Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Moe on May 5, 2012 at 7:46pm

I expect that we will see a number of phenomena that fall under "The Law of Unintended Consequences" regarding the various renewable energy developments around the world.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by time will tell on May 5, 2012 at 6:45pm

I have a large supply of Bean- no .You are on your own with the hats .

All kidding aside we have enough subsidies don't you all think . 

We set up solar manufacturing at HUGE amounts of Gov help and  only to be under sold the commies .

For a lack of better words SCREW THAT !

Let us use  our resources , continue to developed clean energy and let the one child per family folks keep there cheap poison products for them selves .

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on May 6, 2012 at 12:35am

Subsidies are used to make something happen quicker, pay for something that isn't cost effective or line your buddies pocket. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moe on May 5, 2012 at 6:55pm

I left out allegedly before the word intrusive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on May 6, 2012 at 1:32am

We will need all the energy but we have to be responsible.  Solar panels have point of use purpose.  Panels are not practical for grid consumption unless you want to live with regulated intermittent use.  We spend way to much time and resources on things that don't make sense.  Solar panels got to market without the normal impact studies because wind and sun make for some nice warm and fuzzy commercials and activist platforms.  Panels reflect a fair amount of energy and no one has a clue what all that radiation directed back has on the environment.  It is known that if you have panels that reflect onto your building or your neighbors it will fry the crap out of the current materials.  How green is it to replace your roof and siding two to three times more often?   How long do you think the panel will last if it doesn't get hit with hail?  Research and development have become a treasure hunt for government and public money.  It has become more and more difficult for the garage inventor to break thru the red tape and bring anything to market in the US. The hidden cost of us buying cheap Chinese crap is “American ingenuity” is on it's way to China along with our dollars. 

The newest NG power plants are built with usual manufacturing and construction with a lot less material and foot print then nuke or coal plants.  Not any new unknowns to worry about and NG doesn't require any grinding or refining to burn. They are mostly being built overseas including 3^rd world nations because it makes economic sense.  They start in 30 minutes or less and have one push button start like a Prius.  When a coal fired plant has a furnace down, to start they have to bring it up to start temp by burning tremendous amounts of diesel or NG before the coal can be kicked in.  I have heard this can sometimes take days.  One might say coal, NG and maybe nuke is apples to apples and all three use tremendous amounts of water for cooling causing localized climate changes but nuke doesn't blow carbon.  The only commonality between NG power and solar panels is that the toxic goo leftover from manufacturing solar cells is injected in waste injection wells like some of the frack fluid.  If NG power generation was to apple, solar panels aren’t a fruit, although advocates of the current platform of solar panels may be.  Maybe it's a good thing frack fluid is going in injection wells.  It may be the solar panel goo that caused the Youngstown quake.  If the frack fluid hadn't diluted the goo it might have been much worse.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on May 6, 2012 at 11:31am

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577364244006...

"REVIEW & OUTLOOK   May 4, 2012, 7:07 p.m. ET

Gouged by the Wind

Renewable fuel mandates are raising electricity prices in the states. .

Politicians keep promising to reduce energy prices, but they keep ignoring one easy step: repeal renewal energy standards. Twenty-nine states have these rules requiring local utilities to purchase between 20% and 33% of their electric power from renewable sources. They were enacted over the past decade when lawmakers bought into the fad about cheap "clean energy." Their real effect has been to force utilities to pay above-market prices for electricity, which means higher electric bills for consumers.

No state has learned that lesson the hard way more than Minnesota. In 2007 the legislature mandated that utilities ramp up their renewables to 12% this year and 25% by 2025.

The Minnesota Rural Electric Association, which represents about 50 small utilities serving about 650,000 rural residents, reports that its members lost more than $70 million in 2011 because of the high cost of wind power. "Right now we're paying for wind power we don't need, we can't use and can't sell," says association executive director Mark Glaess.

Utilities absorb some of the cost, but Mr. Glaess estimates that annual residential utility bills are between $50 and $100 higher per household due to the renewable mandate. That may be nothing to a $10,000 donor to the Sierra Club, but tell that to family of four living on $25,000 a year in Fergus Falls.

The costs will rise as the mandates tighten. An analysis by the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota found that Green River Energy utility had $22 million in losses in 2010, $35 million in 2011, and this year it is projecting another $35 million loss. A 2011 study by the Beacon Hill Institute, a think tank focusing on state polices, found that from 2016-25 the Minnesota mandate will raise electric costs for businesses and households by $15 billion. By 2025 the average family will pay $265 a year in higher utility bills.

And what are consumers getting in return? The environmental benefit is almost zero since no state can do much to alter the global volume of carbon emissions. The renewable mandate was also sold as a way to gain "green jobs" and, as the Environmental Protection Agency puts it, "stimulate market and technology development" in states. But the mandate fails that test too, because Minnesota imports much of its wind power from North Dakota.

A 2012 study by the Manhattan Institute compares states with renewable mandates to those that allow utilities to purchase the cheapest electricity available. The states with mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them. Residents of North Dakota, a state without a mandate, pay $7.63 per kilowatt hour for electricity. Neighboring Minnesota pays $10.76.

 

Minnesota's politicians could bring relief to rural residents, because the 2007 law stipulates that the rules can be eased if economic conditions aren't favorable. But no one wants to take on the not-so-jolly giant green lobby. The state's Division of Natural Resources is in denial, arguing that "compliance is generally cost effective for the utilities" subject to the mandate.

With natural gas prices not far from $2 per million BTU, the competitiveness of wind power is highly suspect. If Congress allows a tax subsidy for renewables to expire this year, as it should for the sake of taxpayers, even the wind lobby in Washington admits that many turbine farms will be bankrupt.

The renewable mandate "is a regressive tax," concludes Mr. Glaess. "It's one reason our customers are having a hard time paying their electric bills." And to think this policy is supported by people who claim to want a fairer tax system."

 

My Comment: The Taxpayer subsidies and the mandates are a tax on Stupidity - the stupidity of our lawmakers pandering to buy the votes of an uninformed vocal minority,

 

All IMHO,

                    JS

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page