November 13, 2007
Witness to the evolution of energy - Duke executive talks about push for green power
Christopher D. Kirkpatrick - The Charlotte Observer
ckirkpatrick@charlotteobserver.com
If you want to know about alternative energy, talk to Duke Energy Corp.'s David Mohler.
In the power business for 33 years, the chief technology officer is a walking history book on the evolution of green energy -- from ridicule to acceptance.
He recalls a time when executives "shrugged shoulders" at the idea of delivering electricity through solar and wind-generated power, let alone using animal waste to fuel a new generation of power plants.
The 56-year-old remembers some companies making "half-hearted" attempts in the 1980s at conservation.
"They made their money on the volume of electricity sold," he said. `For the utility to spend a lot of money to change that equation wasn't reasonable."
He has seen real changes in the past three or four years as the world recognizes the threat of global warming, believed by most scientists to be caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants are a major contributor.
Mohler said Duke is on its way to producing at least 12.5 percent of its power from renewable energy sources by 2021 -- the figure required by a new N.C. law called a renewable portfolio standard.
The Observer interviewed Mohler about the push for green power and Duke's controversial plans for a nuclear plant and new coal-fired generation.
Questions and comments were edited for length and clarity.
Q. Is there pressure to meet the standard and to bring these technologies online?
Only in the sense that there is pressure to do (long-term power) generation planning. That's ongoing. There's a group that works on it all the time. And the (renewable energy law) becomes another element in the mix. It stimulates technology development, and it stimulates regulatory development.
Q. So the law frees you up to pursue the technologies?
It gives us a construct for developing the technology. And I think that's a good thing. Prior to the renewable portfolio standard, our mandate (from state regulators) was to provide power at the least cost.
Q. Is that one of the biggest challenges, making sure there is enough power in the future?
There is a huge portion of our customer base that wants three things. The bulk want the lights to come on, have it be cheap and they don't want to hear about it after that.
Q. What, to you, holds the most promise in terms of (providing) that extra power we need with all the regulatory hurdles for coal and nuclear projects?
Clearly energy efficiency is high on the list because it's achievable now. The megawatt you don't generate is the cleanest one you can possibly think of. But you can't completely reduce energy consumption to zero, especially in the face of increasing population. It's got to come from somewhere. Long term, my belief is if we're not serious about building more nuclear plants, we're really fundamentally not serious about attacking climate change.
Q. How would you solve the storage issue?
The French have been recycling nuclear waste for 30 years, and doing it safely and successfully. If you have to store all the spent fuel from all the operating U.S. reactors today, it would only cover a football field to the depth of the goal posts. But you think about (capturing and storing) carbon dioxide produced by all the coal-fired power plants in this country, and it would require 33 million barrels a day, which is over one-third of oil production today.
Q. Is there a clean power source out there that we haven't even thought of yet?
I don't see any today that are going to be commercially viable in my lifetime, other than the ones we're currently working on. A part of what's really going to make a huge difference is to get that infrastructure in place. Today, we have a passive infrastructure. If we want to turn the lights off that's a passive device on that wall. Someone has to go over there and flip the switch. But what if that were an active device, and in some buildings it is? You get up and leave the room, the lights turn off. When the price of electricity is high the lights dim or if there's enough sunlight coming in the windows.
Q. Demand for electricity is going to go through the roof, and we have a limited ability right now to deliver it without a lot of controversy.
There are always going to be tradeoffs. Edison invented the light bulb and started small-scale electrification for lighting. Basically they had big dirty generators in people's basements. And that was seen as a really superior alternative to nasty smoky gas and oil lamps and candles. So the tradeoff was now you have this new, expensive, smoky machine in your basement, sometimes pretty noisy and sometimes they blew up.
Q. Some people say we have to build a coal-fired project to meet the demand; and we have to build a nuclear plant. A lot of folks don't want you to do that. But Duke Energy says that it has to be there to meet the demand. Is Charlotte growing too quickly for its own good in that regard?
Not speaking for the company, I don't think so. I value human life so I think growth is not a bad thing. What are the alternatives? Do we turn people away? Do we tell people that they can't have the standard of living that they aspire to?
URL: http://www.charlotte.com/business/story/361868.html
