Page 4
The Clarion \ April 29, 2011
Shift happens: Movement towards sustainability
By Dr. Jim Reynolds
Associate Professor of Geology
Change. Change is inevitable in almost every
aspect of life and society but our natural tendency
is to resist change for fear that it will irrevocably
alter our comfort zone. It does not matter whether
our comfort zone will be enhanced or degraded;
we will resist change. This is especially true
when it comes to major paradigm realignments.
The way we generate electricity is a perfect
example.
The fact that burning fossil fuels pollutes the air
we breathe has been evident since the beginning
of the Industrial Revolution. At the beginning,
however, there was so little industry that the
sacrifice of some clean air seemed warranted,
given the benefits of increased productivity. As
more industry developed, more air pollution
ensued but voices calling for clean air were either
mute or drowned out by the drumbeat marking
the increasing pace to industrialization.
By the time those voices were loud enough
to be heard, more than 50 years ago, industry
and fossil fuels were ensconced. Electricity
was generated primarily by burning coal, using
nuclear fission, and large hydroelectric projects.
Little attention was paid to the long term
consequences; the paradigm was entrenched.
Even today, nuclear fission and hydroelectric
power are still considered “green”, in spite of
the very long term problems of nuclear waste
storage and ecosystem degradation caused by
hydroelectric dams.
In the 1970’s, some grassroots organizations,
often populated earthy hippie types, began
a rallying cry for cleaner, greener energy
production, mainly using solar, wind, and
geothermal resources. In the last 40 years,
these generators grew slowly. No one noticed
their presence because their contribution to the
national grid was miniscule.
Growing faster, however, were the use of coal
and the cry for cleaner energy, as our air, water,
and soil became progressively more polluted,
in large part due to our fossil fuel consumption,
particularly coal. Slow change to a cleaner energy
future remained the product of a few granola-
eating folks who disconnected themselves from
the grid and groups of environmental activists.
After years of near-static complacency, our
electrical generation paradigm hit a small bump
about three weeks ago, and then another, and
then a few more: six in all, and still counting.
Let’s review them:
1. On April 12, the public advocate for North
Carolina utilities customers reversed position
and began to oppose — at least for now — any
proposal to make it easier for utilities to recover
some costs for nuclear plant construction
before plants are built. This means that CWIP
(Construction Work in Progress) costs will not be
tacked on to our monthly electrical bills during
construction of two new reactor that were to be
added to the nuclear power facility in Gaffney,
SC. We would have paid higher rates throughout
the 10-20 year construction time of the new
units—^before a watt of power was delivered.
Since private and corporate investors will not
touch nuclear power generation facilities because
they are “too high risk”, this essentially puts
future construction in Gaffney on indefinite hold,
if not killing the project altogether
2. On April 14, the Board of Directors of the
Tennessee Valley Authority agreed “to phase
out 18 units at dirty, coal-fired power plants
and install modem pollution controls on three
dozen additional units.” Most of these plants
are in Tennessee and most of the pollution they
generate blows over Western North Carolina.
Breathing is going to get easier in Western
North Carolina and the view from Great Smoky
Mountains National Park should return to its
former glory.
3. Also on April 14, the 4th Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed victory in the citizen
enforcement action against Duke Energy for
its construction of Cliffside Unit 6 without a
hazardous air pollutant determination. Cliffside
is located ~50 miles upwind of Charlotte. The
plant must now conform to state-of-the-art
technology to reduce emissions.
4. OnApril 18, New York’s Attorney General
“challenged the Federal Government to prove
hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is safe.” Tracking
will be prohibited in the Delaware River and
Hudson River watersheds until it is proven to
be safe. Fracking fluids, injected into shale to
enhance natural gas recovery, contain dozens
of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that can
contaminate groundwater and surface water
supplies.
5. OnApril 19, SenatorsHartsell(R), Stein(D),
and Bingham (R) introduced the Offshore Wind
Jobs and Economic Development Act in the NC
Senate, which is aimed at attracting thousands
of jobs while enabling the development of North
Carolina's abundant offshore wind resources. The
bipartisan bill, proposes the following:
Creating a state-managed competitive request
for proposal (RFP) for development of 2,500
MW of offshore wind energy starting in 2017
and spread over a 7-10 year period. Sets a state
goalof5,000MWby 2030.
The state would receive competitive bids
from industry and the Department of Commerce
would analyze those proposals to determine the
net economic impacts of each. If proposals
are not in the best interest of the state (i.e. they
must result in a net economic benefit), then no
contracts would be awarded.
Investor Owned Utilities are required to
participate but Co-ops and Municipals may opt-
in at their discretion. Participating utilities have
the option to co-invest or purchase ownership
interest in the projects.
6. Also on April 19, Pennsylvania’s new
Republican administration called on drillers to
stop using riverside treatment plants to get rid of
the millions of barrels of ultra-salty, chemically
tainted wastewater that gush annually from gas
wells and into groundwater and surface water
reserves.
Perhaps you didn’t feel these bumps but they
were real and they signal a paradigm shift that
promises to accelerate in the coming years. They
couldn’t come at a better moment. At a time
when our economy is in the doldrums and jobs
are scarce, here is a way to grow ourselves out
of the hole we’ve dug by relying on the old ways
of doing things.
Senior Staff
Editor in Chief .
. . . Daniel Heyman
IVIanaging Editor
. . . Brian Burgess
Copy Editor. . .
. . . Dave Alexander
Photography . .
. . . Position Open
Faculty Advisor.
. . . John B. Padgett
Other Staff
Park Baker
Alex McCracken
Patrick Veilleux
Thea Bader
1 Jermichael Tanner Jordan lager |
Scott McCormick
Melissa Sullebarger
Sarah Bowers
Karam Boeshaar
Unsigned editorials represent the collective
opinion of the staff of The Clarion. Other
opinions expressed in this newspaper are
those of respective authors and do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of the
faculty, staff or administration of Brevard
College.
All correspondence should be mailed to:
The Clarion, Brevard College, One Brevard
College Drive, Brevard, NC 28712, or send
E-mail to clarion@brevard.edu
www.brevard.edu/clarion
E] Letters Policy
The Clarion welcomes letters to the editor. We reserve the right to edit letters for length or content. We do not
publish anonymous letters or those whose authorship cannot be verified. E-mail: clarion@brevard.edu.