‘Knee-jerk' reaction to coal not enough

LANCE WILSON/Spectrum

First off, I'm not an energy expert. I'm just what I'd characterize as an average MEA cooperative consumer trying to live in Mat-Su on a budget.

I participated in the May 19 MEA public meeting in Wasilla. From a quick listen to the transcripts from the Palmer and Eagle River sites, I may have been the only speaker actually in favor the MEA New Generation Plan.

MEA is looking for a way to meet the energy needs of its members when the current electricity purchasing relationship with the Chugach Electric Association ends in 2014. You might ask why this relationship has to end, why can't MEA continue to buy its power from Chugach?

Although I don't know the full answer to this, I suspect that Chugach will be hard pressed in the future, if it isn't already, to meet the growing energy needs of its own cooperative.

Where/how do we get our electricity after 2014? Whatever the answer, the source has to be both reliable and affordable, not to mention it has to be available and online by 2014.

The MEA board is recommending the construction of a 100 megawatt coal-fired power plant to supply electricity full time, year around, supplemented by a 100 megawatt gas turbine power plant to add electricity as necessary during peak demand periods. I'm only one MEA consumer, but this plan sounds reasonable to me.

I don't suffer a knee-jerk reaction to reject the coal option right off, because I've lived where a clean coal plant really is clean.

There have been many calls for the MEA board to reject constructing power plants that burn fossil fuels, particularly to not consider coal. The board says it looked at all potential sources of power, including &#8220green” sources, before making the recommendation to go with coal, supplemented by gas.

MEA's plan does include 10 percent renewable, getting power from the Eklutna and Bradley Lakes hydro projects, which are already on line, as well having provisions to buy electricity from renewable projects built by others who make power available for purchase.

We have to go back to the primary considerations that MEA's energy future has to be reliable, affordable and sufficient to meet our future needs. Although &#8220green” energy would be great, at this time green sources alone just can't form the backbone of our energy system.

None of the green sources, singly or in any combination, can be built in time, be as affordable as a fossil fuel plant, or provide enough power to meet MEA's needs. I know that this MEA member is NOT willing to pay more for electricity from &#8220green” sources just to feel good, particularly when those green sources can't come close to meeting the future demand.

I also don't want to see a dam over the Susitna that might destroy our salmon runs.

So where does this leave us? The only really viable sources of power available today come down to fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal. Coal is the most attractive option from a business standpoint. Coal is relatively cheap, is readily available, and Alaska coal reserves are estimated to last for hundreds of years.

Certainly, we'll be able to bridge the technology gap at some point in the future that will allow us to convert to &#8220green” energy, but we aren't there now. Yes, coal has a long dirty history, but with advances in technology since the Industrial Revolution, and with close environmental monitoring, coal's future is not so grim.

Going back to the May 19 public meeting, I wasn't surprised by the cries against coal. I was taken aback by almost unanimous anti-MEA rhetoric.

I believe most of the attendees would only have been satisfied if they were told they would get free electricity for life magically produced by windmills, waterfalls and pixies. My wife is right when she says we should begin stocking up on candles, because when the lights go out, candles will be worth their weight in gold.

Lance Wilson is a resident of Houston.