Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Greenberg, who owns and runs The Bear Bookshop in Marlboro. He has worked on energy issues in Vermont for over 30 years.
Whenever anybody criticizes or promotes an energy source (or program), I recommend a simple three word reply: “Compared to what?” Hate wind turbines? Compared to what? Love nukes? Compared to what?
Policy decisions about energy don’t arise in a vacuum.
Currently, Vermont’s transportation and heating sectors are almost entirely dependent on oil and its derivatives, and our electricity comes mainly from natural gas, nuclear plants, and Canadian hydro power. But most of these sources are difficult or impossible to defend as wise choices for the indefinite future.
The problems with oil are too well known to rehearse here: from run-of-the-mill air and water pollution to greenhouse gases to harsher and more environmentally challenging drilling conditions, few would term oil a “green” resource, and in addition, its supply is finite.
Natural gas produces two major greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide and methane emissions (the latter in poorly understood quantities), and its production is now largely dependent on fracking, which is extremely contentious environmentally. In addition, it produces a stew of other pollutants as well. Again, it’s a finite resource. Its main virtue is that it does less of most of these problematic things than coal or oil.
New England’s nuclear plants are all aging, with life spans unlikely to exceed another decade or two. (The oldest nuke in the country, Oyster Creek, is now 45 and is slated to close at 50 years, although it’s been relicensed to go 60). And the likelihood of new plants being built in New England is incredibly small, not to mention, economically and environmentally fraught.
The question … is not whether we will continue to use large amounts of energy, but where it will come from. There are no perfect sources.
Principles of portfolio diversification and contract management dictate that overdependence on any one (in this case foreign) source of power from one supplier (Hydro-Quebec) is unwise, which suggests that Vermont is already about maxed out on Canadian hydro as well (though New England as a whole is not).
None of this is breaking news, so for the past three decades or more, successive Vermont administrations and legislatures have grappled with alternatives. There have been countless legislative hearings, Public Service Board dockets with expert testimony, DPS reports and studies all geared towards finding the best possible alternatives to our current energy mix.
The solution which has emerged – and which has been supported by successive governors and legislatures of both major parties – is first and foremost to minimize the waste of energy which is endemic in our existing system by promoting energy efficiency, and then to rely far more heavily in the future on wind, solar and other renewable forms of electricity generation to meet existing electricity demand. In the more distant future, plans call for a shift in demand in the transportation and heating sectors to renewable sources as well.
In the last few years, these proposals have met – at least in VTDigger commentaries and comment columns – a wall of concerted opposition. But few of the opponents have been unwilling to answer that three-word question with which I began.
Accordingly, we are repeatedly told that wind turbines, solar installations, and gas pipelines (hardly a renewable resource, but, according to some, a greener one than fuel oil) are environmentally destructive, but we are never offered a comparison between these sources and alternatives to them. Many of these critics, in other words, argue as though there were no problems at all with our existing resources, and no reason to look for alternatives. But of course, the precise opposite is true.
In short, instead of a comparison which reasons that “natural gas burning plants and old nukes are better than wind turbines and solar installations because …,” we are offered simple condemnations is a policy vacuum: “this source or that one is unacceptable, because …”
That’s no way to make policy.
The simple fact of the matter is that unless our culture undergoes a revolution as profound as the industrial revolution, we WILL continue to use vast quantities of energy. We depend on it not only in our households, but also in our working lives: without massive amounts of energy, the Vermont economy would grind to a halt in short order. The question, in other words, is not whether we will continue to use large amounts of energy, but where it will come from. There are no perfect sources.
In short, the only real choice we have – after we’ve made EVERY effort to stop WASTING enormous quantities of energy — is between imperfect alternatives. It is simply irresponsible to condemn this alternative or that one, without comparing all the available options to one another and attempting to find the best subsets possible to meet all our needs and contingencies. Our politicians and bureaucrats have done this for decades; many of their critics have not.
That’s no guarantee that Vermont has gotten it right. There ARE real issues to debate, both about the best energy mix and the implementation of the policy, its impact of our economy, etc. But this is NOT a discussion to hold in a vacuum.
All of which leads me back to my mantra. Whenever anyone comments on an energy policy or source, ALWAYS ask: Compared to what?
