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.
Patrick says:
December 20, 2013 at 2:49 am
“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”
It doesn’t have to be that big to hurt the grid providers, solar takes the cream of the profit and (electric vehicle based) storage extends it out to cover the afternoon peak, you don’t need much storage for that … The issue is that solar is a no brainier for people NOW (in oz) without subsidies (almost all have been removed here anyway) but what happens when solar falls even more in price and people start moving off the grid… that’s the problem grid providers will need to solve…
what they should have done is invest in big centralized solar, they should have destroyed the wholesale price at peak solar production times and removed the intensive from the domestic customer to get solar… but it’s too late now
SideShowBob says:
December 20, 2013 at 4:56 am
————————————————-
$100,000 auto is pretty expensive storage device. Of course since you discharge it at night to feed back the stored solar energy you can’t drive it to work anyway. Yep, real bright idea that.
SideShowBob says: @ur momisugly December 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Solar is going to take over anyway, regardless of these laws, it’s on a phenomenon growth rate…
What are you a marketing rep for a solar company? Even Huff & Puff does not agree with you!
9/27/2013
From MIT tech review: Battery breakthroughs could lower costs and improve performance for electric vehicles and renewable energy storage–but commercializing these new technologies will be challenging. We have been hearing that the holy grail of light,low cost effecient and safe batteries is just around the corner here at WUWT for years. This is the last look: Claim: Let’s put batteries on wind and solar farms, Posted on September 9, 2013
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
The real reason behind the push for ‘Renewables’ is MONEY:
From the November 11, 2011 New York Times Energy and Environment section entitled A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search that describes in great detail the “financials” of a large commercial solar project in California. Pay particular attention to the attending graphic. This is not a concentrated solar project. The money quotes:
As Obama Promised: Energy Prices to Soon Skyrocket
….
As Richard Courtney said:
I suggest you read the rest of what he says HERE
jim says:
December 19, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Here’s how to get rid of fossil fuel electricity and increase employment by millions:
Replace all coal & gas generators with human operated generators. This would employ millions and solve our unemployment problems….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
GREAT IDEA!
Want your unemployment or welfare check or SS or VA benefits you have to put in 10 hours a day on the treadmills . Forget medicating school kids to calm them down. just install those treadmills or hand cranks to utilize all that excess energy….
Time to write an updated version of J. Swift’s “Modest Proposal”
(Elected officials, state and federal bureaucrats and academics should be drafted for the pilot study of course.)
“SideShowBob says:
December 20, 2013 at 5:05 am
Patrick says:
December 20, 2013 at 2:49 am
“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”
It doesn’t have to be that big to hurt the grid providers…”
Hurt? What need for that hurt? You do realise that the “hurt” you so want, will, impact the people you want to help (LOL Least of all in say Africa). The “grid providers” provide a means, like roads, to transport energy. And you want to “hurt” that? I suggest you move to Africa to find out what that is really like.
Everyone should go and read the bill. HR 3654.
Electric Utilities that don’t have enough ‘renewable’ energy can meet the requirements by buying ‘credits’ from others. ‘Renewable’ energy generator on Indian land is eligible for 2 credits and a ‘renewable’ energy facility of less than 1 MW that consumes the electricity onsite to offset electricity from the grid is eligible for 3 credits.
So get a subsidy to generate ‘renewable’ energy, get paid to supply the ‘renewable’ energy and sell the excess credits. No way that system will be abused. (sarc off)
Also the bill only calls ‘incremental hydropower’ as ‘renewable’. It then defines this as ‘additional generation that is achieved from increased efficiency or additions of capacity made on or after the enactment of the bill’. So all currently existing hydropower (the largest source of renewable energy) is not considered ‘renewable’ by this bill.
Sideshowbob says: “Electric cars, and oh boy I wish I invested in Telsa motors back then !”
Bwhahahahahaha!!!!! (And it’s TESLA, you……….)
“The solar ranch . . . produces an average output of only about 55 megawatts . . . at the exorbitant price of $1.6 billion”
Let’s see: $1.6 billion / 55 MW = $29,000 / kW. The EIA says solar photovoltaic costs only $4000 / kW. Now, that’s before interest and presumably before the cost of additional transmission lines. Still, it’s a factor of 7 difference.
And yet failed to mention that California is spending even more : pumped storage facilities in the mountains that can provide at most 1000 MW for 12 hours or so , at a cost not much less than a nuclear power plant. And that puny 55 MW average wil decrease over the years as the panels deteriorate and will ned a total replacement at the 20 year mark. A nuclear plant built today will certainly have an 80 year operational lifespan, at a cost of roughly $4 million per MW capacity, not the $6 million per MW capacity of solar panels, which will last 1/4th as long. Solar build costs. including pumped storage, must be on the order of 7 times greater than nuclear, which is the cheapest form of generation today, cheaper than gas, cheaper than coal. .
If the purpose of the law is to provide carbon emission free power, then why specify “renewable” rather than , you know, “carbon free emission power” ??? Nuclear has a far smaller carbon footprint than solar. These representatives are too stupid to be supplied with a salary and allowed to wander the streets believing the same thing that the idiot Senator from Montana, Max Baucus
that we make any significant amot of electricity from oil. Only Hawaii uses lots of oil, from necessity. . The idea that “jobs will be created” is absurd. Jobs are created any time money is spent. This is spending money for no purpose except to lower standards of living by increasing the prices people must pay for electricity.
EXISTENTIALLY SPEAKING:
19 Dec: Huffington Post: Carol Pierson Holding: Is Carbon Pricing a Diversion From the Real Story?
Certainly, the media has recommitted to environmental coverage. In her mea culpa for being one of many publications to scale back green coverage, The New York Times’ Public Editor Margaret Sullivan ended her impassioned recommitment to environmental reporting with a quote from Al Gore, “The survival of human civilization is at risk. The news media should be making this ***existential crisis the No. 1 topic they cover.” The heat is on…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-pierson-holding/is-carbon-pricing-a-diversion_b_4468899.html
18 Dec: AUDIO: BBC Business Daily: Justin Rowlatt: The Brains Behind the Human Brain Project
Dr Henry Markram, director of the Human Brain Project, has bagged the biggest scientific grant ever awarded – 1 billion Euros – to build a virtual human brain.
(LISTEN FROM 5:45): Rowlatt: audacious amount of money. world faces an ***existential crisis of climate change, why should you get the money?
Markram: well, this was a competition, everyone was invited to compete, the climate people didn’t submit a proposal…but i do think climate change is the only project that i would say is a more important initiative, & i would suggest they adopt a similar strategy of re-constructing very detailed, every tree, every river, the stratosphere, & get it real, & make real predictions. if they would do that, that is great.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01n5v7f/Business_Daily_The_Brains_Behind_the_Human_Brain_Project/
Solar panel folks’ claims would indicate that 40,000 acres of solar panels would be required to
produce the same gross amount of power as a modern 1500 MW nuclear plant. I think those claims are overly optimistic and the amount of land required will be significantly greater. My
personal estimate, calculated months ago, was closer to 80,000 acres. In My experience, renewable folks produce gross exaggerations in their claims. I don’t believe a word they say.
Dear SSB,
You do realize that the side show was the circus home of oddities, quirks and malfunctions don’t you? Your demonstration of such is in the spotlight and on display. Of course you’re not far behind the nutballs that inhabit our state government here in California who have decreed that electricity providers must come up with AC storage or else. (Article here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-sets-terms-of-massive-energy-storage-mandate ) Never mind that it has never been done, do it!
And as to the storage devices being electric cars? Wow! Like I said, you’re on display and clearly demonstrating your abilities with each and every post. Might be a place you could find a new taxpayer / ratepayer funded job. Be sure to take ‘Doc’ Brown back to the future with you. I’m sure he could help out.
pbh
Correction: Never mind that it has never been done in an economically feasible way.
pbh
pat says: @ur momisugly December 20, 2013 at 6:40 am
EXISTENTIALLY SPEAKING:….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Al Gore and existentialism? What a hoot! I can not think of anything that are more direct opposites philosophically since Al Gore’s goal is serfdom for all..
Definition: Existentialism is a philosophical outlook that stresses the importance of free will, freedom of choice, and personal responsibility. link
‘Our wonderful new PM and Rhodes Scholar, Tony Abbott, describes AGW as “absolute crap”.’
No, he doesn’t. Much as the Greens would like to verbal him he believes that some AGW has occurred and will (subject to cooling cycles against the trend) likely continue.
The mythical quote came when a woman put to him the proposition “Julia said the science is settled” and he replied “that’s absolute crap.” Since he said that, scientists have revised sensitivity downwards, the IPCC has acknowledged that earlier claims about droughts, floods, wind events and other weather could not be substantiated and temps have dropped into a downtrend over this century. So he was spot on. But he did not go further to attribute ZERO climate sensitivity to CO2 and become a d****r.
Justifying renewables on the basis of energy security and independence is complete crap. If Obama and the EU had half a brain between them then you would use everyone else’s energy first and when that expired begin using your own. The reality is that if you use your own down to the last drop then if everyone else has some left then you really are in trouble. Wind and solar can never give you energy independence and security because they are manufactured products and once fossil fuel expires – as it will one day – how precisely do you find, mine and refine and manufacture the raw materials necessary to build turbines and solar panels? There are many who are broad but few who are deep hence the ubiquity of quiz programs. Journalists and politicians share the same genetic code, shallow, superficial, gifted with the abundant but undesirable trait of spot bandwagons and being only too willing to jump on to make money!!
Want to reduce dependency on foreign oil? Finish the Keystone pipeline, support fracking and horizontal drilling and open up more “off-limits” federal lands to oil exploration and drilling.
But we can’t do that, because reducing dependency upon foreign oil isn’t the objective, anyway. The objective to fulfill a utopian vision.
Hey CD (@CD153):
“When oh when will those idiot politicians in Washington get it through their thick Neanderthal skulls that crude oil is not used for generating electricity…”
I invite you to http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2010/04/neanderthal.html
before you go using the epithet “Neanderthal” in a derogatory manner
On another note, stating this bill would reduce our dependence on imports is not only specious because we don’t generate electricity from oil (as mentioned by others) but our own natural gas will make us energy independent by about 2020 if the eco-communists don’t derail the entire thing first.
The link provided by Old’Un was to a paywalled snippet. Here’s a link to the whole thing:
http://www.thegwpf.org/dieter-helm-lost-gamble-forcing-energy-bills/
DIETER HELM: THE LOST GAMBLE FORCING UP OUR ENERGY BILLS
Date: 20/12/13
Now I know why he calls himself Sideshow Boob.
They are typically people who know nothing of a subject, read an article, and think they are experts.
Do you have solar? I do.
Do you know how much it costs or what the payback time is? I am an energy consultant and help people with this every day. It makes sense for me in So Cal because our gov’t has mandated our way to high electric costs. Surprisingly, it is a tough sell in sunny AZ because off-peak electricity is about $.03/kwh.
So to ask people to trade their cheap electricity for $15,000 solar panels and a $100,000 Tesla and declare ‘game over’ is somewhere between delusional and frightening.
Slide-slip Bob, how does that work when it is overcast for a straight week and our temps in Tejas dip below 20 degrees F multiple days in a row?
Are you prescribed strong hallucinogenics for some mental or medical condition?
.
“storage and solar = game over for traditional utilities”
IF these laws and various subsidies aren’t required for Solar to take over, then I’ll jump on the solar bandwagon because then it truly will be cost competitive and a great method of energy manufacture. However, I don’t see that happening for 20 years or more.
China is getting in on this because of foolish western governments willing to shovel money at them. 🙂
From my research comes the following calcuation of the cost of nuclear power for a plant built
today , assuming a 70 year lifespan , per kilowatthour : the cost of building the plant ($5 billion) works out to roughly .7 cents, operational and maintenance costs (includes decomissioning costs) – 1.60 cents, fuel costs – .75 cents, .10 cents – nuclear waste disposal (if needed), for a total of
3.15 cents per kilowatthour. That’s cheaper than gas and coal and every other means of producing power.
The EIA estimates for power plants entering service in 2018 are listed here: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm
Coal is showing the regulatory hit and ranges between $100.1-$135.5/MWh ; Natural gas $67.1-$108.6/MWh; wind $86.6(???)-$221/MWh, solar $144/MWh, biomass $111/MWh and Nuclear $108.4/MWh. They do not mention petroleum based electricity, but typical heat rate for petroleum based is ~11,000 Btu/kWh or, at today’s price of oil, ~$275/MWh, just for the fuel cost. We aren’t going to save much foreign oil by renewables because it is so expensive as an electrical fuel it is only going to be used for emergency generators or for generators distant from cheaper electricity.
Renewables come with all sorts of subsidies to make them “profitable.” These include selling renewable energy credits (RECS), subsidized payments for being part of a renewable energy standard or sold as green energy. Electricity generated from landfill gas is green and renewable and can be produced relatively inexpensively because, quite often, the fuel price is based on the price of natural gas.
I’m surprised by the lower price of wind.
In general, the whole renewables energy market is propped up by subsidies. It doesn’t compete on quite the level playing field. Remove the subsidies and the windmills stop. Also, your local utility can advertise how green they are by renewables because they get to pass the additional cost on to the rate payers.
‘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.’
This always cracks me up “…..all while saving consumers money on their utilities.”
I wish I had their business model. Sale less and charge more to a “captive” consumer.
Last year we had an increase in water rate. The reason, as stated by a water department head,” people are not using enough water.