Tuesday Energy posts are back! Clowns in the Legislature to the left of me, Goldwater Institute jokers to the right.
Posted by: Donna
Sorry for not announcing the hiatus in advance but, see, the thing is I hadn’t planned on not doing energy posts so many weeks in a row.
Anyhow, soooooo, that was some election we just had, huh? It’s going to be a bumpy ride for the solar industry the next couple years. Goldwater is back in court whining about the Renewable Energy Standard. The dolts who tried to get nuclear classified as a renewable energy got reelected to their seats in the legislature and brought some new idiots with them. Oh, and AZ Chamber darlings Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns won decisively for Corporation Commission. During the campaign I beheld the pair in their breathtaking glory, as they claimed that CO2 couldn’t be harmful since you breathe it out, DUH!! Gary and Brenda have threatened to sue the EPA. For being mean and insulting to CO2. I am so not kidding about that.
So, yeah, it’s gonna be rough for solar. But there is reason for optimism in that at least we’ll maintain the status quo. I don’t see Goldwater prevailing in court and I predict a similar outcome for any solar-killing legislation as what happened to Debbie Lesko’s bill last year. Unfortunately, there’s not going to be much movement in the way of increasing tax incentives for solar and other renewables. Our de facto Governor Russell Pearce doesn’t like targeted tax incentives.
The biggest threat comes from the Corp Comm. The loss of moderate Kris Mayes and the addition of Burns makes for a Republican majority who will be a lot friendlier with the utilities they’re supposed to regulate than what’s in the best interests of citizens.
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
The RPS would transfer about $1.2 billion from rate payers to rate takers. That is job-killing regulation.
http://www.statebrief.com/briefblog/2010/03/03/big-solar-the-green-lobby-flexes-its-muscles-in-arizona/
If CO2 truly is the enemy of the global warming enthusiasts, then nuclear should be embraced. It’s clean and economically attractive. (It also uses less subsidies per kWh generated when compared to solar and wind.)
And China rejoices:
http://www.onearth.org/onearth-blog/arizona-set-to-abandon-leadership-on-solar-power-big-winner-china
Let China rejoice. Green jobs are too expensive and they kill far more jobs than they create.
Spain tried green jobs and they found that for every green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost elsewhere. Wind jobs cost $1.4 million each.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403012.html
Donna,
I just want to get the record straight. You are a Democrat? You are against nuclear energy as a solution to climate change?
The reason I ask is that I am currently in discussion with one of your liberal sisters, who says quite forcefully that Democrats on the whole are pro nuclear power.
Donna, please police your blog comments.
It is becoming a posting place for misrepresentations. The nuclear fuel cycle is not a great source of carbon reduction, and it is probably the most highly subsidized form of power there is. It screws utility ratepayers, and cannot be developed without socialization of the risks of mishaps, under federal law. The cost of kwh nuclear is increasing while solar is decreasing. It is simply trying to deny a problem by changing definitions, a familiar tactic, by calling it renewable. Absurd!
Mr. Manoil,
” and it is probably the most highly subsidized form of power there is ”
That statement I will have to research. However you have no problem with huge subsidies for wind and solar.
” It screws utility ratepayers, and cannot be developed without socialization of the risks of mishaps, under federal law ”
Again, you seem to have no problem screwing utility ratepayers with the cost of their neighbors’ green boondoggles.
” The cost of kwh nuclear is increasing while solar is decreasing. ”
Irrelevant since solar is still far more expensive than nuclear.
” It is simply trying to deny a problem by changing definitions, a familiar tactic, by calling it renewable. Absurd! ”
Actually, I totally agree. The only question is, how committed to stopping climate change are you “green guys”. Nuclear is the most cost effective way to slow the release of Carbon into the environment. Since I do not buy into global warming, I believe that this proves it really is not about what you say it is.
Mr. Scott:
It is not cost effective, it is profit effective. Utility rates are based on what is a reasonable return on their assets, so having more expensive assets is in their interests, not ratepayers’. Because of the long time horizon to develop nuclear, ratepayers are asked to buy much more capacity than they need.
And you apparently do not consider it a cost that nuclear power requires a hold-harmless under federal law. Wind and solar generating resources are much more scalable to demand, and do not pose anything like the environmental and catastrophic risks that nuclear does. Developing Arizona’s key assets where the fuel is free makes a lot more sense to me than ignoring that asset merely for the benefit of profits, and requiring a shift to a different limited fuel resource. The inability to bring a nuclear power plant online and within an acceptable budget belies your claim of economy; it is simply a boondoggle.
Mr. Manoil,
With all due respect, the inability to bring a nuclear plant on line in a reasonable time is purely political. In other words greenies like you add to the cost and delay with your protests and lawsuits. Other countries seem to be able to build nuclear plants, why not us ?
By contrast everything that makes wind and solar feasible is also purely political. From a financial stand point, with out massive subsidies that hide and shift the real cost away from the users, no one would ever put a large scale wind or solar facility anywhere, period!
And trust me on this, while the fuel for your solar and wind machines are free, the real cost is anything but free. Just in the massive foot print your little miracles require to produce usable amounts of energy, they will be a visual blight on the beautiful deserts of Arizona and California. Then of course you need massive new transmission lines and expensive power management systems to balance intermittent power generation.
There is a funny thing about using the profit motive rather than politics to measure whether any project is economically feasible. The profit measure has historically been found to be infinitely more accurate.