By Sarwar A. Kashmeri
For the Valley News
The University of Alaska’s report on the impact of global warming released last Wednesday made somber reading. Higher temperatures, melting permafrost, a reduction in polar ice and increased flooding are expected to raise the repair and replacement cost of thousands of infrastructure projects by $6.1 billion—a 20 percent increase—between now and 2030.
Reports like these are a call to action and a clear signal that the time to begin changing to a “greener” world is now. There is, however, another dimension to the discussion on climate change detailed in a book, just published in London.
Out of the energy labyrinth by David Howell and Carole Nakhle, points out that there is little that can be done to affect global warming for the present generation because the changes being seen now are the result of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted over the last century.
The environmentally friendly policies that are being implemented now are mainly for the benefit of future generations. The critical short term issue that needs to be dealt with immediately, the authors point out, is the reliability of America’s energy supplies.
If there were to be a serious energy supply disruption—ever more likely given today’s lethal mix energy supply, geopolitics, and the generally availability of high-technology weaponry—with resulting shortages of heating fuel and electric power to keep the lights on, there will not be much enthusiasm left for worrying about projects to protect the environment for future generations.
As Maynard Keynes famously said, in the long term we’re are all dead.
New Hampshire and Vermont, together with the other New England states are particularly vulnerable in the short term because of their colder weather patterns, and because they are at “the end of the energy pipeline.” So policies that insure the states’ energy supplies and prices in the event of an increasingly likely interruption ought to take center stage in both states.
In Vermont the countdown to a potential energy crunch has already begun. The state consumes approximately 900 Megawatts (MW) of power—one MW powers 100 homes. Most of this power, 640 MW is supplied by the Vermont Yankee nuclear
power-plant and the Canadian utility, Hydro-Quebec. Thanks to long term contracts with these two utilities Vermont’
s citizens and businesses get some of the cleanest and cheapest energy in the country.
Unfortunately, the existing agreement with both companies will end in 6 years. Renewing these contracts, especially the one with Vermont Yankee, should be Vermont’s priority No. 1. Efforts to find renewable energy sources, bio-fuels, etc., as important as they are, must take second place There is simply no way that renewable energy sources can make up the shortfall; for instance it would take over 900 large pylon windmills to replace both utilities’ energy output.
I realize there is opposition in Vermont to Nuclear power, though there is some debate about how extensive the opposition really is.
But if Vermonters want to ultimately get to a sustainable and affordable energy future they should re-think the bias against nuclear energy. It is one of the cleanest (no carbon emissions), most plentiful, and safest energy sources around. Hundreds of nuclear reactors, including Vermont Yankee, have been providing power safely around the world for decades.
(The accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine need to be kept in proper perspective: the reactor at Three Mile Island did what it was designed to do when faced with potential nuclear leakage—contained it; Chernobyl was the product of the Soviet economy that had a hard time putting a bicycle together, so one ought not to be surprised at that catastrophe.)
There is the issue of spent fuel storage in the United States because the Federal government changed its rules in mid-stream and reneged on the original plan to allow the reprocessing of spent fuel. But my conversations with Vermont Yankee officials lead me to believe they have a safe and cost-effective solution to storing spent fuel at their site until the Federal Government lives up to its responsibilities and either arranges for a national storage site or re-thinks the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel.
Responsibility requires that Vermont’s political and business leaders begin to explain the energy conundrum as a short-term (energy security) and long term (sustainable and greenhouse gas emissions) problem.
Yes, the Federal Government bears ultimate responsibility for energy stewardship through national initiatives and international multilateral projects that encourage carbon-emissions reduction policies, energy-efficient automobiles, solar and wind energy projects, mass-transit, and clean coal technologies.
But in the interim Vermont should safeguard its citizens’ energy supplies through another set of long-term contracts with Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec. They are Vermont’s life-line to a green energy future.
This is my last Business Climate column. Thank you for all your support over the last three years. You can comment on this column and stay in touch via my blog: http://www.sakbizcol.blogspot.com/.
Sarwar Kashmeri is the author of the recently released book America & Europe After 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide. He is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association, a strategic communications adviser, and lives in Reading, Vt.
For the Valley News
The University of Alaska’s report on the impact of global warming released last Wednesday made somber reading. Higher temperatures, melting permafrost, a reduction in polar ice and increased flooding are expected to raise the repair and replacement cost of thousands of infrastructure projects by $6.1 billion—a 20 percent increase—between now and 2030.
Reports like these are a call to action and a clear signal that the time to begin changing to a “greener” world is now. There is, however, another dimension to the discussion on climate change detailed in a book, just published in London.
Out of the energy labyrinth by David Howell and Carole Nakhle, points out that there is little that can be done to affect global warming for the present generation because the changes being seen now are the result of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted over the last century.
The environmentally friendly policies that are being implemented now are mainly for the benefit of future generations. The critical short term issue that needs to be dealt with immediately, the authors point out, is the reliability of America’s energy supplies.
If there were to be a serious energy supply disruption—ever more likely given today’s lethal mix energy supply, geopolitics, and the generally availability of high-technology weaponry—with resulting shortages of heating fuel and electric power to keep the lights on, there will not be much enthusiasm left for worrying about projects to protect the environment for future generations.
As Maynard Keynes famously said, in the long term we’re are all dead.
New Hampshire and Vermont, together with the other New England states are particularly vulnerable in the short term because of their colder weather patterns, and because they are at “the end of the energy pipeline.” So policies that insure the states’ energy supplies and prices in the event of an increasingly likely interruption ought to take center stage in both states.
In Vermont the countdown to a potential energy crunch has already begun. The state consumes approximately 900 Megawatts (MW) of power—one MW powers 100 homes. Most of this power, 640 MW is supplied by the Vermont Yankee nuclear
power-plant and the Canadian utility, Hydro-Quebec. Thanks to long term contracts with these two utilities Vermont’s citizens and businesses get some of the cleanest and cheapest energy in the country.Unfortunately, the existing agreement with both companies will end in 6 years. Renewing these contracts, especially the one with Vermont Yankee, should be Vermont’s priority No. 1. Efforts to find renewable energy sources, bio-fuels, etc., as important as they are, must take second place There is simply no way that renewable energy sources can make up the shortfall; for instance it would take over 900 large pylon windmills to replace both utilities’ energy output.
I realize there is opposition in Vermont to Nuclear power, though there is some debate about how extensive the opposition really is.
But if Vermonters want to ultimately get to a sustainable and affordable energy future they should re-think the bias against nuclear energy. It is one of the cleanest (no carbon emissions), most plentiful, and safest energy sources around. Hundreds of nuclear reactors, including Vermont Yankee, have been providing power safely around the world for decades.
(The accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine need to be kept in proper perspective: the reactor at Three Mile Island did what it was designed to do when faced with potential nuclear leakage—contained it; Chernobyl was the product of the Soviet economy that had a hard time putting a bicycle together, so one ought not to be surprised at that catastrophe.)
There is the issue of spent fuel storage in the United States because the Federal government changed its rules in mid-stream and reneged on the original plan to allow the reprocessing of spent fuel. But my conversations with Vermont Yankee officials lead me to believe they have a safe and cost-effective solution to storing spent fuel at their site until the Federal Government lives up to its responsibilities and either arranges for a national storage site or re-thinks the ban on the reprocessing of spent fuel.
Responsibility requires that Vermont’s political and business leaders begin to explain the energy conundrum as a short-term (energy security) and long term (sustainable and greenhouse gas emissions) problem.
Yes, the Federal Government bears ultimate responsibility for energy stewardship through national initiatives and international multilateral projects that encourage carbon-emissions reduction policies, energy-efficient automobiles, solar and wind energy projects, mass-transit, and clean coal technologies.
But in the interim Vermont should safeguard its citizens’ energy supplies through another set of long-term contracts with Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec. They are Vermont’s life-line to a green energy future.
This is my last Business Climate column. Thank you for all your support over the last three years. You can comment on this column and stay in touch via my blog: http://www.sakbizcol.blogspot.com/.
Sarwar Kashmeri is the author of the recently released book America & Europe After 9/11 and Iraq: The Great Divide. He is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association, a strategic communications adviser, and lives in Reading, Vt.
5 comments:
Hi Sarwar -
I again enjoyed this week's column - until I got to the very end.......
My only reason for buying the Sunday Snooze will no longer be writing in it?
Sigh......
Is your column in the Upper Valley's "fish-wrap of record" ending because of your preference or theirs?
Forgive me for not answering this. Thanks.
I have to try to bend your attitudes towards Yankee and Hydro Québec being the logical carry on after their contracts run out. I think we must be aggressively working to replace at least the Yankee portion as the radioactive waste is deadly for 200,00 + years. Also even if the feds are responsible for the waste we are part of that federal government and will bear a share of the responsibility and until the feds get their act together we have all the responsibility for it. What would be the cost of evacuating a 60 mile circle around Yankee due to a terrorist flying a light plane packed with plastic explosives into the fuel storage area? On top of this with our the federal subsidies atomic power is more than twice a expensive as wind.
The most difficult piece of replacing these energy sources is base load… power that is always on line. It makes up app 50% of our usage in Vermont. 60% of our power and all our base load comes from Hydro Québec and Yankee. There are place to make up some if not all Yankees 30% share. Micro and community hydro project sites that are scattered out all over the state could do perhaps 20% of it but the regulatory process does not allow them to be developed in a timely or cost effective way. Here in the Tunbridge valley we have two existing dams on the first branch of the white river and 5 more breached dams. They together with the harnessing of some of side tributaries would come close to meeting our total base load electric needs. Bio fuels could also contribute towards our base loads. These could be wood burners as we know them or a verity of new more efficient technologies using cellulosic digesters either through microbes or chemical interaction and gasification. Increased efficiency also would reduce need for all power. Intermittent power production from wind and photo voltaic could also play a role in acting like base load supply by being combined with energy storage devices and smart metering. Smart metering could control releases of stored energy from plug in hybrids or hydro sites. They could also shift demand away from times of costly electricity. Together these would reduce the need for wheeling power where excess power is generated but not used. We currently “use” 20% of our power this way. We have wind resources suitable for community scale wind. The required avian studies make their development unlikely. This is not an ecological issue. Cats, picture windows and cell towers all kill far more birds than a modern wind turbine yet wind is the only one required to do the expensive and time consuming avian studies. These wind resources are likley to be able to produce 150% of our power. Photovoltaic is also an intermittent power generator and the home owner type are not cost effective in to days market. Down the road they will be and combined with storage and wind could replace base load (wind is more active at night). A study of Vermont showed that if 100% off all south facing rooftops were covered in photovoltaics that it would generate more than the power we use. A multidimensional plan must be implemented aggressively and now but excepting the extension of Yankee’s operating license should not be accepted with out a first class effort. –My apology, I did this all off the top of my head so may not have all the details perfect, Henry Swayze, The First Branch Sustainability Project.
Your column today is A+.
You make the re-think-the-bias point with clarity, and with a couple of leavening light touches (Soviet bicycle building, and the ultimate reality of John Maynard Keynes). You also provided perspective to the global warming/climate change debate.
But back to basics — you shed light on a complex subject. Let an informed debate begin.
Post a Comment