“Green energy is getting a bit of a tail wind now that a major grid operator is saying that the power source can provide clean power without jeopardizing reliability. Critics, though, immediately pounced on the study, saying that it was performed by GE Energy Consulting, whose parent has high stakes in wind production.” 

Writing in EnergyBiz, Editor Ken Silverstein continues:

“Specifically, the PJM Interconnection that operates the transmission network over a 13-state region primarily in the eastern United States says that if 20 percent of the area’s electricity came from wind or solar then it would cut energy prices by $9 billion. And, if 30 percent came from those same fuels, it would reduce those costs by $13 billion and that it would not have any affect on grid reliability. 

“Meantime, under the 20 percent scenario, carbon dioxide releases are cut by 18 percent while under the 30 percent case study, those emissions are reduced by 29 percent. The study also said that investments would need to be made in the transmission system: If the region obtained 20 percent of its energy from wind and solar then 820 miles of wire would have to be installed for around $3.8 billion. If 30 percent then as much as 2,946 miles of new transmission would need to strung for as much as $14 billion. 

“However, “Expansion from 20 percent to 30 percent does not appear to be economically attractive,” says GE’s findings. 

“Skeptics of green power remain dubious given that wind and solar are intermittent sources. That makes it difficult for the “traffic cops” to schedule those fuels so that the electricity keeps flowing. Those grid managers’ task is to maintain reliability with the lowest-priced fuels.”‘

EnviroPolitics

"Since Hurricane Sandy hit the U.S. East Coast a year ago, federal, state, and local governments have made an important de facto policy decision without any debate, discussion, or national plan. It is this: We will attempt to hold the nation’s shorelines in place using whatever means possible and whatever the cost. We will do this despite the undisputed scientific fact that sea levels are rising and coastal erosion along these shores will only increase in the future. We will do this even though it will be environmentally damaging and the costs will be extremely high, with never-ending expenditures. "

In Yale Environment 360, coastal geology professor Rob Young writes:

"Yes, there has been much talk about building "better" and "smarter." There have been plans for increasing "resilience," which is a conveniently vague term. President Obama’s Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force released its long-awaited report in August. There were many good recommendations for increasing post-disaster efficiency and for using better science to understand flood risk. But one sure-fire solution for reducing vulnerability was glaringly absent: The report lacked any suggestion that we should be developing long-term plans for getting infrastructure out of high hazard areas.

Raising buildings is only a solution if you commit to holding the beaches in place forever.

"Yes, there is much talk in the report about elevating structures and roads, and good suggestions about flood-proofing urban services like the power grid. Many resort communities in New Jersey have taken the call to elevate homes seriously. But elevating buildings above the hazard is only a temporary solution to coastal vulnerability. It’s like standing in a river that is rising due to a flood. You can roll up your pants or hike up your skirt, but if the water keeps rising you will get wet. Better to just step out of the water. In the year since Sandy, our response has been to roll up our pants, but sea level will continue to rise and our shorelines will continue to erode at an ever-increasing rate.

———————————————————————————————————————————— 
Today’s issue of our paid subscription newsletter, EnviroPolitics will carry dozens of stories like this one. Get your free trial subscription. Profit from targeted energy and environment news, legislation and regulations every weekday for a full month. 
No charge. No obligation. No kidding.  
————————————————————————————————————————————-

"The Army Corps of Engineers has so overhyped the benefits of beach nourishment that every coastal community in America is standing in line to sign up. The corps is examining 50-year projects for the entire shoreline of

Why not start thinking now about how to relocate vulnerable infrastructure?

Walton County, Florida, and for the small community of Edisto, South Carolina, among many others. When the federal government endorses spending billions to pump sand on the beaches of New York and New Jersey in an effort to provide the next 5 or 6 years of protection, how can we deny all the other communities that will also want big, expensive beaches? But should U.S. taxpayers be funding a $23 million project in a very small oceanfront community like Edisto? And what about the next coastal community, and the next?

"What’s needed is a new approach that acknowledges the science of coastal hazards and sea level rise. Managed retreat is not an abandonment of the coast. It is a gradual change in the footprint of vulnerable communities based on the realities of coastal hazards and rising sea levels. Storms are an opportunity to implement that change. But if the federal government is guaranteeing to keep beaches in front of your property, why would you think about moving? "

Read the full post: Why Rebuilding The Coast Is Doomed to Failure

Your thoughts? Use the comment box below.

Related environmental news stories:
New Jersey told to rebuild for future of higher seas
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding, Recovery Effort Continues
Rebuilding Projects Rise From The Ashes
Citizens group to hold meeting about Margate dunes project

Our most recent posts:
New Jersey law firm opens Trenton lobbying office