EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Southern Republicans, Utilities Resist Cleaner Renewables
WASHINGTON -- Six of the nation's 10 largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions are coal-fired power plants in the South, but year after year Southern lawmakers balk at pushing utilities toward cleaner renewable energy.
Last month, Republican senators from the South provided about half the votes that defeated federal legislation to require power companies to get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Nationally, almost half the states have adopted their own renewable mandates, but only one, Texas, is in the South.
Southern lawmakers -- responding to heavy lobbying from local utilities -- argue their region isn't conducive to solar or wind power like the sun-baked Southwest or the open plains of the West.
But many leading scientists and environmental advocates say Southern states have plenty of alternative-energy potential. Utilities have simply grown comfortable with cheap, dirty coal and haven't been forced to change, they say.
"If you look at other regions of the country where renewables have taken off, it's been because of mandates, and that's why you haven't seen it take off in the South," said Nicholas Rigas, director of the South Carolina Institute for Energy Studies at Clemson University. "Once the development starts it will be just as successful as it is in other states."
The South has long relied on coal for electricity. Its two largest utilities -- Atlanta-based Southern Co. and Charlotte, N.C.,-based Duke Energy Corp. -- produce about two-thirds of their power from coal, mostly burned in aging plants not yet upgraded with clean-air technologies.
Southern Co. puts more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other U.S. utility.
Its Scherer plant near Macon, Ga., for several years has been the nation's single largest source of the greenhouse gas, which most scientists believe contributes to global warming. Duke Energy isn't far behind, ranking third in carbon dioxide emissions, while the Tennessee Valley Authority ranks fourth, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Many of the companies' plants also rank among the worst in emissions of mercury, a neurotoxin, and other pollutants that cause smog, respiratory problems and acid rain.
The utilities -- among the largest political donors in Washington -- vehemently oppose federal mandates. They argue that "one size fits all" standards would drive up Southern utility bills and urge that new technologies be phased in gradually.
Southern Co., which reported profits of $1.6 billion in 2006, questions the existence of global warming even as other utilities acknowledge it must be addressed.
"If we are irrational about it and we cripple our economy or cripple our industry and we realize carbon dioxide wasn't the source of the problem, then we'll be real regretful," said Chris Hobson, senior vice president for research and environmental affairs at Southern Co., which owns Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co. and other subsidiaries.
But the demand for renewable energy is growing.
"Coal is the dominant source of global warming pollution," said Michael Shore, who directs Southeastern air quality programs at Environmental Defense, a private lobbying group. "It is critical that states in the Southeast embrace energy efficiency and renewables if we are to take responsibility for global warming."
The Energy Department said the proposal that failed in the Senate would have increased utility bills nationally by less than 1 percent through 2030. Renewable energy advocates acknowledge the South could see slightly higher increases, in part because the region's electricity rates are among the nation's lowest. But they say the South should be ready to meet modest new mandates.
Many Southern states already produce a small amount of power from hydroelectric dams. Although the region has relatively low wind speeds, a recent study by Georgia Tech and Southern Co. found promise for offshore wind energy production in coastal states.
The most potential could lie in the South's emergence as a national leader in producing energy from timber residue, grasses and agricultural waste. Biomass now accounts for 1.5 percent of the nation's power - more than solar or wind.
Steven Taylor, chairman of the bioenergy program at Auburn University in Alabama, said Southern states have a record of producing biomass from their vast forests and farmlands.
Although utilities still struggle to collect and transport the materials efficiently, much of the infrastructure has been put in place by the agriculture and timber industries. And most legislative proposals would allow utilities to "co-fire" biomass at modified conventional plants, eliminating the need for expensive new facilities.
"We've got the ability to generate a pretty good proportion of our power or liquid fuel from biomass," Taylor said.
Copyright © 2007 Associated Press
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

13 Comments so far
Show AllSoutherners continually vote against their own self interests...
Their politicians continually keep them poor and historically behind the times and uninformed...
It just might have something to do with the BIBLE BELT...you know...that restraint device that keeps brains from functioning
Doesn't the wind blow along the Gulf coast?
Three fourths of the energy consumed by large power plants is emitted as waste heat. Those placed near large bodies of water usually dump the heat back into the water, creating thermal pollution there. Others, such as the one in the photo, use cooling towers to emit "wet heat", i.e. water vapor, into the atmosphere.
Information is currently sketchy but the cooling towers may emit more greenhouse gases than the firing of fossil fuel to power the plant. Water vapor is far more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Conventional wisdom says that emitted water vapor to the atmosphere from human activities is too small to have any effect. But now the EPA is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant. We should also seek to classify conventional wisdom as a pollutant. Seriously.
In addition to energy conservation in lifestyles and habits, we should require highest efficiencies in energy conversion, so all electric power plants should be fitted for cogeneration to utilize the waste heat. And there's a handful of best practices for transport to triple efficiencies there as well - it's all common sense from decades past. Neither capital nor capitalists are required.
Mr. Evans: I don't think that you meant to claim that greater use of "renewable energy" would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are a product of anything that is burned. Thanks,
Felix R.
Agreed that Southerners continually vote against their own self-interest and that is largely due to the substantial media censorship, right-wing political control of the local and very influential churches, and its still not-undone plantation/master-slave economy. Southerners are not to blame, but are more oppressed than most Americans and just don't get the truth from their institutions, never truly liberated or integrated in 1865.
The southern utilities issue reminds me of the too-often-forgotten story of Wendell Willkie. Willkie, US presidential candidate in 1940, was a big Utility monopolist in southern states who got his investment money as a New York stock market speculator.... Willkie sued the US govt for the 'illegal business competition' for his utility companies from Roosevelt's New Deal, and won the case with the help of big Republican leaders, including Prescott Bush (surprise!), and got millions of dollars from the US treasury to use to fund his campaign (in the Prescott Bush era) against Roosevelt. At that time, his campaign was described as the dirtiest ever fought in American history... Willkie slandered the personal lives of the Roosevelts much like the Bush machine have slandered the Clinton and the Kennedy families... petty little personal attacks on Democrats launched by Republican corporate criminals. Willkie, also accused the Roosevelts of leading American on the road to the Kremlin, being one of the first high-profile McCarthyists. After his loss in the 1940 election, Willkie changed tunes and made numerous concessions to the Roosevelts. It would be interesting to know if any of these southern utility companies are still linked with the Willkie empire, once called the 'Commonwealth and Southern Corporation', and any possible links remaining to the Bush Dynasty.
It isn't just Southerners by a long shot. It's all of America. There are countries in Europe that now derive from 40 to 60% of their electrical power from wind genertion alone. They must not be addicted to oil. Many are also afraid of Nuclear Energy and that is primarily because of the deadly wastes and emmissions from using that source. There is absolutely no "good" reason we are not putting wind/solar energy at a top priority, and for many good reasons.
We shouldn't ignore the possibilities behind generating methane from bullshit: there are ample supplies of that commodity here in the South.
Though I have to say it's heartening to see Florida governor Charlie Crist holding a two day conference on green initiatives. Whether he'll be able to bring the state Republican machine on board remains to be seen.
The south could grow switch grass or elephant grass to gasify to methane to run power plant turbines. Very clean and completely CO2 neutral. They do not have to go with wind and solar as their only options.
I have to question the statement saying "40 to 60%
of their electrical power from wind generation
alone."
From Wikipedia, a very good article (Wind_power):
"At the end of 2006, worldwide capacity of wind-powered generators was 74,223 megawatts; although it currently produces less than 1% of world-wide electricity use, it accounts for approximately 20% of electricity use in Denmark, 9% in Spain, and 7% in Germany.[1] Globally, wind power generation more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006."
If there is something documented somewhere saying
something else, I would like to read it.
I questioned it also. It's Denmark. Check it out, go to Google and ask for wind power. Then check out What Australia and China are dong with wind /solar power towers. One tower supplies enough electrical power for 10,000 homes. On a twenty square mile chunk of land, they will build enough towers to supply the electrical needs for their largest city. No emmssions, no greenhouse gases, no use of fossile fuel.___ Here in the US, no progress.
Oops, I did hit the wrong keys on the percentages peoplefirst. Scuse me. Anyway wind / solar power are viable, we just don't support those methods here in the US.___ Why?
The top most article I found with Google using
"wind power Denmark" says Denmark has a GOAL of
generating 50% of its energy with windpower by
the year 2025. I believe the articles that say
current generation of 20% are probably correct.
Other interesting information (though the logic
of megawatt conversion to KWh escapes me):
From World Almanac:
397,000,000,000,000,000 BTUs used worldwide 2000
(that's 397 quadrillion)
From:
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/Industry/ECF.shtml
1 (one) kilowatt-hour (kwh) of electricity -- 3,412 Btu
1 (one) megawatt of electricity -- 1,000 KW
1 (one) average megawatt of electricity -- 8,760,000 KWh
1 (one) therm of natural gas -- 100,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of oil -- 42 gallons
1 (one) barrel of crude oil -- 5,848,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of distillate oil -- 5,825,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of residual oil -- 6,287,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of gasoline -- 5,248,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of kerosene -- 5,670,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of jet fuel -- 5,513,000 Btu
1 (one) barrel of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) -- 4,011,000 Btu
1 (one) cord of oak -- 32,000,000 Btu
1 (one) cord of lodgepole pine -- 20,000,000 Btu
1 (one) ton of wood pellets -- 16,000,000 Btu
I see - 1 megawatt of electricity generation, 24
hours a day, 365 days a year = 8,760,000 KWh
So (if talking about windpower) that number would
be reduced to the amount of time electricity is
actually being generated.