By Bart King
I'm tired of hearing that the Southeast doesn't have the same wealth of renewable energy resources other parts of the country have. I've lived in Georgia most of my life and traveled enough to know this statement is just ridiculous.
The first time I heard it, I thought: you've got to be kidding. Even when we're not in the middle of a drought--which may soon be our permanent condition thanks to climate change--the sun can be relentless here.
I thought maybe I was missing something--that perhaps our percentage of cloudy days or high humidity made solar power ineffective. This seems plausible when you consider that the top two solar states are California and Nevada. But number three on the list is New Jersey, which can't possibly be any sunnier or drier than Georgia.
And it isn't. We have data to go on. A simple Internet search brings up numerous maps of U.S. solar potential, and they all show that the Southeast is second only to the Southwest. Florida and North Carolina apparently have found this information, because they are both actively pursuing the development of solar power.
And if that isn't proof enough, a little more research digs up this info-nugget: Georgia has solar resources that are 60% better than Germany, which is the current global leader in installed solar capacity. Some projections suggest that rooftop solar installations alone could provide more than 20% of Georgia's electricity needs. So what gives?
Even if we take solar out of the equation, what does that leave us? Oh yeah, how about 190 miles of coastline. Pull up another of those resource maps (try Googling: "wind map U.S."), and it's obvious that some offshore wind turbines might be a good place to start.
The wind doesn't blow as strongly here as it does farther north, but thousands of megawatts (MW) worth of wind power are still at our disposal. The Southeastern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) believes offshore wind power could provide 17,000 MW of electricity by 2025. In comparison, the two new nuclear reactors Georgia Power wants to build would add 1100 MW each at an estimated cost of $14 billion-and a bunch of nuclear waste.
Also, let's not forget that where there's an ocean, there are waves and currents. The technology hasn't been perfected yet, but we've got a far better chance of harnessing wave and tidal power than the 13 landlocked states. And we shouldn't overlook advances being made in low-impact hydrokinetic power, which would allow us to gather energy from our rivers without needing to build dams or divert flow.
