What do you think about Renewable Energy Portfolios? I heard some babble on the radio the other day that New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingeman, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, is expected to introduce an amendment to current energy legislation that would instate a federal requirement that all utilities produce 15% of their power with wind by the year 2020 or face steep taxes (fines).
I'm all for alternative energy. I think tax reductions should be offered to homeowners who build homes that are at least partially powered by alternative energy. But the federal government requiring alternative energy, especially such steep amounts in such a short time span? I don't think so. I see that there are 20 states that have acted independently to set up renewable portfolios. The first one goes into effect in 2009, when utilities in Massachussets must produce 4% of their power by renewable methods. Most of these states are west of the Mississippi, with the exception of a handful of states, all of them located in the Northeast.
I saw an estimate from the National Academy of Sciences that says 93% of wind energy capability in the U.S. is west of the Mississippi River, with only 7% east of the Big Muddy. And it doesn't take a scientist to know that the wind simply doesn't blow in this part of the country like it does in other parts.
I was reading a news release from Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander yesterday and saw that the Tennessee Valley Authority has basically said it cannot meet an RPS. TVA has dabbled in wind-driven energy; it has a "wind farm" not far from my home. The wind mills " which are huge, by the way; around 40 stories tall with blades 200 feet wide " are positioned atop a mountain on the edge of the Cumberland Plateau and can be seen from miles away. And according to Alexander, TVA says these things operate at 19% to 24% capacity, simply because there is no wind. To meet just a 2% wind energy requirement (one-seventh of what Bingeman is going to propose), TVA says it would need 720 of those wind mills atop mountains in East Tennessee. The wind farm near here is neat to look at, but on top of every mountain? I don't think so. Basically, if TVA is telling the truth, it would be impossible for them to meet the 15% requirement, and to just partially meet the requirement, they would need to put those windmills on top of every mountain, which East Tennessee relies on so much for tourism (the Great Smokies would be protected obviously, but still . . .)
So, essentially, we're faced with the prospect of having wind mills on every one of our mountaintops around here, or we're going to see our utility bills increase sharply. Because, let's face it, if utilities are forced to pay more taxes, we the customers will see those taxes passed on to us. Why can't our lawmakers find something a little more pressing to spend their time on than nonsense such as this?
Unfortunately for us here, it's almost a darned if you do, darned if you don't proposal. If this ridiculous legislation passed, we'd see our mountaintops cleared and huge windmills built on them. If it doesn't pass, TVA " which owns mineral rights on many of the mountains in my home county " has proposed mountaintop-removal mining to get to the coal in a more cost-efficient manner. New scrubbers now allow TVA to burn the "dirty" coal that can be found in this part of Appalachia.
Either way, there go the mountaintops.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
RE: Renewable Energy Portfolios?
Everything has its price and some sight pollution would be better for me to accept than dirty air and water. We have the same problem here in Vt where wind generation is being used but is fought at every turn. These long drawn out fights cost a lot of money and the wind people usually just give up and move elsewhere. There is a small town near here and a wealthy person bought a 30 acre parcel right on Lake Champlain and wanted to build a ecco friendly house with a wind generator to supply all the power and even sell some back to the grid. The town was worried about the way it would look from the water and denied him the permits. He eventually got upset and sold the land.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
I think it's somewhat rediculous to Not use wind power at every opportunity, but you get the same old problem everywhere. That is, "not in my back yard". Why not?? It doesn't ruin "the view", just changes it. With an ever growing global population and increasing need for energyas well as all the environmental problems that are escalating, seems a very small price. Unbelieveable, the opposition.
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Gubment has no business mandating alternative energies. When traditional sources become expensive, alternative sources will come about on their own as they become relatively feasible in terms of cost. Same is true of ethanol. You know it is a bad idea of government has to subsidize it! If ethanol were a viable solution, companies would be producing it on their own with no incentives. BTW, Brazil is offering us cheap ethanol and we don't want it because we want our farmers in the midwest to make it, albeit at higher prices. Thanks for looking after the consumer as you so often remind us, democraps!
Gubment has no business mandating alternative energies. When traditional sources become expensive, alternative sources will come about on their own as they become relatively feasible in terms of cost. Same is true of ethanol. You know it is a bad idea of government has to subsidize it! If ethanol were a viable solution, companies would be producing it on their own with no incentives. BTW, Brazil is offering us cheap ethanol and we don't want it because we want our farmers in the midwest to make it, albeit at higher prices. Thanks for looking after the consumer as you so often remind us, democraps!
You nailed it Doug.
__________________
John Adams The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
I think it's somewhat rediculous to Not use wind power at every opportunity, but you get the same old problem everywhere.* That is, "not in my back yard".* Why not??* It doesn't ruin "the view", just changes it.* With an ever growing global population and increasing need for energy*as well as all the environmental problems that are escalating, seems a very small price.* Unbelieveable, the opposition.
If you'll re-read my post, you'll see that I said we've already got one wind farm just right down the road that is visible for miles around, and it's actually kinda neat. This isn't about not wanting it in your back yard because you don't want to have to look at it. It's having it in your back yard, your neighbor's back yard, and the backyard of every person in the neighborhood. Think about how much real estate would be required to construct over 700 wind mills. It wouldn't be like having a wind mill in the neighborhood; the wind mills would dominate the skylines in every direction. That's foolish. And, it would only manufacture 1/7th of the wind energy that would be mandated by this bill. Not to mention that it's kinda silly to spend the money to construct ANYTHING that's only going to operate at 20% capacity.
Alternative energies, especially renewable energies, are the future. But there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I think that any legislation should focus soley on rewards for those who do implement renewable energy plans. I do not support fining those who don't. Energy regulations are a lot like gun control. You can have tens of thousands of them and they still don't help the consumerall thatmuch. I'm just tired of government trying to forcecompanies to act against their own best interests. It hurts everyone in the end.
It wouldn't be like having a wind mill in the neighborhood; the wind mills would dominate the skylines in every direction. That's foolish.
Sorry, but I just don't see it. If the only negative environmental impact of these things is that they are ugly or obtrusive-looking to some, then I say that that is no negative impact at all.
And for the record, I'm not arguing for this particular bill, but Ijust think wind power should be utilized to its maximum potential regardless of how it impacts the aesthetic quality of the horizon line. I have seen many fights over wind farms and usually melts down, again, to "it's a good idea, but not around here"
I'm not sure about the capacity issue but if it is economicallybeneficial over the long run to run at "X" percent, then do it, or build a different windmill to suit regions of more/less wind.
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
Why does it seem to me that Democrats are just searching for ways to raise our taxes?
Quote:
ALEXANDER SAYS ENERGY AMENDMENT IS A TAX ON CITIES IN THE TVA REGION
Tennessee Electricity Distributors Say Tennesseans Could Lose Billions
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander and several Tennessee Valley utilities today said a Senate energy proposal amounts to a huge new tax on the citizens of Tennessee"s largest cities.
Alexander said a new study shows the amendment now being considered by the Senate could cost Tennesseans $7.1 billion by 2030.
"This proposal is nothing more than a new electricity tax on the ratepayers in the Tennessee Valley," Alexander said. "This tax discriminates against electricity customers from Memphis to Knoxville. We ought to be focusing on energy plans that reduce emissions instead of imposing fines."
The Nashville Electric Service, the Chattanooga Electric Power Board (EPB) and the Knoxville Utilities Board (KUB) submitted letters Wednesday to Senator Alexander saying a proposed renewable energy standard would have an enormous financial impact on Tennessee communities.
The Nashville Electric Service said the standard would lead to a two-cent per kilowatt hour tax hike, costing costumers in Davidson County and the Nashville-area $276 million by 2020.
"Unlike those states that have the most abundant resources of renewable energy, and who are favored by the Bingaman Amendment, we in Tennessee and the TVA region do not have abundant renewable resources available to us," the letter states.
In the EPB letter, Harold DePriest, EPB"s President and CEO, writes that the proposed amendment would force its customers in parts of five counties to pay an additional $133 million between 210 and 2020.
"The frustrating part of the Bingaman Amendment, if enacted into law, will be the injustice imposed upon our community," the letter states. "In effect, we are penalized and penalized significantly, simply because of geography."
Mintha E. Roach, the President and CEO of KUB, said, under its TVA contract, KUB cannot develop its own renewable resources or buy renewable energy from a non-TVA supplier.
"There simply is no way for us to comply with the new standard," Roach writes.
Tennessee is one of 27 states that would not meet the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) proposed today by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) as an amendment to the energy bill now before the Senate. Senator Bingaman's amendment would mandate that 15 percent of energy come from renewable sources by 2020, such as wind, or that utilities pay a penalty for failing to meet that goal.
Citing that Tennessee does not have abundant sources of such renewable energy as wind, all three utilities said in their letters that they could not achieve the amendment"s requirements.
Furthermore, Huntsville Utilities in Huntsville, Alabama estimates that the Bingaman amendment would cost $4.2 million in 2010, $8.8 million in 2013, $14.1 million in 2017, and $19.8 million in 2020.
"The total impact of the amendment for Tennessee could reach $7.1 billion, according to a study released Wednesday by the Edison Electric Institute," Alexander said. "This staggering number makes clear that states like Tennessee can"t handle the financial burden of such a proposal."
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Renewable Energy Portfolios?
