Renewables revisited Report offers alternative energy reality check Alternative energy advocates are masters of painting pretty mental pictures, of an America liberated from its dependence on "dirty" fossil-fuels and powered by "clean" alternatives: wind turbines, solar panels, hamster wheels or whatever the panacea of the moment is. And those pretty pictures obviously have curb appeal. Colorado voters in 2004 imposed statewide renewable energy production quotas on most utilities, based on promises (already proven false) that such mandates would be virtually cost- and consequence-free. A number of other states have joined the fad. California's Public Utilities Commission last week approved $3 billion in subsidies for the California Solar Initiative. And many members of Congress -- including Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar -- have been completely swept away by the craze for so-called "renewables," and want to pour even more of the taxpayers' money into increasing their miniscule contribution to the nation's energy portfolio. But a new report to the California Energy Commission may provide a sobering reality check for these folks. The study, conducted in part by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found that "between 20 and 30 percent of renewable energy projects that sign contracts with electric utilities are likely to never reach operation or otherwise fail to meet expected performance metrics," according to a report posted on Greenwire, an environmental news site. And reliance on certain solar power projects could result in a "50 percent or higher failure rate," according to researchers. This news isn't likely to be received well in states that are sipping the renewable-energy-Kool-Aid -- or gulping it, in California's case. "As California considers adopting the nation's strongest mandates for renewable portfolio standards (RPS), the likelihood of substantial project failures poses a threat to reaching those goals, the report says. California law requires utilities and other load serving entities to meet a 20 percent RPS goal by 2010, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and the California Public Utilities Commission want to accelerate the RPS to 33 percent by 2020," reports Greenwire. The study didn't look at project failures just in California, however, but in other states and in foreign countries, suggesting across-the-board problems delivering on the pretty picture's promises. We know, we know: solar and wind power are still "emerging" technologies. But solar has been an "emerging technology" for three decades at least and still can't stand on its own without a government crutch. And the only reason wind power has become cost competitive with coal or natural gas is because it is subsidized and the cost of fossil fuels has gone through the roof. "Causes of contract failure outlined in the report include: failure to site or obtain permitting for the project; interconnection problems; financial failure by the developer; lack-of-creditworthiness by the utility buyer; increased development costs; project delay because of unstable political environment, with regard to federal production tax credit subsidies; and technology issues," according to Greenwire. "Wind power projects, for instance, face delays from a growing domestic shortage of turbines, while biomass plants often have difficulty securing costeffective fuel supplies." A wind power project in the Midwest lost one nervous financial backer, for instance, when controversy arose because bats were being killed by turbine blades. Say what one will about old-fashioned coal-fired power plants, or their gas-fired counterparts, but they are 100 percent proven technologies that deliver electricity not just when the wind blows, or when the sun shines, but on demand -- which is what Americans expect when they flick on the light switch. And the same can't be said for many pie-in-the-sky alternatives.
Report offers alternative energy reality check
Alternative energy advocates are masters of painting pretty mental pictures, of an America liberated from its dependence on "dirty" fossil-fuels and powered by "clean" alternatives: wind turbines, solar panels, hamster wheels or whatever the panacea of the moment is. And those pretty pictures obviously have curb appeal. Colorado voters in 2004 imposed statewide renewable energy production quotas on most utilities, based on promises (already proven false) that such mandates would be virtually cost- and consequence-free. A number of other states have joined the fad.
California's Public Utilities Commission last week approved $3 billion in subsidies for the California Solar Initiative. And many members of Congress -- including Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar -- have been completely swept away by the craze for so-called "renewables," and want to pour even more of the taxpayers' money into increasing their miniscule contribution to the nation's energy portfolio.
But a new report to the California Energy Commission may provide a sobering reality check for these folks. The study, conducted in part by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, found that "between 20 and 30 percent of renewable energy projects that sign contracts with electric utilities are likely to never reach operation or otherwise fail to meet expected performance metrics," according to a report posted on Greenwire, an environmental news site. And reliance on certain solar power projects could result in a "50 percent or higher failure rate," according to researchers.
This news isn't likely to be received well in states that are sipping the renewable-energy-Kool-Aid -- or gulping it, in California's case. "As California considers adopting the nation's strongest mandates for renewable portfolio standards (RPS), the likelihood of substantial project failures poses a threat to reaching those goals, the report says. California law requires utilities and other load serving entities to meet a 20 percent RPS goal by 2010, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and the California Public Utilities Commission want to accelerate the RPS to 33 percent by 2020," reports Greenwire.
The study didn't look at project failures just in California, however, but in other states and in foreign countries, suggesting across-the-board problems delivering on the pretty picture's promises. We know, we know: solar and wind power are still "emerging" technologies. But solar has been an "emerging technology" for three decades at least and still can't stand on its own without a government crutch. And the only reason wind power has become cost competitive with coal or natural gas is because it is subsidized and the cost of fossil fuels has gone through the roof.
"Causes of contract failure outlined in the report include: failure to site or obtain permitting for the project; interconnection problems; financial failure by the developer; lack-of-creditworthiness by the utility buyer; increased development costs; project delay because of unstable political environment, with regard to federal production tax credit subsidies; and technology issues," according to Greenwire. "Wind power projects, for instance, face delays from a growing domestic shortage of turbines, while biomass plants often have difficulty securing costeffective fuel supplies."
A wind power project in the Midwest lost one nervous financial backer, for instance, when controversy arose because bats were being killed by turbine blades.
Say what one will about old-fashioned coal-fired power plants, or their gas-fired counterparts, but they are 100 percent proven technologies that deliver electricity not just when the wind blows, or when the sun shines, but on demand -- which is what Americans expect when they flick on the light switch. And the same can't be said for many pie-in-the-sky alternatives.
Then, the well-stated counter-position, one which perhaps even a politician can understand:
Complex energy issues require informed solutions "In trying to address the critical issue of U.S. energy supply, The Gazette surprisingly misses the big picture ("Renewables revisited," Our View, Jan. 21). Meeting U.S. energy needs via natural gas would require large volumes of liquefied natural gas imports. The countries with the required natural gas resources include Iran, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Relying on these countries for our energy needs has predictable outcomes: war, terrorism and price unpredictability. Gazette readers should be heartened that Sen. Ken Salazar is showing the political will to implement policies designed to prevent deployment of our local military families to Iran (or Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Venezuela) for another five to 10 years of "democracy building" and natural gas supply security. It is incomprehensible to many people why the U.S. should continue to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to bloodthirsty rogue regimes, which then use our money to establish religious schools of hate, build nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction and attack our country. As for wind power costs, while prices vary by geographic location, a general rule of thumb is that wind power with no government subsidies is less expensive than natural gas generation at natural gas prices exceeding $6/Mcf (1,000 cubic feet). Henry Hub natural gas prices throughout 2005 have ranged from $6/Mcf to $15.41/Mcf, and are now at $8.90/Mcf. The best thing that could happen to energy policy in the U.S. is an equalization or elimination of government subsidies, because coal and natural gas based electricity remain more heavily subsidized than wind power. Preferential fossil-fuel subsidies include depletion allowances, expensing of exploration costs, foreign tax credits, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Big Daddy of them all, our decades of Middle Eastern military support. A recent example of the "subsidy" disparity is the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in which coal, oil, gas and nuclear received $8.7 billion, and all renewable sources combined received $2.7 billion (the full extent of the subsidy). Using so-called proven technologies to generate electricity is a fundamental position in the risk-averse utility industry. Denmark uses modern wind turbines to generate 20 percent of its electricity load. Utilities across the U.S. have recognized the financial benefits of today's "proven" wind turbines and are rapidly installing them, which is what has led to the current domestic shortage of these machines! Energy is a required foundation for prosperity in all countries worldwide, and is a more complex issue than drill vs. don't drill. Proposals that deepen the reliance of the United States on unfriendly and enemy regimes shortchange our armed forces and weaken our country. The relative costs and risks of different energy sources are changing rapidly. Accurate comparative information will make a complex picture clearer and be more useful for public policy decision-making. Thomas Conroy Vice president Wind Tower Composites Monument
"In trying to address the critical issue of U.S. energy supply, The Gazette surprisingly misses the big picture ("Renewables revisited," Our View, Jan. 21). Meeting U.S. energy needs via natural gas would require large volumes of liquefied natural gas imports. The countries with the required natural gas resources include Iran, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Relying on these countries for our energy needs has predictable outcomes: war, terrorism and price unpredictability.
Gazette readers should be heartened that Sen. Ken Salazar is showing the political will to implement policies designed to prevent deployment of our local military families to Iran (or Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Venezuela) for another five to 10 years of "democracy building" and natural gas supply security. It is incomprehensible to many people why the U.S. should continue to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to bloodthirsty rogue regimes, which then use our money to establish religious schools of hate, build nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction and attack our country.
As for wind power costs, while prices vary by geographic location, a general rule of thumb is that wind power with no government subsidies is less expensive than natural gas generation at natural gas prices exceeding $6/Mcf (1,000 cubic feet). Henry Hub natural gas prices throughout 2005 have ranged from $6/Mcf to $15.41/Mcf, and are now at $8.90/Mcf. The best thing that could happen to energy policy in the U.S. is an equalization or elimination of government subsidies, because coal and natural gas based electricity remain more heavily subsidized than wind power. Preferential fossil-fuel subsidies include depletion allowances, expensing of exploration costs, foreign tax credits, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Big Daddy of them all, our decades of Middle Eastern military support. A recent example of the "subsidy" disparity is the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in which coal, oil, gas and nuclear received $8.7 billion, and all renewable sources combined received $2.7 billion (the full extent of the subsidy).
Using so-called proven technologies to generate electricity is a fundamental position in the risk-averse utility industry. Denmark uses modern wind turbines to generate 20 percent of its electricity load. Utilities across the U.S. have recognized the financial benefits of today's "proven" wind turbines and are rapidly installing them, which is what has led to the current domestic shortage of these machines!
Energy is a required foundation for prosperity in all countries worldwide, and is a more complex issue than drill vs. don't drill. Proposals that deepen the reliance of the United States on unfriendly and enemy regimes shortchange our armed forces and weaken our country. The relative costs and risks of different energy sources are changing rapidly. Accurate comparative information will make a complex picture clearer and be more useful for public policy decision-making.
Thomas Conroy Vice president Wind Tower Composites Monument
Perhaps the most important point is that in this very reactionary newspaper, they allocated space on the editorial page to print this entire response. People are awakening to the issue; the problem now is how to get the politicians out of the way.
