I am alarmed about the push for a second coal-fired power plant for Gainesville in the face of overwhelming evidence of the environmental catastrophe we are facing in the next few decades. Scientific studies in the USA and Europe have shown us that the rapid rate of fossil fuel use is mainly responsible for the progressing global climate change. Even with strong action taken now it will take us at least 50 years before we are able to stabilize the global climate. Of all the places in the world Florida has the most to worry about if global warming continues -- it will be an economic disaster for our state. I understand that we have to be realistic and practical in solving the real problem our community is facing – that is, our continually growing power needs. Certainly, any proposal for the future must be economically viable for the citizens of Gainesville and Alachua County. In this respect, I am told that GRU professionals have done a very detailed analysis and it is only based on that analysis that they have recommended we move forward with a coal power plant. I have the utmost respect of the GRU professional planners. They are my friends. I am convinced that their recommendation is based on their best professional judgment. However, I must say that their analysis is fundamentally flawed because it does not take into account societal values, societal costs of coal, and the economic benefits of the alternatives that are worth many times their initial capital investments, as evidenced from real examples from around the world. The City Commission has been doing the responsible thing in holding public hearings and listening to alternatives to the GRU proposal. They are, however, naïve to think they will hear a credible alternative proposal from lay citizens who neither have the ability nor the resources to conduct the same kind of thorough analysis of alternatives that GRU was able to field in formulating its proposal. Therefore, the responsible thing for the Gainesville City Commission to do is to spend about $50K to conduct a thorough analysis of the alternatives using a credible professional expert or an institution before committing hundreds of millions of dollars for a coal power plant. The alternatives include energy conservation, biomass energy, solar thermal including hot water and power, photovoltaics, and nuclear power. The analysis would include innovative policy options that have been successful in other parts of the USA and the world in attracting enormous private investment and generating an economic boom. I am sure that such an analysis will bring us to a different conclusion than building another coal power plant in Gainesville. I have seen this happen in other parts of the world, especially in cities similar to Gainesville. I have been privileged to sit down with their city leaders and heard how they made their decisions which resulted in huge economic benefits for their citizens – benefits worth many times the investment they made. The city of Freiburg, Germany is one example. Freiburg is located in Southern Germany about 30 miles from both Switzerland and France, and is at roughly the latitude of Boston. Its population is approximately the same as Alachua County. I met with their former Mayor (Conservative Party) and their present Mayor (Green Party) two weeks ago and they both agreed that the wise decisions made a decade ago by the Conservative Party Mayor to invest in renewable energy technologies for their power needs, have not only met those needs while improving their environmental quality but have brought in an enormous economic multiplier effect, of which they are all very proud. About 12 years ago they were faced with the same situation as Gainesville is facing today – that is, should they go forward with the construction of a coal power plant or not? With overwhelming support from their citizens, the City Council adopted innovative and aggressive policies for conservation and renewable energies that not only negated the need for a new coal power plant but brought an economic boom they had not imagined. They adopted aggressive incentives for conservation and stiff penalties for not complying with conservation. In addition, they adopted electricity "Feed In" laws that became a model for the entire country. According to these laws building owners can install photovoltaic panels and feed electricity into the grid. Consumers are paid for the electricity they feed into the grid. However, since PV electricity results in a cleaner environment, they are paid at 45¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh) as opposed to the 15¢ per kWh consumers must pay for the grid's coal-based electricity. The difference between the two rates is spread over all the rate payers as a "system benefit charge" because everyone benefits from a cleaner environment. The rate of 45¢ per kWh goes down by 5% every year until it reaches the regular rate from the grid. As a result of this policy every new structure built in Freiburg includes integrated photovoltaic panels in such a way that the panels replace other building components. The boom in the PV market and solar thermal systems attracted companies and investment from all over the world. PV companies established there 10 years ago are among the largest in the world today. Freiburg leaders estimate that at least 10 times more jobs have been created by the renewable energy technologies, than the number of jobs that a coal power plant could have created. The city is also collecting more tax money today without spending even a small fraction of what they would have spent on a coal power plant. The economic multiplier of the additional business in the city is far higher than they could have imagined. Another example is a situation very similar to our own -- Sacramento, California owns the local utility, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). Sacramento citizens decided 15 years ago, to develop their future capacity based on renewable energy technologies. Sacramento has seen similar economic benefits as Freiburg, while meeting its growing power needs and improving its environmental quality. Many successful policies of Sacramento or their modifications can be very easily adapted for Gainesville. Ten years ago, I proposed to the Gainesville City Commission a simple modification of Sacramento's program on solar water heaters. It goes like this: GRU would finance solar water heaters for its customers at regular market interest rates over a period long enough (10 to 12 years) that monthly payments would be less than the monthly savings for the customer. The monthly bill from GRU would include the monthly payment for the solar water heater. This way the customer would see a reduction in their bill from day one and possess their own solar water heater -- without investing any money upfront. This would create a huge market for solar water heaters in the GRU service area, which allows GRU to actually make a profit on solar water heaters and also collect interest on the loans. The new market would attract additional businesses and investment and jobs in Alachua County, creating a win-win situation. Assuming an electric water heater puts about a 2 kilowatt peak load on the grid, replacing 10,000 electric water heaters in this area with solar water heaters would be equivalent to adding 20 megawatts (MW) of power during peak time, which could be sold elsewhere. This is just one of many successful ideas we can adopt from other places in the world. Without going into details, there are number of policy options that can help us add capacity, increase business investment, create new jobs, diversify the city's income base and at the same time, give us a cleaner environment. The recent Whitepaper of the International Solar Energy Society (ISES), "Transitioning to a Renewable Energy Future" explains a number of successful policies and the resulting economic benefits from around the world. I personally delivered a copy of it to Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan. Others may download it free from the website www.whitepaper.ises.org I feel confident that with the right policies to attract private investment for conservation, distributed photovoltaic generation, solar water heating, and a new biomass-based power plant, we can take care of our needs for the next 10 years or more – allowing us time to see the continually rising price of coal-based power and to bring in new renewable energy technologies for the future. I am confident that eventually the USA will sign some kind of climate treaty within the next few years. When that happens, coal power may become more expensive than solar power, as is the case in Nevada today. In Nevada, a utility has to account for the cost of externalities of an energy resource upfront which results in coal power being more expensive than solar thermal power. That is why the latest power plant under construction in Nevada is a 50 MW solar thermal power plant. Finally, I must comment on a point that is never said explicitly but which came up during my meeting with Mayor Hanrahan. The City of Gainesville depends on GRU for its income and the proposed plant will increase that income. The only response I can make, is that one can that a vast majority of us would never want to do because of the ultimate harm they pose. There are better ways to make money. Let us stand up for our values and be smart and innovative in planning for the future which will make us proud -- for ourselves and for future generations. Yogi Goswami D. Yogi Goswami, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor, and Director, Solar Energy and Energy Conversion Laboratory
Dept. Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering | 
