Energy Crossroads: Exploring North Carolina’s Two Energy Futures

98 ENERGY CROSSROADS
This plan would require the commitment of 1,100 acres (1.72 square
miles) of land solely to batteries. That’s a space, Duke notes, that is larger
than 830 football fields.
At 4,400 MW of incremental storage, Portfolio D demands about 60 percent
of the sums listed above for Portfolio F. That means over 1 square
mile, or about 500 football fields—still a daunting prospect for the state
and one it should view with caution.
Land Use
One of the overlooked aspects of the energy and environment discussion
is land use. And as the Duke Energy battery figures indicate, it is
going to be a major concern for North Carolina.
While resources like coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear are scrutinized
for their effects on the natural environment, far less scrutiny has been
applied to the effects on the natural environment of so-called green energy
sources, like biofuels, solar, and wind energy.
Biofuels, while not of the utmost centrality in the North Carolina electricity
discourse, are an instructive example of green mythology clouding
public understanding of real impact.
Biofuels are made using organic matter from crops like corn, sugarcane,
and palm oil. They have been marketed as pro-environmental alternatives
to fossil fuels, but come with tremendous environmental downsides.
The fundamental problem with biofuels is energy density.
The production of biofuels demands the appropriation of enormous
swaths of land because biofuels lack the energy density provided by other
energy sources, like nuclear and the liquid fossil fuels they are intended
to replace in transportation. In other words, biofuels are inefficient.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, biofuel development
means more land area consumption by agriculture, increased use
of polluting inputs, and higher food prices. 79