Tag Archives for solar
Why raise electricity prices?
Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America
Last 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 U.S. House of Representatives. The act mandates that all U.S. 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.
ACC’s Jason Hayes weighs in on the future of coal production
Jason Hayes, The American Coal Council
I recently had a call from a reporter at the Boulder Daily Camera. He was seeking comment on a just-published Clean Energy Action (CEA) report that argues American coal production has already peaked and that American coal producers were facing an impending and unavoidable decline.
Solar energy can’t even handle an anti-fossil fuels blow up toy.
This protest presents the world with a powerfully ironic statement on what happens when you expect renewables (even with battery backup) to provide reliable power.
The video is funny and sad at the same time. Funny for the obvious reason that the solar-powered protest went a teensy bit flaccid. Sad that these protestors don’t appear to see the obvious irony and parallels to our larger energy system.
As in real life, when renewable energy can’t keep up with demand, you have to plug into a reliable, fossil-fueled energy source.
Deroy Murdock’s recent NRO article on the ‘green-ness’ of so-called green energy takes renewable energy head on. His article demonstrates, once again, that all forms of energy have impacts on the environment. It is, therefore, the job of the energy industry, elected officials, regulators, and the media to provide balanced facts on the relative costs and benefits of energy policy choices. It is also the job of government and regulators to avoid selecting (and promoting) some energy options at the expense of others, especially when the selected energy sources have their own long (and growing) list of environmental and economic negatives they need to address.
Marlo Lewis from CEI describes his recent drive past the Ivanpah Solar Generation facility. The short version of his post is that solar is still far more expensive than other forms of energy and has its own list of environmental impacts that it must begin to address before it can even begin to claim that it can compete with coal, gas, nuclear, or other energy sources.
So I’m headed back to California from Las Vegas on I-15 when my eyes are dazzled by the light. Immense rectangular objects on three gigantic towers shine brighter than the desert sky in the noonday Sun. I avert my gaze, finding the discomfort level about the same as staring at an oncoming car with the brights on at night. …
Lance Brown at PACE has posted a good article that dissects the arguments of those who claim solar energy isn’t getting a fair shake. Lance points directly to the primary reason that solar still has troubles competing with baseload energy sources like coal, gas, and nuclear – cost.
Here is Lance’s article reprinted with permission from the PACE blog.
What happens when the merits of an argument fail? Change the subject. Blame someone. Or simply deflect attention from the possibility that maybe your approach isn’t the best one out there.
A federal laboratory has released its report on hazards from glare at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in San Bernardino County and the risk that glare poses to aviation in the area. That report isn’t good news for those flying between L.A. and Vegas.
… a study from the Sandia National Laboratories published on the California Energy Commission website Thursday found that significant and potentially hazardous amounts of glare are created when the facility’s heliostats are in what the operators call “standby position,” the default position for heliostats not aimed directly at the plant’s boilers.
Roberty Murray, Chairman and CEO of Murray Energy took part in a eye-opening interview on Neil Cavuto’s show on Fox Business.
He didn’t hold back for a second, saying that the impending EPA regulations were a “total and dangerous takeover” of the nation’s electricity system. He charged that the current administration’s actions were “illegal” and “unachievable.” He further argued that EPA regulations were “destroying” low cost electricity, American markets and our nation’s competitive position. He stated clearly that he was “scared to death for our country.”
Robert Bryce’s recent Wall Street Journal article digs into the difficult numbers and math that Bill McKibben refuses to touch.
Wind? Merely to keep pace with the global growth in electricity demand would require the installation of about 280,000 megawatts of new wind-energy capacity every year. According to several academic studies, the areal power density of wind energy—that is, the amount of power that can be derived from a given amount of land—is about one watt per square meter. This means that installing the requisite additional wind capacity would require covering about 280,000 square kilometers (108,000 square miles of land)—an area nearly the size of Italy—with wind turbines, every year.
Honestly people, it would be difficult to make this stuff up. (I realize that this story is about a month old, but it definitely has staying power.)
In an April 24 news release the office of New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, attempted to hype a $1 billion subsidy to “expand deployment of solar capacity” across the state.