2009.03.31
'The energy governor'
Former Attorney General Bob McDonnell officially launched his gubernatorial campaign, stressing that he wants to be "the energy governor" and make Viriginia "the energy capital" of America.
If he thinks that goal is achievable with his emphasis on fossil fuels - offshore drilling and coal get most of his attention - McDonnell needs to think again, we'll argue in an upcoming editorial.
By necessity, fossil fuels will remain as the base source of energy for the forseeable future. But if Virginia wants to become the "energy capital of America," the commonwealth must look to the future of renewable energy. The state simply doesn't have huge reserves of fossil fuels.
Take coal, for example. The National Mining Association estimates that Virginia has about 770 million tons of recoverable coal. Compare that to the 17.6 billion tons in West Virginia, or the 75 billion tons in Wyoming.
Oil is perhaps worse. In this chart of proven reserves, Virginia doesn't even merit an entry. Even if the best estimates of offshore reserves prove accurate, Virginia would be a minor player.
RSS feed 
I could see us making great strides with wind and solar, and maybe nuclear as well. Of course wind and solar vary with the weather, so they could onyl at best supplement the existing generation, but it's a start. We plan on adding solar panels to our home to generate electricity, and hot water, when we can afford to make the upgrade. We get plenty of southern sun exposure year-round on the front of our house, so it would be a very feasible addition. I haven't gotten into the fine details of it, but from a very rough calculation, if we could use that to generate about 3/4 of our home's electricity usage both through simple generation and savings by solar heating our water, we could completely offset the estimated installation costs in about 10-12 years, and then the savings would be a quite tidy sum each month. I think such smaller-scale generation efforts may be the bulk of how renewable energy generation is acheived.
Comment by Other John — March 31, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Virginia is never going to be the "energy capital" for any source unless we have alot more uranium than has currently been discovered or a breakthrough in nuclear fusion or some other exotic energy source is made by a Virginia based university or company.
Comment by KevinL — March 31, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
I think this renewable energy deal is just unrealistic dreaming on the part of liberals. We won't allow wind or solar farms and we won't open new nuclear plants. Where is this so-called renewable energy?
Comment by Henry — March 31, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Henry, I'll agree with you on this. The extreme environmentalists (and sadly some of the not-so-extreme along with the NIMBY types) need to back off their opposition to these projects, especially wind and solar, since their negative impact on the landscape is far less than if that power were generated using coal, oil, or natural gas. Nuclear I think is also going to be a significant portion of future energy creation, though how to re-process and/or store the waste materials is still a catch. We've kind of backed ourselves in a corner by opposing nuclear material enrichment programs overseas for the fear that the end product will be used in weapons instead of power plants, and that's essentially what we need to do with our "spent" nuclear fuel that in reality still has a lot of usable fuel energy to be captured. When we can reconcile that, nuclear may become a highly valuable and viable energy source as well.
Comment by Other John — March 31, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Henry, as OJ says it's only unrealistic because of the folks opposing progress. What is truly unrealistic dreaming is assuming that we will be fine and dandy if we "drill baby drill".
Comment by HCS — March 31, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Renewable energy is just "unrealistic dreaming on the part of the liberals". I think we should just continue on going to war in the middle east every 5 years or so to guarantee our flow of the ever-diminishing pool of fossil fuels. Far more realistic.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
There needs to be a balanced approach to all of this. Yes, we will still need oil and coal for a while...so we need to continue to drill and mine in order to keep everything moving while we implement new tech. Yes, we need solar and wind energy as a bridge between, but, I think we can agree it's not "the" answer. We also need the busy bodies to are against everything, but for nothing, to not hold things up. And, finally, yes, we need to be researching new energy sources and technology. To ignore one or the other is foolish.
Comment by Danny — March 31, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
I agree Danny..and I don't think we know yet what "the" answer is going to end up looking like.
Comment by Kristen — March 31, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Exactly... Plus whenever that new way of powering vehicles is found, it will be very expensive in the beginning. I know I won't be able to afford one for a while. While I'm waiting to afford one, I'll still have to fuel up my car...
Comment by Danny — March 31, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Agreed Danny. The route I'm looking to take would be to get a plug-in hybrid that I could charge using the solar panels when I get them installed, and use that for my commuting and local driving. I'd want something other than a Prius though, I don't care for the styling at all. But for me, that would satisfy the bulk of my driving and home energy needs except for times of low solar output or long-term cloudiness, and for long road trips. Then, until some other solution is available I'm still reliant on coal-fired power and gas or diesel fuel. And like you mentioned, it will be expensive. The average costs for solar panels looks to be anywhere from $10-20K, and the hybrid car would be another $20-30K new. Both of those are a long way out in my budget, but they are on my to-do list. Until then, I'll keep doing my best to keep my old car on the road and keep up with my energy use reduction efforts we're doing at our house.
Comment by Other John — March 31, 2009 @ 4:26 pm