The following editorial reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of Progressive Engineer.
We look forward to your comments on our Message Board, which may be accessed at the bottom of the editorial.

Responding to the Blackout’s Wakeup Call

By Warren Leon

Will the recent massive power outage in the midwestern and northeastern U.S. cause us to accept the disheartening reality that America has a dysfunctional energy system that requires dramatic changes? We now have clear proof that the electricity grid is vulnerable to massive disruptions caused by either natural causes or terrorism. We have seen that the economic and psychological costs can be tremendous. But will this move our society to a safer, better energy system? It’s too soon to tell, but the track record suggests that even such a jolting wakeup call may not bring about the necessary changes.

After all, one would have thought the World Trade Center catastrophe two years ago, followed by Americans’ increased awareness of the dangerously volatile nature of Mideast politics, would have made us act to end our heavy dependence on imported oil for much of our energy. It should be clear that we risk our security and economy by importing well over half our oil and by consuming more than a quarter of the annual global supply when we possess only three percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Wouldn’t it be prudent to take steps to reduce oil imports just a little rather than continuing to increase them?

There have been other wakeup calls that have gone unheeded. Remember the California electricity crisis? And over the past decade, the evidence of global warming—caused primarily by our reliance on fossil fuels for energy—has steadily mounted. With the heat waves this summer in Europe and the Southwest, we’ve gotten glimpses of the inconvenience, suffering, and even death that await many people in a rapidly warming world. Yet there has been little clamor in the U.S. for strong action.

Admittedly, there are organizations and individuals working for change. Presumably, steps will now be taken to correct the electricity grid’s most glaring instabilities. And some state governments are pursuing valuable efforts to increase energy efficiency and promote fossil-fuel alternatives. But the overall societal response certainly does not match the severity of the situation. Even more troubling, the administration in Washington acts as if there aren’t any serious energy problems and it’s perfectly fine to use ever more electricity, oil, and other fossil fuels.

What makes our relative inaction especially sad is that we have the technologies to create a much safer, more secure, less vulnerable energy system at a modest cost. For example, hybrid gasoline-electric cars, such as the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid currently on the market and the Ford Escape Hybrid SUV that will join them next year, reduce gasoline use by about 40 percent compared to comparably sized vehicles. Why wouldn’t we insist that all new cars, no matter their size or shape, match this performance, ultimately reducing our oil use and global warming pollution from cars by 40 percent?

Similarly, rising electricity consumption is a significant factor in the instability of the electrical grid. More efficient appliances, compact fluorescent lights, and better-constructed buildings can reduce electricity use dramatically and in most cases save money. Shouldn’t we at least set a national goal of reducing electricity use by, say, a modest 10 percent? The Bush administration resists more stringent appliance standards, and consumers frequently don’t realize the tremendous benefits of choosing the most efficient products.

Generating more of our electricity close to where it will be used can sharply reduce pressures on the electricity grid, but progress towards this sort of distributed generation has been slow. Richard Perez of the University at Albany and colleagues have shown how photovoltaic panels placed on building roofs in cities like New York would reduce the risk of power outages, more than outweighing the marginal cost of installing them. The panels would provide maximum output on hot summer days when electricity demand is highest and the risk of blackouts is greatest. Similarly, we can much more aggressively pursue the installation of fuel cells to power hospitals and other institutions that need to be protected from power shutdowns.

Once a crisis passes, it’s all too easy to forget about the serious systemic problems with the energy system. Afterwards, the lights go on when we flip the switch, and we don’t notice carbon dioxide emissions or think about Mideast terrorists when we drive a car. Perhaps one way to overcome our collective inertia is to ask ourselves: "How much would I pay to avoid being trapped in an elevator in a blackout? And how much would the average business pay to avoid the sort of disruption that caused tens of millions of dollars of economic losses this week?" How about $180? That’s enough for a typical family to cover the extra yearly cost of purchasing electricity from clean renewable sources like wind, low-head hydro, and solar. A little more than that—about $300 a year—is all it takes for the extra cost of buying and operating a hybrid car instead of a comparably sized and equipped conventional vehicle. Or couldn’t we at least take the time to implement those things—like choosing efficient appliances—that actually save money? Perhaps if enough of us show through our personal actions that we want to overhaul the dysfunctional energy system, political leaders in Washington will take notice and follow us. Perhaps the big blackout can be a turning point rather than an ignored warning signal.

Warren Leon is program director for education and public awareness at the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative's Renewable Energy Trust. Until recently, he was executive director of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.