Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

North Carolina spent $2.35 billion on imported coal in 2008, ranking second among US states for total net imports. The document highlights that the state relies on coal for 60.5% of its electricity generation despite having no in-state coal supplies. It advocates for a transition to energy efficiency and homegrown renewables, such as biomass, solar, wind, and small-scale hydropower, to reduce this economic drain and improve energy independence.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • In 2008, North Carolina spent $2.35 billion on net coal imports, the second highest total among US states. The state ranked third for net imports per person ($254), fourth for net imports relative to gross state product (0.59 percent), and seventh in net weight (29.4 million tons).
  • North Carolina's electricity generation in 2008 was heavily dependent on coal (60.5%) and nuclear power (31.7%), with coal being entirely imported from sources as far as Wyoming and Colombia.
  • Duke Energy was the state's largest importer of coal, spending $1.27 billion in 2008. The Roxboro plant in Semora, operated by Progress Energy Carolina, was the most import-dependent facility in the state, spending $550 million in 2008 and ranking as the twenty-sixth-largest source of carbon dioxide emissions among US coal plants.
  • The document argues that North Carolina under-invests in energy efficiency, spending only 75 cents per person on ratepayer-funded programs in 2007, which is approximately 340 times less than its spending on imported coal.
  • North Carolina has a renewable electricity and energy efficiency portfolio standard requiring utilities to reach 12.5 percent of electricity demand by 2021. The state has potential in biomass, solar, small-scale hydropower, and wind power (land-based and offshore) that could technically exceed its 2008 power demand by more than 2.5 times.

Cite the original document

APA
Union of Concerned Scientists (2010). Burning Coal, Burning Cash. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-North-Carolina.pdf
Chicago
Union of Concerned Scientists. Burning Coal, Burning Cash. 2010. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-North-Carolina.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Burning Coal, Burning Cash |date=May 2010 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-North-Carolina.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2010burning, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{Burning Coal, Burning Cash}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2010}, month = may, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/UCS-BCBC-factsheet-North-Carolina.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated