Last update: 23 October 2006
A few days ago, Charlotte asked me to prepare a 3 to 5 minute talk to you on Energy Conservation. Now I don’t know the first thing about the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation as you would find in a physics textbook, but I have collected some information on the kind of conservation that relates to our fight to protect our ridge tops.
The people who want to build these wind turbines on our ridges, as we all know, are in it for nothing more than money. They will argue that they’re here to protect us from global warming, U.S. dependence on foreign oil and polluting emissions from coal-fueled power plants, but we all know that’s just not true. So let’s dissect a few of those issues:
It is true that coal-fired power plants produce about 60% of the nation’s sulfur dioxide emissions and about 40% of the mercury. These plants are also, behind automobiles, the second largest source of nitrogen oxides. But these statistics can be changed. Back before the dark days of the Bush administration, the EPA actually sued a number of energy producers, and here in Virginia, VEPCO agreed to install scrubbers on its plants at the cost of $1.2 billion. This reduced pollutants originating the the VEPCO plants by more than 70%. About the same time, Tampa Electric in Florida built a new coal-fired plant that used a process called “integrated gasification combined cycle” that all but eliminated greenhouse gases and pollution linked to global warming. But since that time, not a single power plant using that technology has been built in the U.S. The reason: costs of about 20% more to build. The National Commission on Energy Policy has recommended the government spend about $4 billion over 10 years to speed up construction of these clean plants but, of course, our Congress would rather give away $3.7 billion over that time in grants and tax incentives to the wind industry.
The other aspect to this issue involves conserving the electricity and energy we now produce. We really need to pressure our government to implement tough emission controls for our automobiles. We also need to encourage the manufacturers to creatively research ways they can conserve oil. Honda, for instance, is developing a diesel engine that uses a special catalytic converter to turn nitrous oxide into simple nitrogen. They’re also working on a fuel-cell car. Why can’t U.S. manufacturers pursue the same creativity? As a creative example, for instance, many of us enjoy golf, and we know what happens when you take your foot off the gas pedal of a golf cart. The engine stops. Why not use this technology in our cars? We all know how much gas is wasted during idling. We need to recognize that strict limits on emissions and mileage only penalize those companies that are too sluggish to compete. As The New York Times states in an editorial today [8 October 2006], as long as the demand for oil and gasoline grows faster than the ability to produce and refine them, the slightest shocks to supply will keep sending prices rocketing higher. The only way to get a stable market back is to cut back consumption, through greater efficiency and alternative fuels.
As for all of us as individuals, there’s lots we can do to conserve energy. Pick the right car to drive. Look for the energy-star rating on our appliances. Get a home energy audit. Walk instead of drive. Plant a tree. And here’s a simple one: Change your incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescents. If every family in America replaced just one incandescent bulb with these efficient fluorescents, we could decrease harmful emissions by more than 90 million pounds a year, the equivalent of taking 7.5 million cars off our roads.
Finally, write your policymakers. Let them know you care about global warming and that wind turbines improperly placed will do nothing but make their investors richer.
H R D welcomes your input and your support.
Write to P O Box 685, Monterey, VA 24465
Or contact the President of HRD by e-mail.