Proposition C (California, New Madrid, King City: lease, house, buy)

[bls5555]

Requires utility companies to use an increased amount on renewable energy

Thoughts?

[ucfjtm]

This may raise costs to the residents paying power bills.. utility companies will pass these costs to customers. However, reducing the use of coal, gas, and oil consumption for renewable energy is a price I'd be willing to pay to a certain extent.. what are the requirement numbers of this proposition? 2-5% with a 2% increase of renewable energy per year as a percentage of the whole wouldn't be too bad, but something like 20% will have a lot of up-front costs associated with purchasing and installation of wind and solar power..

[bls5555]

Missouri Proposition C, also known as the Clean Energy Initiative, is a citizen-initiated state statute that will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Missouri. If it is approved by voters, it will create a renewable electricity standard in the state. The standard would require utility companies to gradually increase their usage of renewable energy annually until 15 percent of the energy used in the state is renewable. The initiative would also require that energy rates not increase by more than one percent annually.

[GraniteStater]

The standard is far too low. I would like to see a target of at least 25% for Missouri in terms of renewable energy sources by 2020-2025 time horizon. Missouri is one of many states east of the Rockies that relies far to heavily on polluting coal plants to generate electricity. Coal is not cheap because the latent health and environmental costs of burning coal are not tabulated into the cost per KWH. If those costs were included coal would be far more expensive compared with cleaner sources of energy like wind, solar, and natural gas.
Also, commodity prices have rapidly flucuated due to the volatile nature of the current global economy. One can not be too dependent on any one energy source (such as coal or oil). A diversified portfolio is the best way to protect consumers and businesses over the long-term.

[northbayeric]

I agree that 25 percent would be a more ideal target. My concerns are the very poor cost-benefit ratios of solar and wind energy, plus the aesthetic ugliness of all those huge windmills such as those on California's Altamont Pass and along Interstate 10 between Banning and Palm Springs. I just don't see solar energy in particular as being that feasible in a large scale in Missouri, which has far more cloudy days than sunny days compared to most of California and all of the Desert Southwest.

Could any of Alaska's natural gas get transported down to Missouri once the pipeline is completed? Also, I think nuclear plants would take a lot of the pressure off of the dirty coal plants GraniteStater properly refers to and decries.

Whatever happens, chronic electricity shortages and rolling blackouts must never be an option in Missouri or anywhere else for that matter. Again, beware of what California has experienced in the past and don't go there.

[northbayeric]

A quick follow-up: The specter of another huge earthquake along the New Madrid fault would limit the construction of nuclear plants to the western half of Missouri, I suppose. GraniteStater and others would probably like to offer feedback, I'm thinking!

[GraniteStater]

They put up a wind farm in Gentry County Missouri near King City last year. However, site issues have been a problem. Some residents have complained that the turbines were not far enough away from their residences. A simple GIS model could have solved this issue well in advance to make sure the wind farm was sited at the correct location. We call this a proper "buffer zone." Other wind farms would make more sense for rural areas of NW Missouri. Rural landowners lease the turbines from the wind energy company and get a hefty payoff per turbine. Turbines mix in well with the agricultural landscape, and crops can be grown right up next to them.

Another item that is not emphasized enough in the Plains and Midwest is energy efficiency. The utilities have really started to implement efficiency programs recently, but they were WAY BEHIND the national curve. A simple item that most homeowners do not think of is a energy audit of their house to see where hot or cold air is escaping from the house. Easy remedies include more insulation and a few upgrades that save huge $$$ in the long run. The Energy Star label is also a key thing to look for whenever one must buy a new appliance. These products save money, and lessen the strain on the local power grid. I would also like to see net metering implemented in more states so people can sell electricity back to the grid.

Energy conservation must also be stressed in order to avoid having to build more very expensive coal power plants that have a detrimental impact on the health and environment. More generating capacity should ALWAYS be looked at as the LAST option when all other measures have been taken. A good compromise is a "peaking natural gas plant" that can act as a supplement to the grid during the summer season when electricity consumption is higher.

Why am I against coal for producing electricity?
1) Many old coal plants are "grandfathered" into the system and continue to spew greater amounts of pollutants into the air compared with "newer" coal plants. Many of these old coal plants are located near large urban areas.
2) Coal prices are becoming more unstable due to the "global economy." Other developing countries are seeing demand increase, therefore long-term price stability is probably a thing of the past minus a recession.
3) Mountaintop removal has devastated many Appalachian communities leading to contaminated drinking water, a lack of water at all, has increased the flood risks due to the burying of natural river drainage systems, etc
4) Burning coal releases mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, radiation, and carbon dioxide into the air.

In terms of nuclear power:
It is probably a slightly better idea than coal plants. Most of the spent fuel rods are stored on-site currently. A newer technology can recycle most of the spent fuel rod which could significantly reduce the controversial Yucca Mountain topic a little bit. However, nuclear plants are extremely expensive and need to be subsidized by the federal government in order to be cost competitive. Mining the uranium is very energy intensive, but nuclear reactors due not produce CO2 or mercury compared to the conventional pulverized coal plant.

[christina0001]

I haven't found any reason to not support Prop C...it is a low standard, but it's a start.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by christina0001

I haven't found any reason to not support Prop C...it is a low standard, but it's a start.

+1
It is always better to diversify instead of relying on polluting coal for over 80% of total electricity generation.