OPINION: More nukes, less sawdust

Colorado Springs Utilities officials are exploring the possibility of replacing 15 percent of the Martin Drake Power Plant's coal needs with biomass by 2011. Utilities' foray into biomass involves sawdust, which is an excellent choice. It's dense and relatively energy efficient when compared to various agricultural products commonly used as alternative fuels. The utility may even find a way to use trees killed by pine beetles without losing all benefits to the costs and pollution involved with transporting them.

Utilities officials are approaching biomass with caution, starting out slowly and conducting thorough experimentation to be certain they're not merely embarking upon a feel-good scheme that does little or nothing to save money and reduce harmful emissions.

It's a complicated equation. Though sawdust is considered carbon neutral, it's never carbon neutral to transport wood or to process it for burning.

In the next two years, Utilities officials plan to spend $10 million to add equipment at Martin Drake that would pulverize woodchips into sawdust, which could add to the efficiency of the process. Transporting sawdust would be inefficient. Transporting intact wood is more efficient, because it's more dense.

City officials hope half of the $10 million for pulverization equipment would be paid for with a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Regardless of grants, nothing should be spent on the new equipment unless and until officials prove, beyond question, that burning sawdust will save money.

If experiments prove the sawdust will pay off, then let the project proceed. Otherwise, let it go. Ratepayers in Colorado Springs cannot be asked to subsidize politically correct efforts to save Mother Earth from global warming. Burning sawdust may have advantages. In the long run, however, it's not the answer. This country will eventually learn that its energy needs, and the interests of the environment, would best be served by nuclear reactors.