Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Earlier this month, Representatives Jared Polis (D Colorado), Ben Ray Luján (D New Mexico), and Ann Kuster (D New Hampshire) introduced the National Renewable Electricity Act of 2013 (RES Act), into the US House of Representatives. The act mandates that all US retail electrical suppliers buy an increasing amount of electricity from renewable energy sources, or pay fines for the shortfall. But if the law is passed, it will raise electricity prices for Americans for questionable environmental gains.
The act calls for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and other renewables to provide 6 percent of US electricity in 2014, rising to 25 percent by the year 2025. Representative Kuster says, “This common-sense bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil—all while saving consumers money on their utilities.” Unfortunately, Ms. Kuster’s statement is not supported by actual industry experience and economic data.
Forcing consumers to buy a product that is more expensive, like renewable energy, never saves them money. A prime example is the recently completed California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo County that was constructed under the 33 percent renewables mandate of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) law. The solar ranch covers a huge area of 1,500 acres, more than 100 times the area of a typical natural gas-fired power plant, but produces an average output of only about 55 megawatts, less than one-tenth the output of a typical gas-fired plant, at the exorbitant price of $1.6 billion.
Consumers will pay twice for the California Valley Solar Ranch. Electricity from the ranch will be priced at 15 to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour, four times the price of current California wholesale electricity and over 50 percent more than projected prices during the next 25-years. Consumers also paid for a tax subsidy package totaling $1.4 billion, including a 30 percent federal investment tax credit worth $462 million, a $1.2 billion US Department of Energy loan guarantee worth $205 million, and other tax benefits.
Representative Kuster’s comments about reducing “our dependence on foreign oil” are nonsense. Today only 0.7 percent of US electricity comes from petroleum. Claiming that a national renewable electricity standard will reduce foreign oil imports is about accurate as claiming that it will promote world peace.
Politicians repeatedly state that subsidies and mandates for renewable energy will produce “green jobs.” But the Beacon Hill Institute developed more than ten studies on the impacts of state RPS laws, including Colorado and New Mexico, the home states of Representatives Polis and Luján. In all cases, the implementation of RPS laws was found to increase electricity prices, reduce real disposable income, reduce investment, and cause a net reduction in jobs.
Today, 29 states follow renewable portfolio standards laws and another 8 states pursue renewables goals for electricity. The sponsors of the RES Act want to force mandates on the remaining 13 states, the only states with a sensible energy policy. Note that in 2012, citizens in states without RPS mandates paid 10.7 cents per kw-hr for residential electricity, about 19 percent less than the 12.7 cents per kw-hr paid by citizens in states with RPS laws or goals. Higher electricity prices disproportionately impact the poor, as a larger part of their family budget.
Neither is a reduction in pollution a good reason for a national renewable electricity standard. According to Environmental Protection Agency data, all real air pollutants, including lead, ozone, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and carbon particulates have been falling for more than 40 years and continue to decline. US air pollution levels have fallen an aggregate 72 percent since 1970. At the same time, US electricity production from coal is up 115 percent and from natural gas is up 230 percent.
The unmentioned reason for the RES Act is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for man-made global warming. But carbon dioxide, a harmless, invisible gas that trees use for photosynthesis, has been wrongly labeled a pollutant. By forcing the construction of expensive wind and solar plants, proponents of the theory of dangerous climate change believe that they can save polar bears, reduce the strength of storms, curb droughts and floods, and probably promote world peace.
But RPS laws don’t even reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Installation of wind systems creates stop-and-go electrical utilities. Output from wind turbines is erratic, forcing back-up coal and natural gas plants to inefficiently ramp power up and down to maintain continuity of energy supply. Studies of utilities in Netherlands and Colorado show that combined wind and hydrocarbon systems use more fuel and emit more CO2 than stand-alone hydrocarbon-fired plants.
Rather than enacting a national renewable electricity law, we should instead roll back our costly state RPS laws. Suppose we return to energy policy based on economics and common-sense, rather than global warming ideology?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
SideShowBob,
I forgot:
We cans also drop all renewable power mandates – We have already succeeded!
“Suppose we return to energy policy based on economics and common-sense, rather than global warming ideology?”
Regrettably that is not the scenario for most parts of our planet, the reason?
Answer: Left leaning politicians tend to ask the question: “Does it work in theory?”, whereas right leaning ones tend to ask: “Does it work in practice?”. Hence, the goofy legislation proposed here.
At least in the USA, you are reaping the benefits of the fracking boom. In Europe, the EU is about to introduce legislation which will make fracking almost impossible, because of myriad rules and regulations, plus make it prohibitively expensive. A classic example (in economic terms) of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Renewable energy only makes sense for uses/users in remote areas. It might eventually make some sense if we could discover a cost effective way of storing electricity, but that may never happen.
This is typical of so much greenie legislation: because we do A, we shall have the supposed benefit of B. However, the proponents of A, ignore the fact that B will cause the adverse effects of C, D and E, which can be guaranteed to way outweigh the supposed benefits of B. Some call this “The Law of Unintended Consequences”.
– Mythbusters Golf Ball Car.
http://youtu.be/eR5SlwNf4K0
Solar power is great for heating the water you use at home if you have a water storage . Heating your water takes a lot of energy.
DON’T DO IT GUYS!
Just read this cautionary tale about Europe, and the UK in particular, written by Oxford Prof. Dieter Helm in today’s ‘Times’.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3954009.ece
It’s windy in Denmark, which helps explain why Denmark is so skilled at capturing the power of the wind. With 28 per cent wind power in the electricity system, Denmark is a nation that many others are looking to in order to discover sustainable energy solutions for the future.
http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/wind-energy/
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Electricity_prices_for_households_consumers_2012s1.png&filetimestamp=20130219105040
If you can pay it.
Why not let the market decide the price for energy from renewable sources? Perhaps the below should be extended to other renewable source such as solar.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/going-going-gone-the-role-of-auctions-and-competition-in-renewable-electricity-support?category_id=24
“Renewable subsidies – especially for offshore wind – should be cut if they fail to come down in cost under strict time limits.”
“In Brazil, prices for onshore wind have dropped to world record lows since auctioning was introduced. Last year the cost of onshore wind was as low as £27 MWh compared to £95 MWh in the UK.”
Robert, have you ever been to the UK? We don’t get a lot of sunshine, especially in December. It’s even worse than Seattle.
Something to remember when these turkeys come up for re-election!
SideShowBob, I read the articles, they are just pipe dream predictions based on increases from low bases and which have been generated by uneconomic skewing of markets by government.
Yeah, you can have 100% of people peddle-powering the only electricity they can access. Even more environmentally friendly. (Actually, not funny – that’s probably phase 2 of what you really believe in.)
Unfortunately, ‘The Times’ article that I referred to is pay-walled to non subscribers. This is a very short sighted policy for individual opinion pieces but if I posted a copy of it, I could be ‘done’ for breach of copyright.
This Is a great pity, as it should be required reading for legislators in the USA.
“SideShowBob says:
December 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities”
How do you store enough energy for a block of say 20, 2 – 3 bedroom, units (Apartments) when there is not enough sunlight? How big would the solar array have to be to provide regular power supply, or, as it has been recently here, on a hot day with temperatures at ~42c when consumers turn on their aircon? I have seen another poster at the Sydney Morning Herald claim there is now 24hr 240v battery storage. Really?
I call your post and links rubbish!
this could be everywhere if we don’t stop the CAGW scam:
19 Dec: UK Independent: Emily Gosden: Hundreds of businesses to be paid to switch off to prevent blackouts
Businesses could be paid to shut down from 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem
Hundreds of businesses could be paid to switch off their power between 4pm and 8pm on winter weekdays as soon as next winter to prevent blackouts, under plans approved by regulator Ofgem.
Mothballed old gas-fired power stations will also be paid to come back to stand-by so they can be fired up to prevent the lights going out when demand is high…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10528157/Hundreds-of-businesses-to-be-paid-to-switch-off-to-prevent-blackouts.html
the MSM cheer-leaders:
20 Dec: Guardian: Tan Copsey: Communicating climate change
Reaching new, broad audiences requires diverse, innovative communication strategies
On a frosty November morning in Warsaw, a workshop entitled Be the Movement brought together a wide variety of global climate change professionals to discuss practical strategies for building a stronger and more far-reaching global movement to combat climate change.
My contribution focused on the question of how people can communicate better about climate change and reach new audiences. To answer this, I started by asking my workgroup a series of smaller questions…
In our morning discussion group, we used BBC Media Action’s Climate Change Communication Toolkit, which includes Climate Communication Cards to stimulate discussion of how to reach diverse audiences, ranging from farmers in Kenya to voters in the United States. It was immediately apparent that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ communication approach does not work…
Content is also crucial. As Eliza Anyangwe of the Guardian Development Professionals Network said later, “A lot of effort is spent on trying to tell people that climate change is happening, but not very much on trying to give the people […] a sense of what they can do.”…
The workshop, which was co-hosted by Connect4Climate and the University of Warsaw drew a number of Polish academics and climate change experts, as well as scores of Polish students from both the university and surrounding high schools. Some of the Polish participants expressed concerns that Poland’s need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future is a real challenge to climate action…
As a young Kenyan climate activist pointed out, “I believe one person can make a difference.”
This idea was picked up by Rachel Kyte, vice president for sustainable development at the World Bank Group, in her motivational address. She encouraged the youth present to take action and join the global climate change movement. “If you want to make change, you’re going to have to take the brave fork in the road. That’s your challenge,” she said. (see the video of her talk here)…
(Tan Copsey – the author – is research manager for the BBC Media Action project Climate Asia.)
This content is produced and controlled by Connect4Climate
http://www.theguardian.com/connect4climate-partner-zone/communicating-climate-change
“jdseanjd says:
December 20, 2013 at 12:21 am”
The Bank of England (BoE) was originally set up to tax money/people and raise revenue to support the British war machine as it was then. The first and fully funded military. It soon became a system of interest bearing debt which, that debt, was eventually passed on to “customers”. This was ~300 years ago. It’s been pretty much copied by all money systems (Banks). So, the Britain has the BoE. The US has the FED (With thanks to the Rothchilds and the BoE).
So it is not surprising that the City of London (Royals and all with all “their” assets – and I bet you will find all other assets NOT in the City of London, CoL, are incorporated in the CoL) is in fact, as you state, a corporation.
The French had the right idea so too did Guy Fawkes (And the gang he was in).
anyone thinking the new Australian Govt is more sceptical of CAGW –
20 Dec: ABC Australia: Daniel Miller: What is the Coalition’s direct action climate change policy?
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has released the Government’s Green Paper for its direct action climate change policy.
The paper released today is open for consultation until February, after which time a White Paper will be developed…
The Green Paper details how the Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund will operate.
The scheme is budgeted to cost $300 million, $500 million and $750 million over three years, starting on July 1, 2014…
Mr Hunt says new figures show Australia needs to to reduce its emissions by less than thought to achieve the targetted cut of 5 per cent by 2020.
“It’s going to be easier to achieve that figure now because of changes in Australian manufacturing,” he said.
“That’s not a desirable cause, but it’s a reality.
“We’ve seen a number of coal mines and a number of manufacturing businesses either not proceed or close down.” …
The main feature of the direct action policy is the creation of an Emissions Reduction Fund, which will cost $3 billion over four years.
The fund will call for businesses to submit tenders for projects that will either lower emissions or offset them.
It will operate as a reverse auction, where businesses compete and undercut each other to win a contract and with it, the Government’s money…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action-policy-explained/5067188
The studies that support windmills and solar power are from the same sort of people who the tobacco companies hired to tell us smoking was OK. The UK is being crippled by this sort of sleazy legislation at this very moment. The political hacks who promote this sort of tax payer funded, legally mandated rent seeking need to be at the least removed from office.
“pat says:
December 20, 2013 at 3:06 am”
The difference being is the Direct Action Plan has not been implemented and can be turned on or off at will, without support from the Senate. Unlike the carbon tax it would not need both houses to support a change in legislation. Abbott is treading a fine line. He needs to wait until the new Senate is installed in ~June 2014 before he can try to abolish the carbon tax for good. If legislation is not passed by the Senate, he would need to take the country to a double dissolution election. Abbott WILL lose that if he does.
We now have various environmental groups calling fowl on Greg Hunt approving the Abbot Point coal project. This project, if you read the documents, has had the approval of all groups and ministers and conforms to the 1999 legislation for such projects. This was all drawn up under the ALP/Green coalition before September 2012. It just needed the final “rubber stamp” approval. It was going to be approved anyway! And yet Hunt (LNP) get’s the environmental “baddie” label by the very people who supported it in the first place!
It used to be a scare tactic to ask: ‘What would happen if a 747 crashed into a nuke facility?’ – Well, I figure there’s more chance of damage, collateral and otherwise, if one landed on this PV facility.
Actually, it wouldn’t need to be a 747: what about a microlight pilot blinded by the glare from the PV crashing into some key part of the installation…..
The madness and the sadness of ‘Green’ policies.
“Firms may be paid to turn out lights: Four- hour curfew to save Britain from blackouts”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526772/Firms-paid-turn-lights-Four-hour-curfew-save-Britain-blackouts.html
Here’s some back up for my post above:
Google or youtube Lord Monckton Agenda 21 globalist death plan for humanity
Google Bill Still the money masters
Google Karen Hudes. For 20 years a World bank employee, & for 12 years the Chief Legal Counsel, she was sacked for trying to expose corruption at the World Bank, which is a cooperative bank owned by 188 member nations.
She is fighting back, & seems to think she is winning. We can only pray she is right.
If at first your massive credits and mandates don’t succeed, try doubling down. Again. And Again. Because, ummm …., ‘sustainable.” Hint: If you can’t sustain it with significant government interference, just exactly what is it that’s unsustainable?
Kuster and her cohorts are liars and traitors for introducing such a bill. Unfortunately, the D’s (which stands for douchbags) will keep on winning because 1) most voters are of the low-information variety and 2) not enough people really care enough to be bothered to drag themselves to the polls. Kuster will almost certainly be re-elected because the one chance of beating her, the well-known and respected former House Speaker Bill O’Brien who was going to run against her has dropped his bid, having gotten a dream job offer he couldn’t refuse. Relatively unknown Gary Lambert will be running instead.
“Snotrocket says:
December 20, 2013 at 3:39 am”
No need to strike the PV panels en masse, just the point at which they connect TO the grid.
Leo Smith says:
December 20, 2013 at 12:22 am
what storage would that be then?
Tell you what, YOU invest in it, and when its competitive with coal/gas/nuclear you can sell it to me cheaper.
Electric cars, and oh boy I wish I invested in Telsa motors back then !
You read it here, guys – we in the UK, with the enticing prospect of a sustainable recovery from recession, are likely to have it snuffed out by our lunatic politicians.
Coal-fired power stations being shut – or converted to burning wood pellets, from – guess where..? North Carolina..! Happy about that, are you – having your forests trashed to feed a politically-correct/stupid policy in the UK..?
Wind and solar being supported with massive subsidies and unrealistic ‘feed-in’ tariffs, which of course on a calm winter’s afternoon will provide – zilch.
No new nulear station – and then at a ridiculous price/kWh – until at least 2026. We used to lead the world in generating electricity from nuclear power. Since then of course the ‘greens’ have taken over.
Finally – as we all know, man-made global warming (as ‘proven’ by the IPCC – set up simply to prove it) is a complete scam – dependent on climate models using ‘subjective priors’ (in other words, enter the starting point data of your choice)…
I need to lie down now…