I appreciate your point of view. Certainly, we can all use our resources more wisely. However, those at TXU and others in the utility industry who are responsible for keeping the lights on can’t depend on consumers to suddenly change their behavior. Utility planning decisions about building generation to meet future electric demand have to be made years in advance, in part because there’s a lengthy construction period, but also because of groups like the Sierra Club that stand in the way.

Utilities have an obligation provide electricity 100% of the time, and that requires baseload generation. The Sierra Club should continue promoting conservation and efficiency, but its members also need to recognize the reality of the situation. Our population is growing and we are becoming more affluent, both of which will drive up electric demand. Check out what the Energy Information Administration has to say about it:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf

We have to achieve a balance between protecting the environment and meeting our growing energy needs. To oppose all coal plants without offering an alternative source of affordable baseload generation is irresponsible, and Sierra Club members should acknowledge that fact.

In effect, you are saying electric system reliability is not important. If new generation is not built to meet the growing demand, it will lead to severe deficits in electric generating capacity, causing brownouts and blackouts in electric service. Is that what you want?

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) outlines steps that the U.S. can take to dramatically reduce energy use and related greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 30 percent - using conservative figures. The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology has a “2,000-Watt Society” program which pushes for reducing per-capita energy use in industrialized countries to 2,000 watts per day - a two-thirds reduction in energy use for Europeans and a five-sixths decrease for typical Americans - all without substantial shifts in lifestyle.

I hear what you are saying regarding the need for constant (called Baseload) generation that is typically done by nuclear and coal. But we can dramatically reduce baseload needs through efficiency,and we should also be supporting development of renewable sources that can indeed serve modest baseload needs. Localized generation (such as rooftop solar) is much more efficient due to minimized loss in transmission - and new developments in wind developments have made opened the door to stable baseload production. There is also great interest in vehicle-to-grid potentials as we push for electrification of our transportation modes as well. These are questions that are being explored and developed - but the answer is not to “stay the course” with coal.

You ask what the alternative is? But the real question is that without pursuing and exploring these alternatives - what is the future we face? Continuing to burn fossil fuels continues us on a scientifically-agreed upon path of global warming. I’m even willing to go so far to slightly cramp my lifestyle (you know, wear a sweater more often instead of use my heater) if it means I will have a livable planet for my elder years….
-Matt
Rainforest Action Network

I forgot to ask — what are you doing about China?

China’s Coal Addiction Causing Environmental Disaster

by Robert J. Saiget
Beijing (AFP) Nov 6, 2006

China has seen a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade despite ratifying the Kyoto Protocol — and the situation will only worsen as coal remains its main energy source. The nation is the world’s second-largest emitter of climate change gases after the United States and the world’s largest coal burner. But as a developing country it is not obliged to reduce emissions under the protocol.
About 70 percent of China’s energy comes from burning the fossil fuel and with hundreds more coal-fired power plants being built — often with old, heavy-polluting technology — the situation is only going to deteriorate.

China last year built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants — a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.

Read more here -

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_Coal_Addiction_Causing_Environmental_Disaster_999.html

I find it unsettling that the Sierra Club and its young minions are so intent on opposing new coal plants, apparently at any price, without offering an affordable, reliable alternative.

Let’s face it, electric demand is going nowhere but up. That is an indisputable fact. You can talk all you want about conservation and improved efficiency, but the fact is America’s standard of living continues to improve, and our economy continues to grow. That means we can afford to buy more new devices that use electricity. If we buy them, we’ll need the electricity to make them work.

Texas and the rest of America are going to need additional baseload generation - power that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind power doesn’t fit the bill. Solar energy won’t do it. Biomass pollutes too. And despite what you may believe, there is no commercially available technology to capture the carbon dioxide emissions from a coal plant. The technology may be developed, but will probably double the price of electricity from coal, so that’s not an affordable option. Nuclear power is a zero emissions solution, and it can be produced at a reasonable price, but I’m sure the Sierra Club won’t support nukes either.

So what’s left? Natural gas turbines emit significantly less CO2 than coal plants, but the lessons of the 1990s should be enough to teach us that’s not an affordable alternative. If we start building a lot of gas turbines, the price of natural gas will skyrocket.

So what’s the alternative? Significantly higher energy prices perhaps?

Why is it so easy for environmentalists to overlook the collateral damage that their activism causes? The Sierra Club’s goal of stopping development of all new coal plants doesn’t hurt the companies like TXU which you’ve villainized. You should understand that these companies will recover the additional investments you are forcing them to make in alternative energy and “pollution” control equipment. The companies’ rates are regulated, but they will eventually be allowed to recover their investment through higher electric rates. You may feel good about antagonizing the utility companies, but you’re not hurting them.

The only people you are hurting are the utility customers, many of whom can’t afford to pay higher electric bills. The poor and the elderly are your primary victims. Your activisim hurts local economies that cannot afford to produce as many goods and services because they have to pay higher energy costs. And the real bottom line is this - your activism hurts America and its competitive position in the global marketplace.

So what’s the alternative?

PG