Renewable energy potential

Renewable energy potential

Published: Sun, Jun. 07, 2009 02:00AM Modified Fri, Jun. 05, 2009 07:33PM

John Bonitz is the Farm Outreach & Policy advocate for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which promotes renewable energy issues in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee. He lives in Pittsboro.

As we stand now, at the start of the 21st century in the worst recession since the Great Depression, society has reached a consensus that we cannot rebuild our economy by continuing our reliance upon dirty energy. With the Congress considering important energy and climate policy right now, we must set the record straight on renewable energy in North Carolina and other Southeastern states.

To begin, we have abundant renewable energy resources in the Southeast, such as solar, wind and biomass, which create green-collar jobs our families can depend on. Our economy has an opportunity to grow under new clean energy rules, but we need clear policies to get us there.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy has reported that North Carolina has 11,882 GWh [gigawatt-hours] of on-shore wind energy potential, 17,364 GWh of biopower potential, and 15,782 GWh of solar energy potential. If we include offshore wind power, our annual feasible generation potential leaps to 310,643 GWh. When comparing this to the existing Shearon Harris nuclear plant (7,400 GWh for one reactor in 2007), and the 6,000 GWh new coal plant proposed at Cliffside, we see that renewable energy has serious potential.

Better yet, renewable energy creates more local jobs than conventional coal or nuclear, and high-quality green jobs in the growing clean-tech industry will fortify North Carolina's position as a leader in technology and innovation. A 2008 study by La Capra Associates (commissioned by the N.C. Sustainable Energy Association) shows that North Carolina renewable energy industries will create more than 10,000 jobs in North Carolina by 2018.

While there are some disagreements on facts about the South's abundant renewable energy, there are some common views on both sides of this issue. First, it's widely agreed that reducing pollution that causes global warming is imperative. Second, we also agree that we should pass policies that make the best use of our energy investments. And third, no matter what public policy changes are made, electric prices are going to go up in the future.

There are plenty of solutions, but considering these three concerns, nuclear energy is not a financially prudent option. As Scientific American magazine reports this month, "The price of new nuclear power has 'escalated dramatically,' jumping by 15 percent a year to reach as much as $4,000 per kilowatt." Last year, Progress Energy Florida hiked residential rates by 25 percent, about $27.28 per household, in part to pay for two new nuclear plants estimated to cost $17 billion. We can expect something similar in North Carolina as Progress attempts to build two more reactors at Shearon Harris.