Editorial

Always two sides to any energy issue

Monday, December 14, 2015

Some environmentalists lauded results of the Paris Climate Change Conference, although many admitted it didn't go far enough.

The voluntary agreement aims to limit the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere in order to reduce the climate change that scientists say has caused 14 of the 15 warmest years in recorded history over the last two decades.

Negotiators had to settle on numbers that would limit global warming to about 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, more than the 2 degrees organizers hoped to achieve.

"Voluntary" is a key part of the agreement, and since China creates about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases -- twice that of the United States, the second biggest producer -- we'll have to watch the response of those two countries to determine the long-term success of the Paris talks.

Some of the problems meeting the goals are illustrated by a project approved by the Scottsbluff City Council this week.

The council approved a plan by the Nebraska Public Power District to create a solar project able to provide enough electricity for nearly two-dozen homes.

The problem is, NPPD won't build the project until it signs up at least 20 customers for its power. If more than that sign up, the project will be expanded accordingly.

NPPD estimates the energy will cost about 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour and increase to 11.99 cents in 20 years.

While those prices are attractive, the true cost won't be clear until proposals are received from solar power companies to build the solar arrays and sell the output to NPPD.

Nebraskans are as environmentally conscious as anyone, but we're also fiscally conservative, and when it comes to power generation, that's traditionally been coal.

Alternative energy won't expand its foothold in the Cornhusker state until it makes convincing economic sense.

Lower gasoline prices -- $1.99 for ethanol blend today -- make a lot of economic sense for family budgets this Christmas shopping season, but there's also a downside.

Lower gasoline prices might not be so welcome if the family breadwinner works in the oil industry, which has cut exploration and production in light of $35 a barrel prices, compared to $100 as recently as 19 months ago.

Like most contentious topics, there are always two sides to the energy coin.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: