« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Coherent Energy Policy: Obama’s Choices

By: davenj1 (Diary)  |  March 8th, 2012 at 08:14 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Regarding solar power, not too much can be said about it since it does not nor will it ever meet our energy needs. Recently, a large scale solar power project was planned for the Mojave Desert. One would think that a desert is the perfect place to site a solar plant. However, Diane Feinstein blocked the project out of environmental concerns. The fact is, without resorting to massive subsidies, solar power is not economically feasible. The average cost of producing one kilowatt of electricity from the most efficient photovoltaic cell is 30 cents and at a solar power plant it is 21 cents.

Obama, in his “race to the top” nonsense, talked about how China surpassed the US in production of solar panels. Yes, and so what? Does China use these panels domestically? Considering that less than 1% of their electrical power comes from solar, I think not. In fact, most of those panels are exported to the heavily subsidized solar industry in Germany. And incidentally, the most efficient solar batteries use silicon which is also necessary for the computer industry thus producing competition for that natural resource. I wonder how many tree huggers can do without their computers.

Wind seems to be panacea du jour. That industry notes how the use of wind power has increased in a short time. When you have the government mandating utility energy portfolios, that is usually what happens. Absent those mandates, does anyone really believe utilities would be relying on wind farms? In terms of energy costs, the top ten lowest states use the least amount of wind or solar energy in their portfolios- 4.2%, while in the ten most expensive states, solar/wind accounts for 15% of the energy portfolio. And we should all know about the hypocrisy of liberals when their icon- Ted Kennedy- protested about an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound.

When looking at those ten cheapest states, most of them are in the western half of the country and have the highest percentage of hydroelectric generation in their energy portfolios. But again, the environmentalists have their problems with this also and start to talk about ecosystem destruction and carbon foot prints in the construction, blah blah blah. Like any renewable source of energy, hydroelectric power is subject to the whims of the weather. To produce power, adequate water flow is required and that can be affected by droughts or snow melts. Regardless, the US has used hydroelectric power on a large scale since 1882 and it has proven cheap and efficient. Additionally, it has a long economic life. The only major problem may be that we may have tapped all our major rivers for this purpose. But where they still exist, it is a reliable option.

Anyone- like a Liberal, a Democrat, a President, or a moron- is seriously deluded if they believe wind and solar are the future of mass energy production in the US. To power a city the size of New York would require a wind farm the size of Connecticut. However, smaller scale projects are certainly on the table. For example, wind mills in agricultural areas to power irrigation systems and such are certainly worth exploring. Likewise, solar energy panels on homes- if the owner so desires- is also a laudable idea. Perhaps, new construction over a certain square footage should require solar panels. In this way, the cost is born by the buyer/tenants at the time of the sale, not after the fact and offset by subsidies and tax credits. This way, it (1) increases the use of solar power, (2) creates jobs in the industry, (3) increases tax revenue through the elimination of subsidies and credits, and (4) the user bears the cost upfront as part of the overall cost of the construction and (5) they have lower utility bills as a result. The wonderful part about this is that states can change their uniform construction codes.

In the next two entries in this series, I will discuss nuclear energy in the United States. This country can produce jobs in the energy sector- solar, wind, hydroelectric, fossil fuels, and nuclear- without costing the government exorbitant amounts of money in subsidies and tax credits. It is ludicrous that the federal government under Obama would demand billions of dollars to create jobs at the rate of $500,000 a job and then turn down a private investment of billions of dollars- that is, not a single dime from the government- and deny the construction of a pipeline from a reliable ally. In the area of nuclear energy, as I will demonstrate, has the potential to address our energy needs, decrease imports so that domestic production can be used domestically, create jobs, create much needed tax revenue for states, and decrease greenhouse gases (if that is your unwarranted concern). The solutions are so commonsense that it behooves one to understand why our elected “leaders” have to make a solution more complicated than it should be. The only answer to that conundrum is either stupidity, being onstinate, hypocrisy, or corruption. Most likely, its a combination of them all.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

    “…The fact is, without resorting to massive subsidies, solar power is not economically feasible…”

    But costs are coming down, and efficiency is going up, so to take a snapshot of today and project that out infinitely into the future is not the correct way to look at things. Solar is likely going to be very competitive in terms of cost in the very near future.

    “And incidentally, the most efficient solar batteries use silicon which is also necessary for the computer industry thus producing competition for that natural resource”

    There is a polysilicon glut. I think the polysilicon suppliers would love a little more competition at this point.

    “…To power a city the size of New York would require a wind farm the size of Connecticut….”

    This is an exaggeration, and at any rate, wind farms are being put offshore in many places so that they do not use up scarce land, or are built in desert wastelands where huge uninhabited tracts of land are available.

    “deny the construction of a pipeline from a reliable ally.”

    The Keystone pipeline will be approved next year… the administration has already signaled this. I agree that it should be permitted; addressing some of the remaining NIMBY and environmental concerns was the way to make it happen politically.

    “Perhaps, new construction over a certain square footage should require solar panels. In this way, the cost is born by the buyer/tenants at the time of the sale, not after the fact”

    Not opposed to that in principle, but if solar installations in buildings are desirable and worth supporting through public policy, solar subsidies will incentivize installations into existing building stock– providing a much much larger potential impact.

    • davenj1

      1) remove all subsidies and lets see what the cost of solar energy is.
      2) I claim ignorance on polysilicon glut
      3) actually not an exaggeration. A local wind farm near where I live consists of five very large windmills that provide enough power for a sewerage treatment plant and perhaps a little left over to power 3,000 homes.
      4) the Keystone Pipeline extension passed TWO EPA studies. Both concluded that only cultural landmarks could be compromised. The existing pipeline extends into the US already and there have been no problems with it. TansCanada, the pipeline builder, has addressed any and all EPA concerns despite meeting their standards. The fact is, it should have been started three years ago. The oil is getting out of Canada one way or another.
      5) start with new construction where the cost of solar panels can be figured into and passed onto customers at the time of sale. Very few people can afford retrofitting with government help. The idea is to cease subsidies and tax credits.

  • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

    “…1) remove all subsidies and lets see what the cost of solar energy is…”

    Well, it would be higher, and perhaps high enough that there would have been little large-scale solar development in the past few years, and few people installing solar in homes and businesses. But is that good? Solar is clean compared to other types of energy, and in theory we can produce a large percentage of our energy from solar. You must think there is something desirable about solar if you would consider a policy that would require new construction to install solar panels, right? All a subsidy is is a policy to encourage the desirable things that you want. We have a lot of subsidies for things that are not even desirable– those are the ones that should be targeted for elimination.

    “2) I claim ignorance on polysilicon glut”

    Fair enough, just trust me on the fact that we can produce all that we need and cheaply.

    “3) actually not an exaggeration. A local wind farm near where I live consists of five very large windmills that provide enough power for a sewerage treatment plant and perhaps a little left over to power 3,000 homes.”

    Okay, did a quick and dirty calculation… It seems that a typical wind farm yields about 1 megawatt per hundred acres. New York City uses something on the order of 10,000 megawatts, so you’d need a million acre wind farm. Connecticut = 5544 sqare miles = 3.5 million acres. So, maybe you would need a wind farm about 1/3 of the size of Connecticut.

    So maybe a wind farm is not so appropriate for New York City (though I think offshore would be a possibility), but more appropriate for Los Angeles or Las Vegas where you can put the wind farm out in the desert where the land has few uses.

    “4.) …The fact is, [Keystone XL) should have been started three years ago.”

    You may be right, and I agree that it should be built., and I agree that the environmental risks and impacts have been overblown somewhat. But there is still NIMBY concerns, and eminent domain actions for private use are unpopular. Politically, Obama decided to assuage his base and the NIMBY types, which has resulted in delay, but nothing out of the ordinary for a project this size, and the fact is that the project will be built even if Obama is reelected. The delays may be off-putting and non-productive, but essentially this is Obama standing up to his base and doing something that they object to.

    5.) “…The idea is to cease subsidies and tax credits.”

    I disagree with the idea that all subsidies and tax credits need to be, or should be, ceased. If you ban all tax credits and subsidies, you’re just taking an arrow out of the public policy quiver. A modest solar subsidy in the form of a tax credit makes sense to me– get people to invest in their property and raise its value while reducing the need for types of energy that produce pollution and helping the country become more energy independent at the same time… seems like a good spot for an incentive! Let’s just get rid of the subsidies that do not serve a good purpose.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      You support fascistic state-run economics, where cronies get subsidies, and losers get taxes.

      • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

        Nonsense! I support a solar tax credit. To say that I therefore support “fascist state-run economics” or cronyism is preposterous.

        The diarist expressed support for mandatory solar panels in new construction. Does the diarist support fascism and crony capitalism in your estimation because they support this modest state intervention in the economy? Of course they don’t.

    • davenj1

      Agree to disagree on the subsidy/tax credit thing. I just think that if it can’t stand on its own, then it shouldn’t get a subsidy. Requiring solar panels on new construction over a certain size (say a mall or office building) makes sense because the increased cost would be born by the tenants or owners. With subsidies and tax credits, that is my tax money paying for someone else. I agree that solar energy, on small scale bases, makes sense and that, in the aggregate, it moves us closer to energy independence under the “every little bit helps” philosophy.
      Off shore winds farms are more expensive than land-based ones because of the construction of transmission lines and such. My problem is that every time one is proposed, it seems some environmental group gets in the way over a concern of a few dead bats or the occasional migratory bird. I wish they would build an offshore wind farm off New Jersey—less seagulls to crap on my car.
      Regarding Keystone, its my understanding that TransCanada is paying for right of way on private land. They technically cannot use eminent domain until the State Department certifies the project and they cannot do that in contravention of a presidential order/finding. Obama stopped construction and he is responsible. This is a no brainer on so many levels and the fact that he bowed to his base shows a lack of leadership. Why delay what has been approved by the EPA twice now under different administrations?
      And Democrats are flat out lying when they say that fracking technology would not be possible without government subsidies. That process began in the 1970s during the Carter Administration when Shell, among others, started the technology in extracting shale oil in the west. When the oil embargo ended, they stopped actual “drilling,” but continued research WITHOUT government subsidies. And, incidentally, I am all for removing government subsidies for the oil, coal and natural gas sectors also.

  • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

    …is roughly the same as yours. My point is, that eminent domain will be used, and that makes the pipeline onerous to the folks along the route. The landowners ought to be considered here too… my general principle is that the government should not sign off on taking land rights unless there is a clear public benefit, but I take a fairly liberal view on eminent domain. Usually, I have seen conservatives arguing against eminent domain takings in favor of private business interests– see the Kelo Supreme court case in particular– but in this case, there hasn’t been much written or said about that. I chalk up the fact that conservatives are overlooking the eminent domain aspect of this to the poltics of oil.

    I don’t blame you as a conservative for saying that Obama “bowed to his base”. Politics were undoubtedly a consideration– it is an election year after all. However, in the end, he will be approving the pipeline, which will be against the wishes of his base. So, he is really taking a middle ground approach here, and the result is that a project that probably should be permitted will be permitted.

    • davenj1

      A foreign corporation (TransCanada) cannot use eminent domain absent State Department approval of a project. In some broad, technical sense, the Kelo decision was probably correctly decided. That view would likely get me attacked on these pages and I am not a supporter of Kelo because I understand the legal reasoning. And, although technically correct, operationally it is a nightmare and, quite frankly, offensive.
      That being said, in the case of roads, transmission lines, rail lines, and pipelines, invoking eminent domain is well-established and allowed under law. And again, from everything I have read and understand, TransCanada is offering payments above market price and that certain landowners are holding out mainly because environmental activists are spreading misleading, scare-mongering information. The existing part of the pipeline- using older technology- has had no problems whatsoever. The extension and new pipeline would have newer, better technology and construction and enhanced monitoring.
      I accept your view that Obama will eventually approve the pipeline after the election and that his “delay” is politically motivated. In fact, I hope you are correct. I, however, believe that he is beholden to this anti-fossil fuel agenda which is unrealistic. I like to live in the real world, not some utopian environmentalist world.

      • http://www.sourceoftitle.com skymutt

        I thought it was probably correcly decided, but I hate the ramifications. Kelo was similar but I don’t think the outcome was quite as offensive, because states can and have amended their laws to prevent Kelo-like takings or at least have made their laws more favorable to property owners.

        I do not think that Obama has been beholden to an anti fossil fuel agenda– that view simply does not mesh with the evidence. Production of fossil fuels has increased markedly under Obama, even thought the unfortunate BP oil spill would have been an excuse to curtail production to curry favor with the environmentalists if Obama had chosen to go that direction. Take this recent artcile in the Houston Chronicle–

        The United States’ rapidly declining crude oil supply has made a stunning about-face, shredding federal oil projections and putting energy independence in sight of some analyst forecasts.

        After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation’s oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon.

        The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad