We’ve all been aware for a long time that renewable sources of energy like the sun and wind are better for our health and our planet than fossil fuels like oil and coal. But many have also assumed – and fossil fuel industries have certainly claimed – that renewable sources are more expensive. Fortunately, this is not true, and there’s an excellent resource to prove it.
Northern Plains Resource Council joined the Civil Society Institute recently in releasing a major new report that outlines a realistic and affordable path to a cleaner and less expensive energy future. Yes, you read that right: A clean energy future can be a more affordable energy future for Montana and the rest of the United States.
All levels of government have sought to shift financial and operational risks of coal plants from private industry to the ratepayer and taxpayer. This also goes for oil and natural gas drilling. Although renewables and energy efficiency technology have received some taxpayer and ratepayer largesse, they pale in comparison to the historical bias toward fossil fuels.
How do we get out of (or at least beyond) this unproductive pattern? Rather than shift risks from private business to the public in order to force construction of older and dying technologies (such as coal-fired power plants), we should be looking at which energy resources offer the least design, construction and operational risks to both the public and private investors and that also can meet electric energy demand reliably.
A good place to start is the Synapse report recently published by the Civil Society Institute and available at www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/synapsereport/. It persuasively makes the case for phasing out all coal-fired power and phasing in aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy, such as wind and solar, investments to replace that power by 2050.
The report compares status quo trends with a “Transition Scenario” that maps out a much cleaner energy future by 2050. The Transition Scenario is superior to Business As Usual in terms of cost, public health, water usage, and carbon dioxide emission reductions. It also creates jobs. This is done with off-the-shelf technologies and efficiency, and makes no assumptions about as-yet-unreleased innovations currently in research and development.
The Transition Scenario also harbors other benefits that would reduce cost and health risks to private investors and the public. If implemented, the Transition Scenario would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the electric sector by 81 percent. Under Business As Usual they rise 28 percent. There is also far less water use in the Transition Scenario.
Finally, the study estimates the creation of 310,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the first decade of the transition to a more sustainable energy sector.
There is something for everyone in this approach. Some people will like the fact that net savings over 40 years are projected to be a whopping $83 billion. That’s great news for consumers. Others will embrace the notion that eliminating pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants by 2050 will mean roughly 55,000 fewer premature deaths over the next several decades.
We see the economic and environmental benefits of this approach every day in our offices in Billings. The combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy from solar panels has resulted in 79 percent lower utility bills to heat, cool and light the building compared to current energy codes. And the renovation of the 1940s building was achieved with a construction budget that was 20 percent lower than constructing a new building to current energy standards. We know it works.
The bottom line for Montana is clear: We need to start focusing on the bigger issue of our clean energy future and how we get there.
Ed Gulick is the immediate past chair of the Northern Plains Resource Council.