Question of costs stalling energy talks

Americans want cleaner energy — but don’t want to pay the costs. In fact, most of us don’t even know what those costs are.

That was part of the message Thomas E. Farrell brought to an audience at the Miller Center of Public Affairs earlier this week. Mr. Farrell is chairman and CEO of Dominion Resources and an expert in national energy issues.

We would do well to heed his warning about a disconnect between Americans’ energy fantasies and on-the-ground realities.

Mr. Farrell stressed that he is not a “climate-change denier” nor is he opposed to alternative energy sources or research into improving those technologies. Indeed, Dominion has been recognized for its environmental efforts.

But he wants us to realize that a major paradigm shift will be necessary to create the kind of clean energy many of us desire — and we are nowhere near that goal. Nor can we achieve it until Washington buckles down to create and implement a true energy policy, one with coordinated and focused goals.

Mr. Farrell condensed Americans’ attitudes into three “inconvenient truths”:

„ We like to have the lights on.

„ We don’t know much about what it takes to keep the lights on.

„ What we do know, we don’t like.

 These statements took on fresh relevancy with the announcement that Pittsburgh has banned natural gas drilling. Pennsylvania is rich in natural gas deposits, via a formation called the Marcellus shale. That same formation runs into western Virginia and has been eyed for resource extraction here.

But with reports out of Pennsylvania of water wells contaminated by drilling (disputed by the industry) and of other ills, we in Central Virginia do not want these problems imported into our backyard.

And yet …

Although gas-fired plants don’t contribute much to the nation’s overall electricity output, they are part of today’s solution. Meanwhile, the techniques for recovering gas from shale are environmentally hazardous and potentially risky to human health. Is this a price we wish to pay for cheap power?

If not gas, then what? Nuclear plants are opposed by some because of perceived safety concerns. Coal is opposed because of carbon pollution and environmental devastation from mountaintop removal. Wind farms are opposed because they spoil views and endanger birds. Solar requires vast tracts of land under sunny conditions. Which of these costs are we willing to pay?

Conservation and energy efficiency, like alternative sources, also are part of the solution, but are greatly insufficient for meeting modern society’s huge demand for electricity. And, remember, we like to keep that power flowing to our computers and cell phones, our televisions and refrigerators, our factories and schools. Which of these are we willing to cut back on?

When all is said and done, coal and nuclear power remain for now the most efficient and cost-effective fuels for generating electricity. Changing that will require a concerted public effort, which will in turn require that we work together — not against each other — for a national energy policy.