Alaska's petroleum reserves are perhaps the best known energy resource of the state, but it also has significant potential in other areas.
The
Chuitna Coal Project would be the tenth largest coal mine in the world if it were opened, with proven reserves of 771 million tons. There is also significant hydroelectricity potential, with 5,872 megawatt
Rampart Dam being perhaps the most prominent and infamous proposal. There are less massive hydroelectric projects that could be an option in the state though, as Alaska is estimated to have nearly two-thirds of the estimated 60,000 megawatts of undeveloped hydroelectric potential available in the United States. There is renewable energy potential in other areas too.
While Alaska is far from populated areas of Canada and the United States, it clearly has a lot of energy potential. Its remoteness and low population could also give it significant potential for exporting electricity generated through burning coal. Transmission losses would be an issue, but if HVDC lines were used power could be transmitted from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Portland, Oregon with only 12.46% losses over the 3735.29 kilometer route. That could help to meet power needs in the Northwest United States during after the hydroelectricity resources of that region are developed.
Could Alaska have become a major exporter of coal and electricity given the right circumstances, perhaps something like a delayed energy crisis? Could it end up in a situation similar to Texas, being both a major fossil fuel producer and renewable energy advocate?