.
Remember when the auto industry said that mandating emission standards and catalytic converters in the 70s would "cripple our industry and even kill our national economy"?
Yeah, that didn't happen either. We still buy cars and the US didn't collapse economically. Whenever any change is proposed big business's first response is to run in circles, scream, and shout.
People talk to your congress-critters and call them on the BS and FUD. Make it plain that they can either represent you... or come the next election... they can represent no one.
Hey D,
Although it is true the south isn't really known for its wind, and even though it is outrageously hot here year round, that is mostly the humidity, not the sun beaming down uncontrollably. There are plenty of other options for clean energy.
Here in Alabama, we use a lot of hydro-electric facilities, and about 30% of the electricity here is from nuclear. Although nuclear isn't the cleanest source of energy, it is quite powerful, and much cleaner than coal.
Vote with your dollar, let your representatives know how you feel, and be as green as you can and encourage others to do the same. Economics speak louder than legislation. Green is profitable, and will soon take over the current business models of do it cheap and look the other way.
Kudos to you Quikboy. This shouldn't be a cultural fight. We must appreciate the Southwhen criticiizing some southern politicians..
In many ways the South is the cultural soul of America. All our greatest literature and music come from there. William Faulkner didn't come from Massachusetts, nor did Chuck Berry. The last great Yankee writer was Nathaniel Hawthorne, in my book.
Living in central Texas, I'd like to blame the media for doing a horrible job in investigating these sort of issues and educating mass opinion.
The majority of public down here live in an illusionary state of fantasy. That's at all levels of modern social hierarchy.
If things are to truly change for the better it would need pressure from the public who uses all of this coal-powered energy. All we would have to do is adopt sustainable energy alternatives and stop using their utilities.
Coal-powered energy may be cheaper for them now, but it will cost all of us more in the long run.
It's unfathomable to say that we lack the solar capacity with as much sun as this state gets. And Texas has an enormous source of wind rolling off the hills and mountains in the West through the valleys. That's why the air force sends pilots there for basic air training.
These are minor issues in the face of human innovation.
Thanks, John Tracy. I totally agree that we need to be innovative and look toward solutions rather than get stuck in current limitations. And I do think that Southern Co. & the other big corporate interests have many legislators in their back pockets, but I was trying to look at things from the other side for a moment.
The barriers to alternative energy in the south are: hydro is is pretty much being fully utilized in the there (and in most of the rest of the U.S.). Nuclear doesn't create greenhouse gases, but it is a nonrenewable resource and creates a host of other problems. Texas has decent solar and wind potential, but as you point out, the rest of the southeast is lacking in these resources.
The upside is: there are other resources such as biomass that could be developed. Switchgrass has been tested in coal fired electric plants as a means to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions. Other technologies could be exploited.
This bill aside, which has pretty modest renewable energy targets, I am wondering how much of the cost of developing alternative energy in the south should be born by the southern states, and how much, if any, should be subsidized by the nation as a whole. If the western states can already generate electricity from wind at a cost that is competitive with natural gas fired electric plants, is it fair to require the south to develop more costly renewable energy systems without providing it any financial assistance? I definitely think green is the way to go -- I just think regional differences need to be considered when developing a national energy plan.
Unfortunately government issues do not see into a vast future, China has a better Gold stockpile and more willing participants than we could mandate, its not a war on survival it is survival. We have not chosen to be settlers because we are content on serving the proposition - We were settlers and this makes history viable for education. If we were to grasp expansion we would design city underwater construction at the most feasiblle ocean locations and offer the world a New Wrold Peace Plan. Our challenge to the future is not (coal-fossil fuel nor nuclear plants) it is a new opportunity. We should make monorail transport more useful in going the extreme thus we make it possible for offshore shipping ports. Space has a true beginning, we are just realizing how our civilization can make settlements on other planets and our moon, but we are not connecting the dots before we start doing that because we forgot all the water on earth and complain about Global Warming and a possible disaster by a deadly Gamma Ray Blast from deep-space or our sun. Wise up and get smart. We have a future underwater and we must start now to design the seascape which surrounds us.