North Carolina At Risk For More Blackouts

2 thoughts on “North Carolina At Risk For More Blackouts”

1. Wind and solar energy are classical failures that should be placed in the dust bin of history.

   Here is a rather lengthy letter I wrote to the UNC Alumni Journal on this subject 16 years ago:

   Carolina Alumni Review
   November-December 2010

   I am writing in response to a piece in the July/August issue of The Carolina Alumni Review: “We will stop using  coal on campus by 2020.”

   The article proclaims that the chancellor’s decision was bold . Politically correct, in step with the misguided and discredited global warming hysteria, but bold, not hardly.
   The Sierra Club, James Hansen and environmental pressure groups are cheering this move and appear to be dictating  unsound and absurd policy to the Chancellor  . That’s fine but  I wonder how they will feel when the lights go off in Chapel Hill or feel the pain of increased tuition due to ballooning electricity costs..

   David Berkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout the UK, warned  that , ” A growing obsession with global warming and ‘ renewable ‘ sources threatens the satiability of our supply ” and he claimed that renewable energy expectations are nothing more than ” dangerous illusions ” which could hit consumers hard in the pocket.
   Oh wait, hmm, let’s see wasn’t it candidate Obama that said that if Cap and Trade were passed , ” electricity bills would skyrocket ”

   John Hofmeister, in his book Why We Hate Oil Companies, observes that ” It’s not that today’s ideas are bad; there’s nothing wrong with so-called clean, green, renewable energy.  The challenge is that there is not enough of that kind of energy and there won’t be for decades to come.  By emphasizing what is new and preaching hostility toward what is old, we fail to invest in what is needed.

   “The laments of the fossil fuel suppliers are not just the shrieks for survival of the last dinosaurs.  They are genuine warnings that the death of their fuels is also the death of the U.S. economy, security, and quality of life. ”

   “Let me make a potentially controversial point that may offend a lot of people:  There is no such thing as “clean energy” as we know energy today.  Anyone who claims a clean energy pathway is suspect.  They are not telling the whole story.

    From coal to oil to natural gas to nuclear to wind to solar to biofuels to hydropower, geothermal, and hydrogen, we deceive ourselves by declaring specific forms of energy “clean”.  There are certainly relative differences in degree, but every form of energy known to humans requires destruction and/or modification of molecules, landscapes, water supplies, or wildlife.  Every form of energy has an impact on the environment.  Clean energy is a relative, not an absolute, term.”

   Coal is not a dirty word as Hofmeister points out : ” Coal produces about half of our electricity; we can’t just turn it off.  In an electron society, we couldn’t run our hospitals, banks, companies, house-holds, governments, schools, and public safety without it.  For these reasons, it is naive and dangerous simply to argue for no more coal.”
   In the From The Hill article it is stated that the life expectancy of the Cogeneration plant is 30 to 40 years.  Is it wise to take valuable educational funds away from students to invest in ‘other than coal’ technology when “ Carolina’s cogeneration facility is one of the cleanest-burning, most efficient coal plants in the country ” ?

   According to Tim Toben  “But it still burns coal, and that must end to avoid contributing to the worst effects of global climate change”  Memo To Tim Toben : Compared to coal, wood ( biomass ) is a lot worse in the emissions of every major pollutant except for sulfur dioxide (SO2).  It is worse when it comes to emitting “evil” carbon dioxide, even according to the state’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
   Question – Isn’t debating climate change a fantastic waste of time and human energy ?  There is no agreement on what it is or isn’t.  There is not set of measures accurate enough to be credible to present a clear and present danger.  There is no rebuttal for the argument that we have always had cycles of global warming and global cooling, and Earth has adjusted accordingly.

   Finally, just how much of this re-engineering of the Cogeneration plant is the Sierra Club willing to fund? Also, will the students be passed the burden of funding, through tuition, the more expensive fuel source?  If so, shouldn’t all of the students be allowed to debate this issue and not just the Beyond Coal Group. This is a decision that UNC has made and taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear the costs.  This is a “teachable moment” for students and administrators: When they push for costlier energy, they have the responsibility to bear those higher costs in the future cost and the concomitant criticism .

   Fred Gregory  ’62
   Greensboro

   1. Great letter, Fred. You have always been on top of the issues!

Comments are closed.