By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO
As I gaze out my window at the tranquil morning blue February sky, I’m struck by the contrast between my modern comforts and the challenges faced by my ancestors in this unforgiving climate. Thanks to advancements in energy production, my family and I enjoy a level of warmth and light that was once unimaginable.
Yet, in my retirement, I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the direction of our energy management. While cost-saving measures should be a priority, it seems that the emphasis is shifting towards sustainability at the expense of affordability and common sense. The Chugach Electric Association, for instance, champions sustainability as a cornerstone of its business ethos.
But what does “sustainability” truly mean for us, the rate payers? It appears that decision-makers, including incumbent board members, are fixated on certain renewable sources like solar and wind while disregarding others like hydro. This narrow focus overlooks the financial realities and practicalities of energy generation.
For us, the average rate payers, this raises critical questions about the reliability and cost-effectiveness of our energy supply. Relying solely on intermittent renewables without adequate storage solutions risks grid instability, particularly during calm or overcast periods.
In engineering decisions, ideology must not trump practicality. While renewable energy is vital for our environment, it must be implemented in a manner that ensures both affordability and reliability for consumers. Ultimately, effective energy management should take precedence over ideological preferences.
For me, understanding the nuances of energy resource quantification is key to controlling costs. Renewable resources can be classified as either intermittent or firm. Intermittent sources, like solar and wind, are weather-dependent and energy-limited, while firm sources can produce power 24/7.
Consider this: The CIRI wind farm on Fire Island costs 9.6 cents per kilowatt hour, while Bradley Lake Hydroelectric only costs 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour. The projections for the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project, with its immense capacity, were similarly cost-effective.
While the Chugach Electric Association’s focus on sustainability is commendable, the reality is that intermittent renewables alone cannot sustain Alaska’s energy needs. Firm resources like hydro must play a central role if we are to secure a reliable and affordable energy future. Let’s ensure that practicality prevails over ideology as we chart our course forward.
Michael Tavoliero is a writer at Must Read Alaska.
