Peace, love and Peter Max posters. Could anything define the 1960s more fully than these icons?

Click here to enlarge image

Our current era likewise may be defined by three icons: carbon, climate change and Al Gore’s movie. Whether or not these enjoy any long-term significance or prove little more than pop phenomena remains to be seen.

But it’s clear that for now, carbon, climate change and Al Gore’s movie are having a major effect on choices for future electric power generation. Despite warnings that generating reserve margins are shrinking and that new baseload capacity is needed, it’s increasingly difficult to build new power plants in the United States. CEOs such as Thomas Farrell of Dominion and Michael Morris of American Electric Power warn of a possible “energy train wreck;” perhaps, Morris has said, as soon as 10 years from now.

Developers of new coal-fired generation find themselves in an either-or situation: either the carbon released by coal’s combustion is sequestered or the plant can’t be built, the victim of outspoken—and, perhaps, under-informed—opponents, many of whom who fail to understand electric generation’s many complexities. Anti-nuclear power groups are only now stirring to life, apparently choosing to ignore the nuclear power industry’s remarkable operating record in recent years. Meanwhile natural gas (the “other fossil fuel” as the pork industry might call it) enjoys relatively broad acceptance, even as some experts warn that the United States could become dependent on high-cost foreign imports gas within a relatively short time.

Renewable energy (and wind in particular) enjoys some of the broadest public support, even if that adoring public remains largely naïve when it comes to these resources’ all-too-real limitations. And make no mistake, NIMBY opposition to wind farms can be every bit as fierce as what is thrown up against coal-fired generation.

In no small measure, the staying power of carbon, climate change and Al Gore’s movie will depend, in admittedly crass terms, on how willing consumers are to pay to save the planet. Carbon-free energy resources can be expensive to develop and build. Once higher monthly electricity bills become a fixture (alongside high gasoline prices) it will be interesting to see how important “saving the planet” truly is. Saving the environment may be as much a lifestyle choice as an ehtical or moral obligation.

News reports suggest some shift in attitude may be underway. An item in a UK newspaper in May reported on results of a survey that showed the environment peaked as an issue of top concern in January 2007, cited by 19 percent of those surveyed. By January 2008 the percentage willing to say the environment was their top concern stood at 8 percent. The economy, by contrast, was rated a top concern by 20 percent of respondents in January, roughly double the percentage from two years earlier.

Closer to home, an editorial in a northern California newspaper in May questioned the wisdom of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act. The act requires Californians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, roughly 25 percent below today’s levels. The act foresees reducing them to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The editorial pointed out that “environmentally conscious” political activity forced the 1989 closure of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant near Sacramento. That 900 MW nuclear power plant was converted to a 4 MW solar power facility.

“Perhaps when voters understand the high cost and low benefits of the seductive ‘green’ message when it comes to electric power, they will demand a more realistic approach to its generation,” the editorial concluded.

Environmental issues are top of mind right now for power generators all across North America. But the housing crisis and rising gasoline costs may tax consumers’ willingness to pay much more for electric energy, even if it turns out 50 years from now that the planet’s future truly was at stake.

It’s just possible that carbon, climate change and Al Gore’s movie will end up as cultural artifacts. So our cover this month—with Peter Max for its inspiration—may itself be something of a collector’s item; a sample of what future generations may view as a dated pop phenomenon. The Editors