The great green hope

A crucial argument about the best way to combat global warming comes down to two alternatives that may seem deceptively simple:

* Force utilities to make a certain percentage of electricity from renewable resources, such as solar and wind.

* Make utilities pay a stiff fine for the greenhouse gases they produce from coal and natural gas, then let the utilities figure out the most economical way of reducing their emissions.

How this plays out could mean a big hit to Floridians' wallets.

Some energy economists and a group of regulators warn that the southeastern states, including Florida, are a bad area for generating solar and wind power, meaning a renewable energy requirement would be expensive.

Many environmentalists and some politicians disagree, saying solar power can work here and the country needs both a renewable standard plus cap-and-trade, a policy that penalizes those who use greenhouse gases. Gov. Charlie Crist has called for utilities to make 20 percent of their power from renewables.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants a 25 percent standard by 2025. Republican candidate John McCain opposes setting a standard, believing the best way to cut back emissions is through cap-and-trade.

In Florida, the renewable energy debate has been intense. During the most recent legislative session, many business groups opposed a 20 percent standard, fearing major increases in their power costs. The bill signed by the governor referred the issue to regulators to propose a standard, then bring it back to the Legislature for approval. Meanwhile, several bills in Congress seek to set a national standard.

"A renewable standard makes sense. Period, " says Eric Wachsman, director of the Florida Institute for Sustainable Energy in Gainesville. "The only question is how much that standard should be. We absolutely need to encourage renewables, " to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

Jay Apt, executive director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, says it's better to fine companies for the pollution they cause and then let free markets determine the best alternatives because "intermitment power" -- such as solar or wind -- "will significantly increase the cost of power to consumers."

The debate boils down to three key points: Are renewable standards the best way to deal with greenhouse gases? How expensive are renewables, particularly in the Southeast? And what's the best renewable for Florida? (One advance tidbit on that last question: A federal agency says garbage is more important than solar.) WHAT'S THE BEST SYSTEM?

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, writes in Earth: The Sequel that a renewable standard "focuses on the wrong thing: on process (how utilities generate power) rather than on performance (how much pollution they emit), which is what ultimately counts.

"In essence, renewable standards, subsidies and other mandates assume that the government has all the answers, rather than letting the market figure out the best way to produce energy at the lowest possible cost, " Krupp writes.

John Reilly, an energy economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says a renewable standard "doesn't have a lot of favor in the economic profession, " because most renewables provide intermittent power that, like solar in the daylight, works only part of the time -- unlike the continuous basic power sources like nuclear and natural gas. "And they're costly anyway."

Apt and some other energy experts say Florida's sunlight is too diffuse, because of cloud cover, to offer the steady, cheap sun power that can be found in the Mojave Desert in California. They say wind power here is strong only at the seashore, where many owners of expensive homes will fight vehemently against unsightly turbines.

Steve Clemmer, clean energy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argues that the costs of renewables will come down if a standard is adopted, "creating competition between renewable energy developers, by achieving economies of scale in manufacturing, and through technological innovation."

Wachsman in Gainesville and the other pro-renewable environmentalists believe the nation needs to set penalties on greenhouse gases that are likely to come through a cap-and-trade system, in which the government gives or sells credits for carbon emissions. If a company does a good job of cutting its emissions, it could sell leftover allowances at market prices to others that are having trouble reducing carbon.

The European Union has been using cap-and-trade for more than three years and is still struggling to make it work. "There are a lot of flaws in that system, " says Wachsman. He believes a renewable standard guarantees a reduction in gases that a cap-and-trade system may not.

Michael Sole, secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, says "a clean energy solution also has an economic side, " creating jobs to install the solar generators and biomass plants, rather than getting energy from foreign oil. HOW EXPENSIVE ARE RENEWABLES?

Twenty-five states now have renewable standards, but many are states with abundant wind power, which is rapidly becoming cheaper than some fossil fuels. None of the states is in the Southeast, which has virtually no wind or solar, although Florida Power & Light has announced plans for three solar plants.

A letter from the Southeastern Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners last year to members of Congress warned: "The reality is that not all states are fortunate enough to have abundant traditional renewable energy resources, such as wind. . . . This is especially true in the Southeast."

The Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group, notes that because some states don't have natural resources for renewables, their utilities "will be required to purchase higher-cost renewable energy from other suppliers" in other states.

John D. Wilson, research director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, says that assessment is "flat-out wrong." Studies by his group and the Union of Concerned Scientists conclude that there are plenty of renewable energy resources for wind and solar in the Southeast, including Florida.

The question is how strong the resources are. Studies by the Florida Solar Energy Center show that the state gets about 15 percent to 35 percent less sunlight than the California desert. FPL has so far picked one spot for a wind experiment, right on the Atlantic Coast, but its study shows that the facility would produce less than half the energy of prime wind spots in North Dakota.

The debate about costs may get settled soon at the Public Service Commission, which has been ordered by the Legislature to propose renewable standards.

It plans to hire a consultant to work through the process. One goal is to determine comparable costs of renewables in cents-per-kilowatt-hour, adjusting for tax breaks and other matters, to determine a true cost. WHICH RENEWABLES ARE THE BEST? While wind and solar dominate the news pages, they are still minor players nationally and locally. At present, renewable energy produces only 7 percent of the nation's power -- and 89 percent of that comes from aged hydroelectric dams and biomass plants that use mostly wood and garbage, according to the Energy Information Administration. Wind and solar make up only 6 percent of renewable energy in the United States, but wind is growing rapidly.

In Florida, renewables produce 1.9 percent of the state's power, according to EIA's 2006 data. Solar and wind contributed nothing to that. Virtually all renewable energy came from biomass plants burning wood or wood wastes and landfill gases.

The Union of Concerned Scientists produced a study last year that concluded that "Southeastern states have enough potential bioenergy, incremental hydro, solar, wind and landfill gas resources to meet at least 50 percent of their current electric power needs."

Most environmentalists emphasize solar, which is often publicized, and biomass, which isn't.

Sole, of the Department of Environmental Protection, says, "I think Florida holds great promise in biomass, " the burning of landfill wastes and agricultural leftovers, such as that from sugar cane and other products.

Although some environmentalists disagree, Sole says recent criticisms of biofuels, such as those derived from corn and sugar cane, have been exaggerated, particularly about causing increases in food prices.

Wachsman and Sole are also strong supporters of solar, which they believe will be increasingly viable if its costs come down. The Sunshine State may not have the powerful sunlight that California and Arizona get, but Wachsman points to Germany, which "doesn't have anywhere near the type of solar" that Florida gets, and Germany boasts that it is the leading nation in the world for solar, thanks to major subsidies.

Lurking in the background of this discussion is nuclear power. Many environmentalists support a renewable standard because nuclear isn't part of it.

Like renewables, nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, but many environmentalists are opposed to it, particularly because of unresolved problems with disposing of the waste.

Nuclear can also be hugely expensive, but energy economists and utilities point out that once a nuclear plant is running, its cost of producing electricity is extremely low -- about 5 percent of the cost of natural gas, according to FPL regulatory filings. FPL WEIGHS IN ON THE DEBATE In this politically charged discussion, Florida Power & Light treads cautiously. FPL spokesman Mayco Villafaña put it this way: "We are in full support of the governor's climate change initiatives, including the creation of a renewable portfolio standard. We wholeheartedly believe the right RPS policies will lead to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

"As a clean energy company, we want an RPS that is in the best interest of our customers. . . . A Florida RPS should work toward securing our customers' energy future. To meet carbon reduction goals, non-emitting energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear should count toward satisfying any targets. . . . New renewable technologies can mean higher cost to the consumer. These new policies should be introduced in the marketplace in a manner that maintains reliable electric service and reasonable electric prices."

FPL's including nuclear is not welcomed by many environmentalists. "We think nuclear is a high cost, high risk so-called 'solution, ' " says Wilson at the Southern Alliance.

MIT's Reilly believes that in the long run, the United States must seek sources that can provide large amounts of power, such as nuclear or cleaned-up coal with a carbon capture technology that has yet to be perfected.

At present, little coal is used in Florida, and it would have to be transported from considerable distance.

"Everybody keeps looking for this one magic bullet, " says Wachsman. "But we need to do pretty much everything we can if we're going to reduce greenhouse gases."

U.S. ENERGY USE

Major fuels net electricity generation

Coal 49.1% Natural Gas 20% Nuclear 19.5% Hydropower 7.1% Non-hydro renewables 2.4% Petroleum 1.5% Other gases 0.4% Renewables (non-hydro) Biomass 57% Wind 27% Geothermal 15% Solar/PV 0.5%

Florida renewable electricity Capacity,

% of state in megawatts total Conventional Hydro 55 0.1% Wood/wood waste 343 0.6% MSW/landfill gas 447 0.8% Other biomass 163 0.3%

SOURCE: Energy Information Administration