TODAY’S STUDY: WHAT THE NORTHEAST CAN DO WITH NEW ENERGY

Anybody concerned with energy who isn't weighing the pros and cons of nuclear energy right now must be in a trance or a coma.

Nuclear energy has all the benefits of the New Energies. It also has one quality the New Energies lack: It is dangerous. Nuclear energy's dangers may not arise often but the potential consequences of nature's frivolity, human error or human malice are gargantuan. And regardless of the engineers' assurances about multiply redundant safety systems, there will always be unforeseen instances of nature's frivolity, human error and human malice.

Don't listen to the engineers on this. They were the ones, remember, who coined Murphy's Laws, the most important of which is that if it CAN go wrong, it WILL.

Listen, instead, to the economists on this one. They haven't invested in non-governement-supported nuclear projects in decades. Economists know that while on the one hand nuclear plants may offer benefits over the very long run if everything goes according to plan, on the other hand it isn't worth the investment because in real life things rarely go completely according to plan and when tens of billions of dollars over a decade are at stake, the benefits of nuclear aren't worth the financial risk when weighed against the consequences of unplanned events.

It would be different if there were no good alternatives but while nuclear energy now provides a fifth of U.S. electricity, a 2008 U.S. Department of Energy study found that wind alone could do that within two decades.

In fact, study after study from people even-handed enough to consider the possibility, including the one highlighted below, have found that comparable investments in this good - if unpredictable - earth's sun, wind, deep heat and flowing waters (along with a commitment to a modern transmission system and research and development for the longer term) will provide more emissions-free, non-toxic, safe electricity sooner than the same spending on nuclear's contaminations, horrors and terrors.

A Clean Northeast; Moving the Northeast Beyond Coal and Toward a Clean Energy Future
Jennifer Perrone and Mark Kresowik, March 2011 (Climate Recovery Partnership and Sierra Club)

Executive Summary

Coal-fired power plants in the Northeastern region of the United States emit millions of tons of health-damaging pollutants every year. Smog, soot, and mercury, which are all by-products of burning coal for electricity, are responsible for thousands of deaths and negative health impacts per year. In a report from the Clean Air Task Force, coal was estimated to be responsible for nearly 4,000 deaths in 2010 in the Northeast from power plant emissions alone. These health impacts cost billions of dollars each year. An additional $1.5 billion is sent out of the region to pay for coal imports.

The Northeast region – which in this report includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia – could supply more than a third of its power from clean energy resources that are widely available right within its borders. A number of state leaders have stepped up and made strong commitments to shift away from dirty, risky resources like coal and toward clean energy resources that are locally available, produce more jobs than coal and other dirty fuels, and provide long-term electricity price stability in a region where prices are high, unstable and continuing to rise.

click to enlarge

There are several steps that Northeastern states can and should take in order to secure a clean energy future. These steps are essential for improving public health, protecting air and water, boosting local economies, and mitigating the impact of climate change:

• Protect clean energy funding and programs: Clean energy funds in the Northeast have contributed significantly to building the region as a leader in solar, wind and energy efficiency. Long-term dedicated funding to clean energy programs provides stability for the clean energy market, which encourages new businesses to plant their roots and grow throughout the region. Now is not the time to cut funding or programs. If clean energy programs are defunded, businesses will be put at risk, the Northeast will fall behind in clean energy development and states throughout the region will not be able to meet strong environmental and energy goals.

• Support financial incentives and financing for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects: The Northeast will not be able to meet existing environmental commitments without solar, wind, and energy efficiency investments. These clean energy sources have the potential to provide zero-carbon electricity that would cost less than developing new infrastructure to import coal power from other regions (or building expensive new natural gas or nuclear plants), while providing rate stability and electricity diversity for the region. Renewable energy developers need a competitive edge in the market and long-term contracts provide the confidence and revenue stream necessary for developing large-scale wind and solar power projects.

• Strengthen and meet energy efficiency targets: The Northeast is rich with energy efficiency potential – more than 20% reductions in electricity demand are possible. We can reach this potential through innovative energy efficiency programs that incentivize performance and by keeping utilities on track for reaching targets. Additionally, we can provide incentives to implement the latest model energy efficiency building codes and improve compliance so that energy demand growth begins to slow.

click to enlarge

• Improve regional/federal coordination and streamline permitting for environmentally-friendly offshore wind projects: Northeast states have tremendous potential to meet existing renewable energy targets while boosting economic development and stabilizing long-term electricity prices by supporting offshore wind projects. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Delaware, New York and New Jersey all have proposed projects striving to earn the title as the first in the nation, yet complicated and lengthy permitting processes could prevent these projects from breaking ground for up to seven years.

• Incentivize real renewables, not “alternatives”: Not all “alternatives” are created equal. Energy resources that damage our air, water, or lands should not be incentivized. The Northeast has the ability to meet all clean energy goals with truly clean resources– solar, wind and efficiency–and decision-makers have the ability to create incentives for developers to pursue them.

Using existing technologies, while maintaining affordable and reliable electric service, the Northeast can eliminate demand growth and even start to reduce electric use to displace the existing 27 GW of coal capacity currently generated in the Northeast Region through a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

click to enlarge

Introduction

The oldest, most densely populated region in the country, the Northeast, is made up of eleven states and the District of Columbia. Approximately one-quarter of the United States population lives in the Northeast. While the region uses less energy per capita than other parts of the country – in part because of numerous dense population centers – it accounts for roughly 15% of net electricity generation in the United States.

In 2010, the Northeast generated 562 TWh of electricity. The primary source for electricity generation in the Northeast is nuclear energy, followed by coal and natural gas. Renewable energy accounts for nearly 11% of electricity generation, consistent with the national average. However, over half of that energy comes from hydropower. Demand for electricity is expected to grow roughly 12% in the region over the next twenty years, thus by 2030, the Northeast is expected to require just over 631 TWh of electricity generation.

While the region went through a period of large coal-fired plant development from 1950-1970, increased conservation, renewable energy development, and reliance on other fuels – like natural gas – have met the needs of most new net demand growth in recent years…

click to enlarge

Coal in the Northeast

The Northeast has many of the oldest, most inefficient coal-fired power plants in the country. Most Northeast states have at least one coal-fired power plant dating back to 1940, with the vast majority built before the Clean Air Act and other regulatory health-protecting measures were passed. Dirty coal-powered plants emit 39% of carbon dioxide pollution, 22% of nitrogen oxide pollution, 69% of sulfur dioxide pollution, and 40% of mercury emissions in the U.S.

Coal Pollution is a Threat to Public Health

There is a much higher frequency of coal plants in or near major population centers in the Northeast than in other regions of the country. The pollutants emitted from burning coal can impact the health of populations hundreds of miles downwind from a plant. As a result, burning coal in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania can impact the health of citizens in New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, and even in states that don’t burn any coal themselves, like Rhode Island. Coal plants are a major source of several health-damaging pollutants. Sulfur dioxide is well known for its contribution to acid rain, but according to the American Lung Association, even brief exposures to low levels of sulfur dioxide can trigger attacks in people with asthma.9 Nitrogen dioxide is a major component of ozone smog and fine particulate matter, which affect the health of millions of Americans across wide areas of the country.

In a report from Clean Air Task Force, in 2010, emissions from coal-burning power plants were estimated to be responsible for nearly 4,000 deaths in the Northeast. Despite some efforts to clean up certain plants, the Northeast coal-fired plants still remain one of the largest public health threats in the region. A report by the National Academy of Sciences found that burning fossil fuel for transportation and electricity generation costs the United States $120 billion a year in health costs.13 Coal burning in the Northeast is also responsible for creating millions of tons of dangerous coal ash and other solid waste, emitting other toxic chemicals that are potential neurotoxins and a threat to brain development, damaging local waterways and forests, and the cost of human life that unfortunately occurs during deadly coal-mining accidents.

click to enlarge

Coal Damages Air, Water, and Landscapes

Because of the lack of coal resources in the Northeast, many of these plants are supplied with coal from Appalachia, often using mountaintop removal coal mining. Mountaintop removal coal mining is a method of extracting coal that results in blowing off the top of a mountain and then, to minimize waste disposal costs, dumping millions of tons of waste rock in the valleys below. This causes permanent damage to the ecosystem and landscape. Nearly 2,000 miles of streams have been damaged or destroyed, and 1.4 million acres of land are threatened in the next ten years. This type of mining poisons drinking water, lays waste to wildlife habitats, increases the risk of flooding and wipes out entire communities.

Imported Coal Hurts Local Economies and Threatens Workers and Environments Overseas

Coal that is not imported into the Northeast from Appalachia and other states in the country is coming in from Colombia, Indonesia, and other foreign countries where environmental regulations are limited and safety of workers is not protected. According to a 2010 report by Union of Concerned Scientists Burning Coal, Burning Cash the United States is spending billions to import coal from other countries. One of the most import-dependent states, Massachusetts, depends on international coal imports for 82% of its overall coal use.

Energy providers in the Northeast are dependent on unreliable foreign supplies, sending billions of dollars each year on coal imports out of state and the country. As a result, the region is vulnerable to unstable fossil fuel prices, particularly in those states dependent on international coal imports.

Coal Contributes to Climate Change

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main cause of climate change. The Northeast coal plants emitted 162 million tons of CO2 in 2010. By 2030, this will grow to 178 million tons of CO2 if we continue to rely on dirty coal. It will not be possible to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and in the Northeast, without reducing and eliminating coal.

click to enlarge

Clean Energy in the Northeast

While the Northeast lacks coal resources in the region, it does have an ample supply of another, free and inexhaustible fuel source – clean energy. Many states in the Northeast already lead the country in terms of clean energy commitment and development. However, much more is possible. In 2010, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) released a report, From Potential to Action: How New England Can Save Energy, Cut Costs, and Create a Brighter Future with Energy Efficiency. The study concludes that by pursuing cost-effective energy efficiency measures, New England states can actually cut business-as-usual electricity consumption levels by approximately 20% by 2018.19 These cost-effective measures could not only stop electricity demand growth for the region, but could actually displace the need for coal-fired power in many states. In fact, according to the study, four large coal-fired power plants could be displaced directly. The societal benefits from the untapped potential for efficiency in the region net almost $20 billion, including increasing employment by 421,906 job-years.

And that is not all. According to a 2008 study by the U.S. Department of Energy titled, “20% Wind Energy by 2030,” the Northeast possesses sufficient and affordable wind resources to obtain at least one-fifth of its electricity from wind, with over 1,100 GW of potential offshore wind capacity.21 With some of the strongest offshore wind speeds in the country, the Northeast has almost a third of the total capacity for offshore wind in the United States.

Finally, the region can help diversify its energy mix by harnessing the power of the sun. The Northeast could install 26 GW of solar capacity by 2030, which could generate 34 TWHs of electricity.22 Some states in the region are already tapping into this potential. New Jersey is currently the second leading producer of solar energy in the United States, with 128 MW in 2009.

With existing technologies and while maintaining affordable and reliable electric service, the Northeast can eliminate demand growth and even start to reduce electric use to displace the existing 27 GW of coal capacity through a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

click to enlarge

A Commitment to Clean Energy

Nationally, the Obama administration has already made a commitment to clean energy by pledging to double the nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years, invest $15 billion per year to develop wind and solar technologies, cut carbon pollution by 80% by 2050, and create millions of new jobs in the clean energy economy. In addition, in his State of the Union address, President Obama committed to producing 80% of the nation’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.

However, states are currently at the forefront of clean energy action. The Northeast Governors have already begun making strong commitments to clean energy and are showing that it is possible. Nearly every state in the region has made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most aggressive goals are in Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont which have committed to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 75-80% below 1990 levels by 2050. With over a third of greenhouse gas emissions coming from coal, these commitments will not be achievable without a clear plan to retire coal in the region and replace it with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

click to enlarge

Additionally, almost every state in the Northeast has some form of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires a certain percentage of a utility’s power capacity or generation to come from renewable sources by a given date. These goals range from weak – 18% by 2020 in Pennsylvania – to strong – 30% by 2015 in New York. Aggregated across the region, the Northeast will need to produce approximately 25% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. This commitment cannot be met unless the region breaks its addiction to coal and starts making long-term investments in clean energy now.

Similarly, many states in the region have made strong commitments to energy efficiency through Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS). Maine leads the region, after having made a commitment to reduce electricity consumption by 30% by 2020 and committing to retrofit every home throughout the state by 2030. New York holds another top commitment with the “15 by 15” target that will require 15% reduction in electric consumption by 2015. But some states lack a commitment altogether – like New Hampshire – or are still behind with weak commitments – like Delaware, which is only aiming for 1% annual reductions.

click to enlarge

Conclusion

The Northeast has a unique opportunity to go from an energy importer to an energy exporter. The wind, solar and energy efficiency potential in the region can allow these states to eliminate demand growth and displace existing coal consumption. Coal is a bad choice for the Northeast. The existing coal-fired power plant fleet in the Northeast is aging rapidly and dependent on out-of-region coal reserves or international supply. Energy prices in the Northeast are already high and unstable, and as the real cost of coal becomes internalized, prices will increase. However, we can mitigate rising prices through energy efficiency and stabilize prices in the long-run through renewable energy. Clean energy has the potential to transform the region into a global leader in the industry, the Northeast need only to tap into its rich clean energy potential. The states in this region cannot afford to continue to pollute air, water, lands, and our lungs when the solution is obvious – it’s time for a clean Northeast.