Mr. Muna and alternative energy

Local papers reported yesterday a statement attributed to newly appointed CUC executive director Antonio Muna. That statement was: “CUC will soon bring alternative energy online for its residential and commercial customers.”

Under a recently amended “green” law passed by the CNMI legislature in 2006, CUC is mandated to employ 10 percent “alternative” energy by the end of this year—and to double it every two years to a maximum of 80 percent. Of course, anyone who has done the research, as I have, knows or will quickly learn, that this scenario is not possible to achieve—in the time allotted or, indeed, ever. Experts in the field all agree that no “backbone” power requirement can ever be replaced by “alternative” energies subject to the whims of nature at any level above about 20 percent with today’s technological know-how, or for many years to come. The law will, quite simply, self-destruct.

But the statement attributed to Mr. Muna bears scrutiny and begs several questions that require answers that the public, now titillated by a new “promise,” has a right to hear. Sorry Mr. Muna, but once again, and with respect, “you asked for it.” Here are my three “what” questions:

1) Since it seems that no-one has seen or been made aware of any planning or construction of “alternative” energy sources in the CNMI, please tell us exactly what “alternative” energy CUC now plans to bring online.

2) A subsequent question is wrought from no. 1 in that now it becomes important to know what kind of “alternative” energy CUC will bring online.

3) Since the term used was “soon”, and that implies a very broad range depending on your background, please define, by timeline, what constitutes “soon.” For instance, a city dweller from New York may interpret that as within the hour, whereas a country boy like me might think more in terms of a year; to some it may have no meaning at all.

You stated that CUC plans to bring “alternative” energy to about 10,000, or two-thirds, of your customers. My analysis of available references indicates that such a level is not possible to attain with sources the CNMI has indicated it considers as “alternative”—at least no one in this world has yet to achieve a level greater than 19 percent and most are stuck at 5 percent or less. Even at 19 percent “alternative” sources, not a single fossil fueled generator was turned off and the combined cost of delivered power was actually higher than the cost of fossil fuel power alone (Europe, England, 2006).

By the way, for those of you who are in a state of shock over announced new power rates, and there are many, the new rate IS an accurate reflection of the cost of power production just as I had predicted only one day before it was announced. It will continue to rise as long as world oil price is held to the benchmark dollar and the dollar continues to fall while futures investors seek a safer haven; that of commodities such as oil and grain instead of currency.

And here’s one more little “by-the-way” for you: most sources identified by the CNMI as alternative “green” energy sources are not so “green” after all. Several research articles I pointed to in previous letters all show that wind, solar, biomass and even ocean wave projects have negative effects on the environment. Proposed “alternative” energy projects must address these concerns.
[B] Dr. Thomas D. Arkle Jr.[/B] [I]San Jose, Tinian[/I]