In response to Jay Hancock’s piece in the Baltimore Sun this past Sunday, I say you are totally wrong, Mr. Hancock. I have been critical of Governor O’Malley’s ideas on how to accomplish the important mission of installing offshore wind in Maryland. I do agree with Mr. O’Malley’s staff that being first would be a great achievement for Maryland and everyone that breathes our air. And there is nothing wrong with a little friendly competition between states.
However, I object to the conclusion Mr. Hancock makes in his story. He uses cost overruns in Massachusetts as the reason for not establishing offshore wind farms in Maryland. He says natural gas should be our new and cleaner way of making electricity. If cost overruns were a reason not to do things, we would not have a baseball or football stadium and many other things.
Let’s look at the current cost of natural gas for a moment, and I emphasize current. Back in 1995 when I built my first home, it was touted to me that natural gas was plentiful and that it was cheap. So I installed the best Trane heating system available. But my happiness did not last long. BGE was touting the same thing to everyone and before long the demand for natural gas was so high that its cost had gone through the roof and other ways of heating were cheaper.
Mr. Hancock then makes a comparison between nuclear, of all things, and wind energy. It’s as if he hasn’t been watching television for the past month. He does not prefer nuclear but he says the cost is similar. It isn’t. Nuclear waste is a big problem, as are issues of manmade or natural disasters. What do we do with the waste? We have a disposal issue today, and that’s before we ramp up nuclear to never before seen levels. Nevada and other states have repeatedly refused to have that stuff dumped in their backyards. The true cost of nuclear never ends since waste sites have to be maintained forever and guarded against terrorist threats.
Mr. Hancock also talks about the environmental benefits of natural gas because it emits 40 percent less carbon dioxide than coal, and 80 percent less nitrous oxide and negligible amounts of mercury. If his theory is correct, that leaves 60 percent carbon dioxide, 20 percent nitrous oxide and as far as the mercury goes, I think that the fish in the ocean would rather we keep that to ourselves. So his argument is that it is less bad? Mr. Hancock talks about a growing need for electricity. So it stands to reason that the number of pollutants under a natural gas scenario will surely grow.
I propose that whether we build offshore or not is not the question. We have to build. The question is how to keep the cost down. The demand for clean electricity will likely grow and the competition for those dollars will make it easier and cheaper to attain investment dollars, if we just allow markets to work without hindrance. In Europe and other parts of the world these clean offshore wind farms work. They are great wonders. Why can’t we build them? That, to me, is the question that needs to be answered.
How much longer can we continue to complain about pollution without doing anything about it? Tearing down mountains and drilling wells through our drinking water should no longer be on the table. Just build the wind farms, keep the competition open to all who want to bring this type of energy to us and let the public choose how their energy will be brought to them. I will choose clean energy and I bet enough others will too.
Energy independence will not be easy but it is attainable. Our infrastructure is old so new transmission lines need to be built. Let’s make them capable of bringing clean power to our homes and enough clean power to charge our electric cars too. Let’s disagree on the cost but let’s follow Governor O’Malley lead and make it happen.
by George Lopez Executive Director
The Solar and Wind Expo
No comments:
Post a Comment