Should energy go local?

There are many problems associated with retooling how America obtains its energy, more specifically, how it is generated and transmitted to the consumer. Obama is faced with some energy decisions that will affect the shape of the country indefinitely. We created a vast federal highway system that only created suburbia, and more cars, more development, and more “stuff”. The question is: should energy be generated and distributed locally? Or should it follow the same ethos of our current energy infrastructure and build a large energy “back bone” across the country to distribute energy from mega-sources?

These very questions arose in the state of Minnesota. Regulators were considering the construction of new power lines that connected with proposed solar farms in the Dakotas at a cost of $1.7 billion. The thought of all that copper wire and disrupted landscapes makes my head spin. Of course, wind energy investors like T. Boone Pickens were delighted by this prospect, as if his life depends on socking away another billion this year hiding under the cloak of “going green”.

Thankfully, the Minnesota regulators took a step backward and looked at the issue from a different angle. Considering that in modes of bulk transmission around 7% of the energy is lost, and the unbelievable cost of the project, the regulators found a more simple and economic solution. They decided to develop a bunch of small 10-40 megawatt wind farms located within the state, producing about 600 megawatts and able to use their existing grid system.

This model poses an interesting solution to the energy woes in America. Perhaps we have been thinking about energy in the wrong way with large projects that are located in rural areas. We are in the habit of pushing the most unsightly and polluting aspects of urban life into rural or wilderness areas, which raises many social and environmental justice issues. We are not shy about building coal-fired power plants on sovereign Native American lands, while they live without power and sometimes no running water.

In Arizona, for example, it would seem reasonable to build a large solar facility, like the one being constructed south of the Phoenix metro area. It would create jobs and provide a clean source of energy. But on what land is it being built, and how far away is it from the consumer? Conversely, it would also be possible to place those panels on rooftops, so that the citizen has direct access to their energy, almost wirelessly. In this scenario, little to no energy is lost in transmission, and precious metals do not have to be mined from the ground to construct the proposed gargantuan transmission lines. In addition, local economies benefit directly as jobs are created, and not in another state or region.

Although the Minnesota model transcends scale in a way, it is important to acknowledge that this model does not apply to every situation. Some localities, and even some states, do not have the climate or geological conditions conducive to small-scale (or even large scale) renewable energy sources. But overall, the United States has hit the lottery in potential for renewable energy. We have a wide variety of renewable energy potentials. Pushing for our energy to be in the complete control of local entities, or more desirably at the personal level, is a scary thought for many government agencies and energy companies. Imagine taking away the power (social that is) from these companies to operate energy monopolies. There is of course no end of political resistance to such a scenario.

The prospect of the people having the power and not corporate or government interests is heart warming. It is important to resist these pervasive neoliberal agendas. We do not have to commoditise everything, and we do not have to profit from everything. We all have the right to gaze up at the Sun and absorb its benefits.

Colin J. Gardner
A World to Win’s US correspondent

Peak oil - peak madness

The sharp rise in the price of oil to almost $80 a barrel, coupled with evidence that production is nearing or is already at its peak, is a dangerous indicator of the unsustainability of the global market economy. As oil runs out, the corporations are expanding production as if there was no tomorrow, with dire consequences for the rest of us. They will diversify into other sources of energy only if they are tradable as commodities – like oil is - and facilitate profit-making in the production and sale of commodities. This is already creating its own set of problems. A switch to using corn and wheat to create biofuels like ethanol, for example, is having an impact on food prices throughout the world. There have already been riots in Mexico following a sharp rise in food basics, and the trend is now revealing itself in the major capitalist countries. Over 20% of the maize crop in the United States is used for the production of ethanol. The knock-on effect on the price of wheat on the international markets is "only headed one way," says agricultural accounts at Deloitte. The firm also predicts that the era of cheap food that has lasted since 1945 is coming to an end. There is always the nuclear option, of course, which is the one that New Labour favours for Britain. This in turns creates massive storage and other problems, especially for those living near nuclear plants.

Some environment campaigners and groups hope that as oil runs out, the economy will contract, less carbon dioxide will be emitted, global warming will ease and, lo and behold, problem solved! This is dreamland, unfortunately. A more likely scenario is that oil prices will continue to rise, food prices will soar, unemployment will grow as energy supplies dry up, the financial system will become unstable and more resources wars, like the one in Iraq, will develop. Addiction to oil and the use of private cars comes with capitalism. The system is based on individual/family units with one or more cars for work and leisure. The "American" model has become the global model, sweeping Latin America, China and India. There has to be another way. The nature and reason for production of commodities has to undergo a fundamental transformation, beginning with immediate action to address energy supplies and climate chaos. An action plan could include:

• An immediate halt to car production; existing models to be made more fuel efficient and use other forms of fuel; introduce social ownership and use of cars
• Reserving oil for essential transport which benefits humanity – for example, shipping and food production
• Setting an upper limit on the number of air miles flown in and out of Britain; supporting campaigns fighting airport expansion
• A complete overhaul of public transport – reducing prices, bringing rail and air back into public ownership and using dial-a-ride to get people to hubs so they can get to work
• Heating homes with gas or locally-produced renewable electricity sources; bringing energy companies back into public ownership
• Using resources currently spent on wars, nuclear weapons for researching alternative fuel and power systems
• Recycling on massive scale at all levels of production and consumption
• A curb on long-distance transport of food, and a switch to not-for-profit production of food and other commodities.

All these need to be agreed and implemented by local, regional and national democratic bodies in a direct challenge to the status quo of corporate madness and business-friendly governments.

Paul Feldman, communications editor