Sources of Electric Power
(Our board administers the local municipal electric company. It is being asked by the joint action agency it belongs to to consider preferences in future power supply)
.
.
.
1. We are interested in inexpensive power.
2. That can mean various things:
A. We are buying for the future, and the market can change.
B. There are costs other than what appear on the electrical bill.
C. If we are going to consider B, the alternates should
a. Not affect the electrical bill very much
b. We should be very sure they are helpful alternates.
3. The State, in the form of (utility regulatory board) and the Legislature, has set up tests for various non-bottom-line considerations (societal benefits). These are, in general, well in advance of such considerations used by the rest of the country. As long as this is the case, you can rely on me not to get out ahead of the State - it may be right, but it is like trying to save New Orleans with a bailing bucket. The primary effect that being well out in front can have is to set a good example, and there is a small limit on how much I am willing to affect local economics to do that.
4. I personally buy into the greenhouse effect concerns. Yes, it is complicated, and there are many things going on and we don't understand all of them completely. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is that human activity, industrialization, has demonstrably changed the CO2 atmospheric content by a relatively large amount, and the CO2 level is important to the weather. Regardless of what else is going on, it is prudent to try to contain this - I have little doubt the biosphere will come to adapt to the new situation, but I have considerable doubt that my descendants will enjoy the process. I hold that it is clearly prudent to control CO2 release. I believe that many of those arguing against controlling CO2 release are doing so from a position of personal or corporate greed.
5. Because of greenhouse concerns, nuclear power is arising out of the mud it sank into in the 70's and 80's. It is now touted as "clean". "Clean" has several meanings. Nuclear power doesn't contribute strongly to atmospheric contamination (as long as one avoids Chernobyls). It does produce a lot of very dirty, very dangerous waste. We have not, as a society, come to a good decision on how to deal with this waste. The current treatment is advertised as temporary, and little progress is being made for the longer term. Some people are very opposed to nuclear, particularly if it is located near them. The nuclear industry, in the developed world, has been regulated very well, and has an outstanding safety record, compared to other industries in general and power industries in particular. (And keeping a public spotlight on incidents like the (VT Yankee) cooling tower is one way to keep a good safety record. That was not, in my opinion, a serious incident, but it does indicate sloppiness and corporate cost-cutting, and we do not need either at power reactors.) I, personally, will not oppose nuclear power, but I do not view it as a panacea, and I am very concerned about the treatment of waste products. That is a problem with dangers for future generations that is as serious as the CO2 problem. (Our) position on nuclear power is a particular concern for (joint agency), since some people and some communities have strong feelings on the subject. We used to have a Yankee contract, and I heard no complaints then. I advocated the early termination of the contract, but that was on purely economic grounds - if we had had the opportunity for a decent long-term contract, I would have seriously considered it.
6. (We have) been considering a variety of renewable energy projects. To date, none have borne fruit, for a variety of reasons - economic, political, and other. I advocate continuing to encourage (looking) for renewable energy projects and to participate in those that make sense. "Making sense" includes the considerations in the first 4 paragraphs.
7. I support wind power. It has a variety of disadvantages, a primary one being it is only available when Mother Nature chooses, and that, like hydro, is often not at summer peaking times when we most need it. Nonetheless - each watt generated by wind doesn't have to be generated by fossil fuel, and each watt generated in Vermont doesn't have to be piped in, either by transmission lines, gas pipelines or fuel truck**.
8. I support hydro. Similar considerations apply as for wind.
9. I mildly support wood. It has to be well-managed to be renewable, and it produces atmospheric contaminants, although these can be somewhat controlled. If well-managed, it is CO2-neutral. However, I expect the cost of managed wood to track fossil fuel costs.
10. I'm not wild about (OK, I strongly dislike) coal unless it is really clean, and we're not apt to be offered any of that from the source.
11. Other than the above, we'd go with the market.
** That is also true of every watt saved from being burned due to efficiency and frugality. . . . In our household, we were able to reduce our electricity usage by one-fourth over the last year.