Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Roy Innis :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Truth About "Alternative Energy"
by Roy Innis
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Every week brings new claims that clean, free, inexhaustible renewable energy will soon replace the “dirty” fuels that sustain our economy today. A healthy dose of reality is needed.

Over half of our electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36% of our electricity. Barely 1% comes from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt hour than alternatives – leaving families with more money for food, housing, transportation and healthcare.

By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity, say EIA, industry and utility company analysts. Unreliable wind power simply cannot meet these demands.

Wind farms require subsidies and vast stretches of land. To meet New York City’s electricity needs alone would require blanketing the entire state of Connecticut with towering turbines, according to Rockefeller University Professor Jesse Ausubel. They kill raptors and other birds, and must be backed up by expensive coal or gas power plants that mostly sit idle – but kick in whenever the wind dies down, so factories, schools, offices and homes don’t shut down.

On a scale sufficient to meet the electricity needs of a modern society, wind power is just not sustainable.

For three decades, US demand for natural gas has outpaced production. In fact, gas prices have tripled since 1998, to $13 per thousand cubic feet today, and every $1 increase costs US consumers an additional $22 billion a year.

With Congress and states locking up more gas prospects every year, this trend is likely to continue – further driving up prices and forcing us to import increasing amounts of expensive liquefied natural gas, often from less than friendly nations.

We simply cannot afford to halt the construction of new coal-fired power plants, though some are trying to do exactly that.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. masterminded and bankrolled anti-coal initiatives in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. The scheme was intended to drive up the price of natural gas, and thus profits, by making coal less available and more expensive – with little regard for poor families.

As Kansas discovered after its environmental chief blocked a proposed new coal generator, coal projects also come with transmission lines to carry intermittent wind-generated electricity and more reliable coal-generated power. Wind farms typically do not. Now a dozen Kansas wind projects are also on hold.

Former Clinton Administration environment staffer Katy McGinty engineered the lockup of 7 billion tons of low sulfur Utah coal, worth $1 trillion. Current and proposed air and water quality rules would make it even more difficult and expensive to provide adequate coal-fired electricity. But the facts support more coal use, not less.

Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28% and 43% respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz – and new rules will eliminate most remaining emissions by 2015.

Coal-fired power plants are now the primary source of US mercury emissions only because the major sources (incinerating wastes and processing ores containing mercury) have been eliminated. US mercury emissions are now down 82% since the early 1980s; America accounts for only 2% of all global mercury emissions; 55% of global emissions come from volcanoes, oceans and forest fires; and two-thirds of mercury deposition in America comes from other countries, Schwartz adds. (Compact fluorescent lightbulbs or CFLs could become a more serious potential source of mercury than power plants.) Nevertheless, new EPA rules require a further 70% reduction in mercury from power plants by 2015.

That leaves carbon dioxide and catastrophic climate change as rationales for opposing coal. The latest UN-IPCC report again reduces projections for future temperature increases, polar melting and sea level rise. Moreover, increasing scientific evidence suggests only slight warming, climate change controlled primarily by solar cycles, and no storm, drought or sea level trends that exceed historical experience.

Yet, claims about imminent catastrophes have become increasingly hysterical, as a prelude to international climate negotiations in Bali. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Roy Innis is national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of America’s oldest and most respected civil rights groups, and a life-long advocate of economic development rights for poor families and communities around the world.
Texn Engneer
"the Plutonium is extracted, then the Plutonium is transported to a disposal site or ship. Did I miss that part?"

Maybe that wasn't clear - after processing, there is no plutonium to dispose of.

"How do you define a bad subsidy? Is it bad only if it has to do with solar, wind, wave, etc.? "

ALL of them are. They distort markets. Food prices would adjust and more items would be planted locally, saving shipping costs. We pay seven to ten times the market price of sugar. Now the subsIdy for ethanol has bumped the price of corn, so the poor have to pay more for chicken and pork. I want totally free markets. I also see the cheapest possible energy as the main thing to raise people out of poverty. I was at a village in Haiti in 2001 where they had a co-op small generator (50KW) that was used for two hours of lighting per day that the government shut down because donating a chicken to the co-op for juice violated the public utility regs on selling electricity. The government refuses to run wires to the village also. So, no light, clothes irons, radios, sewing machines, refrigerators, but lots of malnutrition and hopelessness.

"Were you touting your expertise in computer code-writing? "

No, it wasn't in the context of claiming expertise on the topic of discussion, and I have no experience in power plant design or operation. However, I have testified before the Committee on Nuclear Reactor Safety about code design issues. And, I do have my own software business and PE license. How's that?!

Peace, and Merry Christmas. Get some work done.

Texn Engneer
"It is up to you, as a proponent of nuclear plants that create toxic Plutonium, to explain how your position is rational. It may have seemed rational in an age when low-cost fuel seemed gone forever (the 1970's), and uranium for nuclear plants was the cheapest thing available (except, of course, water for hydroelectric plants). Those days are gone."

Actually, I am a proponent of the new designs that produce no plutonium, and safe methods to reprocess the current waste. These are not related.

I think that there are ways to insure the security of the stuff on the way to the plant. I don't see a problem with the useless stuff after processing. This is too bulky and securely packaged in glass to be of any use to anyone, and not possible for terrorists to use even for dirty bombs.

"As to not transporting gasoline, surely you jest."

Of course - you brought up the fuel truck accident!

"...truck wreck of toxic spent nuclear fuel in transit across the country."

But why a truck? My friend designs special railcars that carry containers capable of withstanding any train wreck. They reprocess in other countries w/o incident, don't they? And how will this be different from getting the stuff to the burial site?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.