Energy Tech Summit '08
I got back from Wise this evening, after an 8-hour drive. What a day.
The Energy Technology Summit (first annual and more coming) was held at the scenic UVA-Wise campus, which is located on a ridge above the bucolic town of Wise.
There were about 150 attendees, mostly local government leaders and representatives of the energy industry. Wise, as you have likely heard, is the heart of Virginia's Coalfield region. It has been losing jobs and population for years and is looking to rebound in the new energy-centric 21st century economy.
The lead-off batter for the Conference was Congressman Rick Boucher (D), who has represented Southwest Virginia in the U.S. Congress for 26 years. You won't find a more respected or smarter Congressman in this state, and probably not anywhere else.
Congressman Boucher is the chair of the House Subcommittee on Energy. He also represents all of Virginia's coal-producing counties and described himself as "historically a skeptic of mandatory controls for greenhouse gas emissions."
But he didn't pander to the audience. Instead Congressman Boucher gave a straight-ahead and candid speech in which he admitted that "human activity is causing climate change" and the U.S. "has an obligation to adopt" comprehensive and national carbon emission standards. He said it is "inevitable" that this will occur and gave an 80% chance of it occurring in the 2009 Congress, if not earlier.
Essentially, Congressman Boucher recommended a "cap and trade" system which allows slow adopters to buy carbon credits while they gradually change their business to 21st century realities. He stated that he was getting industry cooperation on Federal legislation (as if there's a choice) and that the goal was a 60-80% goal in carbon reductions by 2050 -- the same goal stated by national climate control panels.
Congressman Boucher's comments were the highlight. After that, there were presentations about space based solar energy, as well as carbon capture and sequestration technology (and potential sites in southwest VA for storing carbon). By using focused satellite technology which beams solar rays to earth, space-based solar can double the output of earth-based technology. Meanwhile, carbon injection in abandoned mine seams will push out "clean" methane gas thereby producing a new domestic alternative source.
Within 10-20 years, both technologies may be mainstream. Needless to say, the potential development of either is worth billions (if not trillions) of saved costs from reduced carbon output.
By contrast, my talk on state energy policy and the potential of renewables in Virginia was mundane at best. I'm working on a smaller scale, and it was fascinating (and highly educational) to see the "big picture" outside of the Commonwealth.
Of course, the biggest issue is the pending approval and development of the 585-megawatt coal-fired plant at Virginia City in Wise, a short drive away from the conference. The controversial details have been stated ad nauseam. Needless to say, industry advocates are touting it as a potential "clean coal" facility assuming that can be developed. Either way, the facility is not likely to open before 2012, perhaps time to see that technology come to market in some fashion. Til that time, the jury is out.
Either way, there is much to learn on both sides of this issue (and I speak as one who leans to the environmental side on most energy issues). Coal is a geologic and economic reality in southwest VA. The question is how can it adapt to national or global enviro standards.
That's the report from this perspective. Check out more from the Southwest Virginia Technology Council at http://energytechnologysummit.blogspot.com/
A special shout-out and thanks to Evan Day from the Sierra Club's "Power 2 Change" program who has been organizing on clean energy issues for the 2008 campaign cycle (he worked on my State Senate field staff in 2007). Evan met me down in Wise for the conference and drove me back to Fairfax.





Sign the power to change online petition to let the 2008 candidates know that as a voter you care about clean and renewable energy.
http://www.sierraclub.org/power2change/virginia/
Chap,
As an engineer, I a somewhat skeptical about a market based, cap-and-trade plan to control the creation of greenhouse gasses. It smacks of enron tactics. It does not sound like it will be accessable and always results in the end consumer paying higher prices, just like the demand metering scheme. The only thing green about cap-and-trade is the color of the dollars flowing in it.
The United States needs a strong nuclear program. We need the Government, particularly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to step up and develop a unified reactor design plan and create a rapid and safe process to comissioning nuclear power plants. The plants need to be breeder types to optimize the utilization their fuel. We need a strong safety and security organization to protect the plants and move expendables. And we need to start to do this now! Clearly, the present administration has worked to strip regulatory power from the government and this has resulted in government agencies becoming non-entities in many places where there was once leadership, such as nuclear energy.
By the way, I do see this as a government function. While businesses build nuclear reactors, Goverment must control all aspects of the nuclear power generation industry not only because the stakes are so high, but that it is what we must expect from our government to do. It is no different a vision than our municipal water system here in the City of Fairfax. We, as citizens own our water system and pay for its usage in fees and taxes. We pay for the systems upkeep and maintenance and regulate it to make sure it delivers clean water to our homes. There is no difference in my mind between water and electricty in terms of utility to the end users.
I support the Sierra Club and I do understand how we are damaging the earth by generating greenhouse gasses. But we're not going to do this by creating a market that only the very rich will play in and ultimately, create disproportionate economic burdens for the end users.
BC: I am not disagreeing with you on nuclear. It is emerging as a very, very viable option for the post-petroleum world. I don't think that a "cap and trade" policy has to be dominated by wealthy interests (any more than any market-based solution). In my Clean Energy bill, for example, we gave double credits for domestic energy producers while also requiring a broad portfolio of renewables so that one big company could not corner the market on the production side.
The bottom line is that there has to be some market for trading credits, unless you are prepared to see large sectors of our economy just shut down. I don't think many of us want to see that.
Anyway, your comments are always appreciated and educational. Thanks again for tracking this. Chap