—
By Osha Gray Davidson | Mon November 2, 2009 2:07
PM PST
When
author Michael Pollan spoke at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in mid-October, it’s
a safe bet his hosts didn’t offer fresh cherries to the “local foods”
advocate. As a locavore — someone who tries to eat only food grown within a
100-mile radius of them — Pollan would have likely reacted to cherries like a
vampire reacts to garlic. At this time of year, any fresh cherries in
northern California would most likely have come from orchards in Chile,
roughly 6,000 miles to the southeast.
Yet,
when Pollan was handed the microphone he probably did not turn to David
Wehner, Dean of the college hosting the event, and ask, “By the way, Dean –
Where did the electrons powering this thing come from?”
Maybe
he should have.
At
least some of those electrons had just completed a 1,000 mile journey. The
energy was converted from wind to electricity at the Klondike generating
facility just south of the Washington-Oregon border. The electrons traveled
over power lines down the entire state of Oregon, then traversing
three-quarters of the length of California to arrive at the microphone in
Pollan’s hand at Cal Poly.
But,
to state the obvious: electrons are not cherries.
So,
does it matter that these particular electrons began life 1,000 miles from
the microphone they powered? That question is at the heart of the report,
“Energy Self-Reliant States,” published in October by the New Rules Project.
The report shows why “local energy” matters and then looks at the renewable
energy potential of each state.
Among
the reports' most important findings:
"All
36 states with either renewable energy goals … or mandates could meet them by
relying on in-state renewable fuels. Sixty-four percent could be self
sufficient in electricity from in-state renewables; another 14 percent could
generate 75 percent of their electricity from homegrown fuels.
"Indeed,
the nation may be able to achieve a significant degree of energy independence
by harnessing the most decentralized of all renewable resources: solar
energy. More than 40 states plus the District of Columbia could generate 25
percent of their electricity just with rooftop PV."
The
report, while necessarily a bit wonkish, is actually quite readable. The
authors do a particularly good job in providing the right amount of
background on “local energy” without overburdening us with too much detail.
For example, I hadn’t realized that centralized energy production is a
relatively recent development in a our national history. In 1900, 60 percent
of electricity was still produced on-site — only to drop to 20 percent, just
three decades later.
The
study finds several benefits to "going local."
The
first deals with "hardware."
Barry
Commoner’s 4th law of ecology applies here: “There is no such thing as a free
lunch.”
Unlike
cherries, electrons don’t need to be shipped in crates on freighters, trucks
or trains. But that doesn’t mean that getting electricity from Oregon to
California is free. It isn’t. Some of the costs are easy to total, such as
building and maintaining transmission lines. Writing in the New York Times
last February, a Massachusetts state official estimated the cost at between
$2-$10 million per mile.
Assuming
a midpoint of $6 million dollars, the upfront cost of installing the
“hardware” to ship electrons from the Klondike wind farm to Michael Pollan’s
microphone is $6 billion. Most of that infrastructure already exists. The
point remains, however, that any new construction to move energy long
distances has a significant price tag. (And while this should be obvious, it
needs to be said: When it comes to hardware, there is no discount for
shipping electrons produced by environmentally friendly, renewable sources.
Even to the transmission lines of smart grids one electron looks just like
another. Not so smart, huh?)
There
are, of course, sound environmental reasons involved. Another of Commoner’s
laws applies: “Everything must go somewhere.”
Transmission
lines require large towers and sometimes, new substations. Siting is a
contentious issue because most people do not want these massive towers and
electrical lines passing through their property or across beautiful
landscapes. More direct harm can come from building towers on land that is home
to species already threatened with extinction. While there are significant
monetary costs associated with the siting process, the cost discussed here is
not monetary. It’s the impact the electrical infrastructure has on the
environment as a whole.
Then
there's something called "line loss." As electrons stream through a
power line a small fraction of them are lost to various factors. The longer
the distance the greater the loss. From the ILSA report:
"For
example, if Ohio’s electricity came from North Dakota wind farms – 1,000
miles away – the cost of constructing new transmission lines to carry that
power and the electricity losses during transmission could result in an
electricity cost to the customer that is about the same, or higher, than
local generation with minimal transmission upgrades."
That’s
one advantage to PV rooftop panels. In the few yards between the panels and
the wall socket in your house, the amount of electricity lost through
transmission is effectively zero.
There's
lots more to this report, but it's probably best to post what is probably the
study's most important map and refer readers on sites with more information.
As
an Arizonan, I'm surprised (and a little sobered) to realize that we’re the
only state west of the Missouri that lacks the potential for complete
renewable energy independence. On the other hand, we could derive
three-quarters of all our energy from carbon-free, renewable sources from
within our borders. In fact, only five states fall under the 30% line, which
I find a pretty remarkable fact.
You
can download a pdf copy of the report, here. There's also a
good piece on the study at the NYT Green Inc., site, here. And, finally, I
write on the report in a bit more detail over at my own site, The Phoenix Sun, here.
|