From home of the weather station that started it all, Marysville, CA their small town newspaper writes a scathing opinion on the California Air Resources Board.
They get it. The problem is that people that make up CARB are like clueless Al Gore clones. With a recent 340% error exposed, CARB is going along like nothing has happened. The problem is CARB chief Mary Nichols, who sees herself and her organization as above the democratic process.
Our View: Air board’s arrogance damaging
California seems intent on traveling a road to self-destruction paved with government mandates and regulations that drive businesses and jobs out of state while discouraging new job creation. A prime job-killing, business-punishing scheme is the insistence on achieving radical environmental goals, despite their real-world economic liabilities.
The California Air Resources Board has adopted a mandate that utility companies produce 33 percent of their electricity from so-called renewable resources by 2020. That’s a drastic increase over the previous 20-percent requirement, which the state still is nowhere near achieving. For some perspective, Congress, firmly controlled by a Democratic majority, refused to hike its renewable requirements even to the 20-percent level.
Compounding the state air board’s error is its arrogance. Even the state Legislature, controlled by left-leaning Democrats, failed this year to impose such an over-the-top requirement. But neither Congress nor the state Legislature’s reluctance dissuaded the Air Resources Board’s unaccountable bureaucrats from going where elected representatives fear to tread.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that air board boss Mary Nichols says the 33-percent standard is important because it “sends a strong, positive message to the market.” The market will get the message, alright. That’s part of the problem.
The message is that California energy prices will soar, on top of the added costs of huge taxpayer subsidies that will be needed to finance so-called renewable energy sources. Wind, solar and geothermal energy are all economically infeasible without massive subsidies.
Like the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars already wasted in government subsidies for the ethanol industry, other renewable-energy endeavors are likely to face similar fates. In Spain, where large tax-financed subsidies spurred its solar industry, 50,000 subsidized solar entrepreneurs now “face financial disaster” as the government realizes it can’t afford to continue propping up the industry with price guarantees, Bloomberg reports. Not only can’t Spain afford to continue subsidies that paid 10 times the wholesale price per kilowatt-hour, but for every new “green” job created by the subsidies, more than two normal jobs were lost.
Without generous tax breaks and subsidies, wind power costs $149 per megawatt hour compared with $100 for coal, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
======================================================
Read the full editorial here
IMO, CARB is a clear and present danger to the livelihood of people of California, it is unchecked bureaucracy gone mad.
Addendum:
Since November 2nd, I’m getting a 3x increase in SPAM inviting me to move to/incorporate my business in Nevada. Given what lies ahead for business in California, the idea has merit.
I’m going to save this thread in my favorites and see what happens to it.
KenB says: Wrote
November 13, 2010 at 10:01 pm
“Social engineering by unelected bodies created by regulations that allow modification without recourse to voter influence. Growing citizen unrest, with ever higher utility charges, outlawing cheaper fuels, so that they can be exported and burnt by your overseas competitors, aided by liberal extorted (carbon) taxes that enable them to buy what was your coal (cheap energy source) at a price subsidized by your taxes and any wonder the anarchists (and others) are waiting in the wings, rubbing their hands with glee!!
Welcome to my world in Australia duped by the myth of greening the world by bankrupting our industry! And all done with a straight face and the conviction they are saving the world by sacrificing the ability of those that could actually make a difference.”
1m+
[REPLY – Well, okay. though, as a lukewarmer, I don’t regard AGW as a complete myth. (Just a gross exaggeration.) All points of view are welcome, be they alarmist or skeptical. However, please be aware this blog is mainly concerned with the science, not politics. The political aspect does intrude, and cannot be avoided, but this is NOT a political blog. Please keep this in mind. ~ Evan]
Please note: With or without gov’t subsidies, electricity from wind power always COSTS the same exorbitant, grossly uncompetitive amount. The only difference lies in who has to pay for it.
True, our coal may run out in 200 years or so, whereas the wind will still be blowing. Fine. Maybe by then we’ll be able to afford such high-priced juice.
“Addendum:
Since November 2nd, I’m getting a 3x increase in SPAM inviting me to move to/incorporate my business in Nevada. Given what lies ahead for business in California, the idea has merit.”
These are only signs of the beginning of the end.
Kum Dollison says: November 13, 2010 at 9:30 pm
“No CO2 is “Added” to the atmosphere.”
So the land is tilled with oxen, the seeds are planted by hand and grown without fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides, then harvested by hand; you use hand pumps to extract the needed water from the ground (or use hand made clay catchments); peal, cut and mash it by hand and ferment it in hand made clay barrels; distill it using sunlight and magnifying glasses, bottle it with hand pumps. Carry it to the city on bicycles, and measure it out with a flask.
You ignore the inputs, that it why it works in your mind.
“No CO2 is “Added” to the atmosphere.”
You are delusional.
Kum you are a source of misinformation.
Point made, what do “figures” mean. I dot the 18 gallons from
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html
Which seems a pretty comprehensive list.
The pal oil I got from life, the figures quoted are usually for dura plants but the big plantations here use cultivars with at least double that yield, hence the 1340 gall. Two growers using and getting those yields control six million hectares.
The point is the discrepancy in yield vital to simple economics.
Got the difference, its the oil yield not the ethanol yield. Stupid me, go back to school. Stand suitably chastised.
KenB says: Wrote
November 13, 2010 at 10:01 pm
[REPLY – Well, okay. though, as a lukewarmer, I don’t regard AGW as a complete myth. (Just a gross exaggeration.) All points of view are welcome, be they alarmist or skeptical. However, please be aware this blog is mainly concerned with the science, not politics. The political aspect does intrude, and cannot be avoided, but this is NOT a political blog. Please keep this in mind. ~ Evan]
My Dear Evan,
You know the two topics are not mutually exclusive.
Walking and chewing gum at the same time is not that difficult.
Thanks for letting me tell this story on this thread. It just all seemed to come together.
Michael
[REPLY – Yes, they are compatible (unfortunately!). So long as you are walking AND chewing gum, it’s probably not going to be a problem. Just bear in mind it’s a walking blog, not a gum-chewing blog. And we try to allow all points of view. Certain areas (especially regarding religion or certain pet conspiracy theories) are likely to get one snipped! But we maintain a far more openminded atmosphere than other climate blogs (especially the avowedly pro-AGW variety). ~ Evan]
Geraldo Rivera is in trouble. I just got done watching a segment of his on FOX and it was about “Building What?” , building 7. He had the architects and engineers on his show and a parent who lost a loved one. It was about a 10 minute segment. 9/11 was an inside job and all that. Geraldo agreed we need a new investigation because things just don’t add up. Geraldo better watch himself.
Well I will ignore the obnoxious attitude and ask for clarification, your response makes no sense. 80 proof alcohol is 40% alcohol mixed with 60% water. In a 12 gallon fuel tank with 2 gallons of E85 in it, you would have to add 3.5 gallons of water to the fuel tank to get to that water/alcohol concentration.
In short you illustration example is so absurd it is worthless. E98 (denatured fuel ethanol) cannot even be sold if it holds more that 0.5% water, and most shippers will not accept a shipment that is over 0.4% because it is too close to the limit.
The freezing point of a 40% ethanol / 60% water mixture is -10 Deg F, so even at that absurd water contamination level, icing in the fuel line would only happen on the coldest days, and as you mention the mixture would not even be flammable so no one would even think of trying to burn it. At reasonable water contamination levels achievable in the real world (ie teaspoons of water in a full tank of fuel) it is physically impossible in the continental U.S. to get fuel line icing with E85 unless you can show me any continental U.S. locations that have -100 deg F winter temps, and high enough humidity at the same time to put gallons of condensation in a fuel tank. Or drivers stupid enough to put the garden hose in the fuel filler long enough to put 3-5 gallons of water in the tank.
If you are willing to buy that red herring argument — go for it, but it is nonsense. Using feed corn to produce ethanol actually increases food output, because the co-products from ethanol production have more food value than the original corn due to the action of the brewing yeast. Those co-products (DDSG) are sold to cattle lots as a high quality livestock ration that produces more meat than if the original corn was fed to the cattle. That feed corn is also not directly used in human food products (ie is not turned into corn tortillas etc. it is a totally different corn variety than the corn used in corn meal, corn flakes, and other directly consumed corn food products.
Larry
Voters Approve Arizona Medical Marijuana Measure
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/13/voters-approve-arizona-medical-marijuana-measure-106158324/
Sort of kinda rubs salt in the wounds of California, don’t you think?
The only hope CA has, is if the ‘fees’ CARB would impose fall under the recently passed Prop 26. That would force the polies to put their names on it.
Bob
This article is just one example why environmental law regulation has to be seriously and radically reformed, by scrapping the whole system and starting over again. The anti-growth, anti-technology, anti-human ideologues have taken over the process – in fact, they helped create the process. They want to send us back to the Dark Ages economically. And we the average American public have allowed them to do it. This issue goes far beyond conservation of resources and avoidance of harmful pollution, noble goals in themselves but perverted by those who would seek some abstract ideal of a pristine nature freed from the dead hand of mankind. Upping the ante only means that you get policies that are prohibitively expensive for marginal benefits, if any at all, with catastrophic results for people as well as the environment.
Cornpatch, the really really stupid thing is that the cleanest source of energy, hydro, is not considered “a renewable resource” by the state of Kalifornia.
I’ll have more for your late night entertainment after this on.
Ron Paul Exposes the Power Structure
Michael said on November 13, 2010 at 11:35 pm:
That’s okay, the pain will be enough for the entire state of Kalifornia to get a prescription. That’ll help them keep believing their state is a wonderful happy Green Utopia that can’t do wrong. ☺
Ann r; the reason why they don’t want to call hydro a renewable resource is because the greenies want to disassemble all the hydro dams.
“Where are you taking me, and why am I in this handbasket?”
Not for China–they’ve locked in their costs with a 20-year, million-ton-per-year deal with Australia.
I seem to remember a Joe Jackson song from around the early 80’s that contained the line ‘…and the Californian sun turns your brains to scrambled eggs..’
I think Joe now resides in New York. Nuff said.
Addendum: ….the L.A. sun can turn your brains to scrambled eggs… and Joe now lives in Berlin.
To Hotrod Larry and Kum –
A study on E95 fuels versus diesel on big rig trucks was published November 10, 2010.
Guess which fuel was cheaper and most efficient compared over 300,000 miles? http://e85poweredtrucks.com/
And this was including a 51 cent a gallon Federal Alcohol subsidy – the engines required more maintenance, the fuel was much less efficient. Perhaps newer engines will perform better as these engines were a 1992 design and run for several years by ADM who produces E95 so one might assume it was likely an unbiased study since they were powering these trucks with their own fuel.
Studies on farm tractors found the same thing.
The solution to this nonsense is that everyone should have two votes.
If you are in net receipt (more cash received than direct taxes paid) of government funds, then you lose one of your votes. It is the only real way to return governments to those who make wealth, as opposed to those who squander it, namely the bureaucrats.
Clearly, the actions of CARB and the EPA are those of people who squander wealth in the name of trendy, unproven ‘science’. Once: a) the economic cost becomes widely understood, and b) there a general realisation these rules and regulations are achieving nothing, then this idiocy will be reversed. Unfortunately, by that time the damage will be done; but much worse is that the advocates of this idiocy will never be punished.
There must be a full moon out or something.
Both the Bio-Fuel Ethanol Cult (‘hey, let’s grow stuff to burn for energy rather than use the stores of perfectly good already-dead fossil fuels) … and … the InfoWars Alex Jones (‘9/11 was a inside job’) kooks making appearnces in the same thread.
Delete this if you want, but please be on the lookout for this kind of subterfuge. They’ll seed the blog with Alex Jones garbage and accomplish what the AGW cult and all its lackeys could not: to turn WUWT into Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell which would destroy this place just the same.
With the anniversary of Climategate looming, we should be riding high and on the offensive. We should not slip into the gutter.
As a European bystander i can only tell you what we are noticing here . Living on the windy North Sea shoreline you only need your own eyes to see that approx 15% of the windturbines is always not functioning . The maintenance costs must outweigh the projected costs exponentially . At relative high temperatures there is a chance that the wingspeed is important , at relative low temperatures chances are limited that the wind-speed will provide enough energy to maintain a good power-supply , at very high temperatures generally there is very little wind and if the wind then really is starting to blow it may be more harmful for the equipment than beneficial for the energy – supply . At very cold temperatures when the energy is most needed there will too little movement to propell the windturbines . Only after making coal available to the general population the average life-expectation in holland rose from 45 years to approx 80 years nowadays . Of course you guys in California do not need heating so much , but stone-age hunters and gatherers were probably more adapted to our climate than turbo-prop greenees nowadays.