Enviros: N.C. power plans omit alternatives

[jpak]

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/05/21/national/a07052106_01.txt

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina’s largest utilities say they will need to spend more than $10 billion on three new nuclear reactors and two coal burning plants to meet projected electricity demand within a decade.

But environmental groups say the utilities’ forecasts leave out two key factors: conservation and alternative energy sources. Adding those to the mix could delay the need for new plants, they say.

Energy efficiency, a popular idea during the 1970s when high fuel prices ruled, is back in fashion just like bell-bottoms. Conserving electricity not only helps people cut power bills, it also reduces pollution from power plants. Concerns that coal plants contribute to greenhouse gases and higher costs of fuel have driven the resurgence in conservation programs.

Last year, the Georgia Utilities Commission required Georgia Power to offer four programs to help residential customers save energy. In January, the California Public Utilities Commission created a 10-year solar initiative to help bring down the costs of solar electricity for customers.

<more>

[skids]

1. Bell bottoms are back in fashion?!?!

Why didn't I get the memo?

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Makes you wonder...

...why the NC ISO isn't listening to the experts...

:evilgrin:

[rfkrfk]

3. expecting a power company,to want to sell less...

not going to work.

sometimes, you have to take matters into your own hands...
if you don't want another coal fired plant in your state,
build something else yourself

[4dsc]

4. Sad analogy

If you don't want another coal fired plant in your state, CONSERVE energy and they won't have to build another coal fired plant. Stating someone should build something themselves is a copout!!

[struggle4progress]

16. The companies care about, not how much they sell, but their profits.

Reduced per capita electric use is compatible with corporate profitability. Customers can still get the benefits they want from electricity, while using less electricity. Some conservation incentive programs already exist in NC; more could be done in this direction.

<edit: grammar>

[Ideas-Man]

5. Hydrogen and Water not Nuclear

We need to do Hydrogen and Water and stop all nuclear power.

I want News reporters to challenge nuclear proponents, by them
offering to drink the pure fresh water off the the tail pipe
of a fuel cell, which is its only emission, and the nuclear
waste jocky guy to drink some nuclear waste, on live TV.  One,
Hydrogen and water, is never deadly or polluting ever, the
other is deadly for millions of years. Which one would you
choose? That would make the choice very clear to everyone.

I just started a new wbesite Ideas To Save the Planet.
http://www.ideastosavetheplanet.org /

My ideas is for the world to convert to Water and Hydrogen
instead of Oil. Desalinate sea water and build water pipelines
from everyone's coast lines, and everyone having residential
fuel cells and fuel cars, that are powered by hydrogen gas
they produce themselves from water. Then everyone would have
zero emissions homes and cars. This technology has existed of
167 years, we just haven't made it a priority to implement it.

Water pipeline would also end hunger and thirst world wide,
while using the extra water from raising oceans to fight
global warming. Everyone could be getting oceans of fuel from
the oceans that are around every county.

http://www.ideastosavetheplanet.org/pages/global-conver...
http://www.ideastosavetheplanet.org/pages/desalinate-se...
http://www.ideastosavetheplanet.org/pages/water-pipelin...

Here's a quote from me from my website

"A technology that could be Saving this Planet has been
sitting on the Shelf, just waiting to used, for 167 years!

People are saying that it's going to take another 20-50 years
to get the Hydrogen Economy and Hydrogen and Water powered
Car.

I want to say to those people...

"We, the United States of America, survived the Great
Depression, then mobilized the entire nation to build Planes,
Tanks, Guns, Bullets, and even invented Nuclear Bombs to Win
World War II, a War that killed 50 million people, Saving the
World in only 4 years. That is why our grand parents are
called the Greatest Generation, because they Saved the World.

We also have overcome the huge evils of Slavery and
Segregation.

The Hydrogen Fuel Cell was invented in 1839, 167 years ago.

Are you seriously saying that we can do all that, but it's
going to take another 50 years, making it 217 years, to get a
Hydrogen powered home and car?

I think that this generation can be equally as Great if we
only made fighting Global Warming and Saving the World Again a
National Priority by converting to the Zero Emission Hydrogen
Economy. Then mobilize the Nation to Build and Install clean
Hydrogen Technologies in every Home, Business and Car like we
did to build Planes, Tanks, Guns, and Bullets during World War
II. The United States of America could fully convert to the
Hydrogen Economy in only 4 years not in 50.

Then we can help the rest of the World to Live Sustainably by
spreading Hydrogen Technologies as well as Desalinating the
Oceans of Water that are all around us and building Water
Pipelines instead of Oil Pipelines.

I'm talking about Modernizing every Home, Building, Business,
Government Building, Car, Truck, Motorcycle, Train, Tractor,
Plane, Bus, Boat....Fully converting to the Clean Power of
Hydrogen from Water, and other sustainable technologies like
Solar, Wind, and Bio-diesel - Worldwide. Creating a Zero
Emission Civilization and Planet.

Thus Saving the World, Again, by Ending Global Warming, Ending
Hunger and Thirst, and Wars for Food, Water and Oil, without
killing 50 million people.

We've already proven that such mobilization is possible, we
just have to regain the Political and Moral Will, and Choose
to be Great Again!

Demand that the World make fighting Global Warming a Global
Priority and convert to the Zero Emission Hydrogen Economy
Now! 167 years is too long to wait!"


You all could be Choosing to Be Great Again by talking about
hydrogen and doing what you can to maifest the hydrogen
economy.

Thank you for listening and thank you for choosing to care
about saving the planet. 

[sabbat hunter]

7. several questions

1) what is the cost monetarily and environmentally from building all those plants to suck water out of the oceans?
2) how do we make all that hydgrogen with 0 energy costs and not harm the environment?


nuclear power in the US can be done safely. we can reuse much of the waste from nuclear power plants via reprocessing for fuel and medical purposes.

[benEzra]

8. Uncombined hydrogen doesn't exist on this planet...

you can make it from water, but it requires more energy to extract it than you get from recombining it in a fuel cell.

Hydrogen is a means of energy storage, not a source of energy itself. You can make hydrogen using electricity from a nuclear plant, a wind farm, solar, or whatever, but hydrogen is not a power source.

FWIW, I think nuclear and wind are the energy sources of the future, and hydrogen may play a role in allowing nuclear and wind to power cars and planes. Who knows...

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. Which politicians have homes on the outer banks?

There should be good wind off the coast. Now if we could just be sure there wern't any well connected NIMBY's there.

[Endangered Specie]

9. good luck trying that...

some of us North Carolinians actually like our beaches.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Would you like them to move 100 miles inland? nt

[Endangered Specie]

11. I'll take choice c...

Add another reactor unit to Shearon Harris.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Careful now...

...you'll be accused of thinking if you carry on like that... :D

Although given the US's use of primary energy, reactor and windfarm would be a good idea.

[Endangered Specie]

14. Perhaps, between the two I tend to favor solar over wind...

plenty of hot rooftops around where panels wouldnt take away any more land or be an eyesore.

unfortunately, none of these green sources are really reliable (and they are by no means completely clean).

I know the argument of using renewables to compliment standard baseload sources (nuke, coal, oil) is popular, but in the end that means that you still need a baseload infanstructure that can give 100% peak demand. One further thing, is that operating many of these baseload plants at reduced power tend to be less effecient, offsetting even more the 'benefits' of renewables.

Beachfront is a big thing in this state, trying to mess them up with eyesores is likely political suicide, plus we have hurricanes.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. It depends on how predictable it is

That's one advantage solar has over some renewables - within the vagueeries of cloud cover, you know the sun will rise in the morning: You don't know if it's going to be windy. PV is not such a great deal, since it's horribly expensive (and not that environmentally friendly in production) but solar thermal is shaping up nicely. And a nuclear base load/solar peak load would fit in with the way we normally live - working during the day.

Wind is more problematic, since we can't really say when it's going to be windy with any real accuracy - and you're right, we need to meet the power load 24/7. There are options with on-demand power sources like NG - or hydro, which I'm a fan of even given the environmental cost - but where I think they could really excel is with stored energy: If we wind up using hydrogen, for example, it doesn't matter if it was extracted last week or yesterday - By playing around with stock levels it can be turned into a reliable resource.

And replacing oil has got to be a large part of any energy policy...

[depakid]

13. "the power companies’ proposals represent business as usual."

Nothing will change in North Carolina until it's forced to change. And when that happens, it won't be pretty.

Frankly, with all of the educational resources of the state (that get ignored whenever energy, the environment or land use planning- or thing like public transit are concerned) I don't feel even a little bit sorry for them.