.jpg)
Mindstates
A Sustainable View of Energy
by David Cottrell
What is energy? How do we relate to it? Mostly our perceptions begin with, “I flip the switch and the light comes on. What powers the light is energy.” From this point of view we move to, “the cheaper it is, the better I like it.” In truth, most of us wouldn’t even relate to buying toilet paper that way. If we did, it would sound something like, “Who cares if it chaps my bottom? It was the cheapest they had.” And what about education, food or anything else that we value? Why not eat at McDonalds every day? It’s cheap, right?
When it comes to these necessities, we rarely take the “cheaper is better” position. That’s because our relationship to them is fundamentally different—we’re able to see a direct impact on ourselves and others. But we have yet to distinguish the impact of burning coal.
Besides the economic costs of producing energy from coal, there are external costs. Conrad Schneider, author of Dirty Air, Dirty Power, links asthma, heart attacks, and death to airborne pollution from coal burning power plants. In a report entitled, “Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger,” Alex Gabbard reveals that compounds and toxins in the coal ash is ejected from the stacks, such as oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur. Coal plants even generate nuclear waste and radiation exposure. Yes, I said nuclear waste—primarily uranium and thorium. Back in 1978, Science Magazine ran an article entitled, “Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants,” which pointed out that people living near a coal fired power plant are typically exposed to higher doses of radiation than if they were living next to a nuclear facility that met government regulations.
I was born in 1965 and I grew up in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The town was built by the government toward the end of World War II. It was literally surrounded by a fence because it was where they were doing uranium enrichment for use in the first nuclear bombs. I remember telling people where I was from and having them jokingly ask me if I glowed from the radiation. I now get the irony of the question; the radioactive “glow” in my cheeks may not actually have been due to the uranium enrichment program.
The Bull Run Steam Plant (now called the Bull Run Fossil Plant) which sat at the edge of town is where our power came from. Even though Bull Run is now routinely rated by the Tennessee Valley Authority as one of the most efficient coal fired power plants in the nation, I recall from my childhood a fine black dust that covered everything. I especially remember wiping my tiny finger across the hood of my grandfather’s big, midnight blue Pontiac. On the end of my finger would be a black circle of ash with a smudge of blue, oxidized paint underneath. The humidity in east Tennessee is thick in the summers. That moisture would mix with the chemically reactive coal ash and literally eat the paint off of cars.
These are some examples of the external costs. If the coal fired power plants don’t pay for these costs, who does? In fact, you and I pay for them through higher health care expenses and taxes. Now, I am not advocating against coal plants. Since we get over half of our total power from them, eliminating them is unrealistic. So, what am I saying?
I believe that we need a new view of what energy is for us. What if we related to energy as if it were the stitching in the fabric of our social structure? What if we awakened to the fact that energy is the very thing that has given us the quality of life that we enjoy? If so, then the next logical question becomes: Does it make sense to enjoy the comforts that energy provides while ignoring the environmental or health impacts that result from producing it?
Let’s look at China. The 2008 Summer Olympics were possible largely because of the energy production that supported it. However, there were stories of athletes having to wear masks to protect their lungs from the pollution caused by the very power plants that made holding the Olympics there possible. Many of us found this at least laughable if not irresponsible—yet we participated. Now, as our world gets smaller, and our reach becomes more global, the side effects of energy production in China are showing up in our own back yard.
Let’s look at the production and consumption of energy as two sides to the same coin—the impact and the benefit. From this point of view, as we are willing to pay more for healthy food, good education, or soft toilet paper, wouldn’t we demand that the energy production side of the equation be a little more balanced in favor of clean sources of energy, even if it costs a little more? How much more? In Colorado, Xcel Energy pays rebates to individuals for installation of solar panels. The rebates are funded in part by a 35-cent per month increase in electric bills for residential accounts and a 69-cent per month increase for commercial charges. That’s right, less than one whole dollar. Now, not every state in the union, and certainly not every utility, is offering such a sweet deal. (See www.dsireusa.org for your state). To be fair, it probably amounts to a bit more, taking into account the governmental subsidies—that is, your tax dollars—which play into this as well. However, every single source of energy we use is subsidized by the government with the leading beneficiaries being oil, natural gas and coal. Rebates are still a no-brainer, in my opinion. Unlike the fabled “clean coal” alternative, clean sources of power such as solar, wind, hydro, and biomass are already a reality. We simply have to demand that these sources be utilized. We must adopt a sustainable view of energy.
So, what can you do?
Start from wherever you are now and repeat my mantra: “efficiency first.” The cheapest kilowatt of power is the one you never use and the cleanest lump of coal is the one that is never burned. Although efficiency may not be as sexy as a bunch of solar panels on your house, it is easier and cheaper. In fact, every dollar spent on efficiency saves about three dollars on the cost of a future system. Said another way, it costs less to implement efficiency measures—like replacing your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs—than it does to build a solar energy system. To get some ideas about where you can bring energy efficiency into your life and how you can make a difference, I recommend the film, Kilowatt Ours (www.kilowattours.org). Also a non-profit organization, Kilowatt Ours is doing great things in the world of conservation and efficiency. On the website you will find curricula that can be taught in schools for those of you who are educators. Some changes you can implement yourself can also be found at The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy at www.aceee.org/consumerguide.
Did I mention I live off-grid? I have a bank of solar panels that provide power to the house and a backup generator that runs on propane for those dark days. Fortunately here in Colorado there aren’t many of those. Those of you who are interested in taking the leap to a grid-tied or an off-grid system, find a knowledgeable contractor in your area. A great place to start your search is The American Solar Energy Society (www.findsolar.com), a site that enables you to locate contractors with credentials in various forms of clean energy.
There is no shortage of areas where we can take action. And remember, it is up to us. No one else is going to make this happen—not the electric companies, the government, or anyone else. As Gandhi said, we must “be the change we want to see in the world.”
David Cottrell lives in the foothills outside of Denver, CO. He writes integration software for GE Energy, has been married to Kristen Moeller for 13 years, and is committed to transforming the energy conversation in our country and the world. Contact him at dave@cottrellinvestments.com or check out his blog at http://davidcottrell.name.