Saturday, January 23, 2010

Great Myth Number One of Energy Independence - Renewables Will Wean Us Off Foreign Oil

Renewable energy advocates say that greater use of wind and solar energy would reduce U. S. dependence on foreign oil, including oil imports from Venezuela, the Middle East and other unfriendly nations. Echoed by political leaders – including President Obama, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Governor Bill Ritter, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory – it is no surprise that this myth is gaining greater public acceptance.
I knew that the myth had come home to rest in Colorado when the Craig Daily Press – in the heart of coal country – published a recent article “Renewable Energy Education Comes to Colorado” – making the same claim.

There’s only one problem – it’s not true! Wind and solar have limited potential for the generation of electricity (at much higher cost, of course, to electricity consumers), but they won’t do a thing to wean us off foreign oil. Why? Because the United States only uses oil to meet a tiny fraction – about 2.5 per cent - of the nation’s electricity needs. In fact, aside from New York (where electricity costs exceed 10 cents per kilowatt hour) Hawaii, and a handful of other states, oil accounted for less than 1% of electricity generation in 31 states; and twenty-six of those were under one-half of one percent! See, Glenn Schleede, Wind Energy Will Not Reduce U. S. Oil Dependence (2004).

Face it folks, oil is used primarily as a transportation fuel, in fact, motor vehicles account for about two-thirds of oil consumption. While it may be possible to use renewable energy to meet a small portion of the electricity used in hybrid vehicles, that will not occur for years to come, and only at substantial cost to taxpayers and electricity consumers. And this doesn’t even begin to contemplate the infrastructure changes that will be required – i.e., converting the fleet to hybrid vehicles and constructing charging stations.

Even with mandates for renewable energy, we will be using oil for years to come.

We have much lower cost and abundant sources of electricity – like coal and uranium – capable of meeting our transportation needs, if the government would ever get off the dime and support them. The point is – politicians claim to be displacing the ancient evil – foreign oil – when their real intent is to end coal use. Ending coal use, however, would cause severe economic dislocation and undermine our nation’s energy security for the long run.

And by the way, where are you going to get the minerals – the limestone in the pads, the metals in the wind turbines and towers, the silver in concentrated solar power – unless they are mined here in the United States? The fact is that the U. S. is increasingly reliant on minerals imported from foreign nations, like silver. Thus, wind and solar could create a new import dependency – on the very minerals used to construct them.

Energy policy is too important to be played as a zero sum game; it’s time to tell our elected leaders that we need all sources of electricity; quit favoring one over the other.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Irony of Ironies

Irony of Ironies - New Climate Supercomputer will Run on Coal

The Denver Post reported recently that the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) will build its new climate modeling supercomputer – not in Colorado – but in Wyoming. Why? Because of the huge amounts of comparatively inexpensive ELECTRICITY and space required for the $500 million computer upgrade. Well, I can certainly understand why space in Wyoming (outside of Jackson Hole) might be a bit less expensive than the real estate in Boulder, but the other even more significant reason for the relocation is the relatively low cost of electricity in our neighbor to the north – a state that gets 94% of its electricity from COAL.

So in other words, the climate supercomputer, certainly a part of the New Energy Economy, will not be built in Colorado. Instead, we will export the jobs associated with running the project to Wyoming – in fact, NCAR so acknowledges in the article. Technicians from the Table Mesa laboratory will move to Wyoming soon; I imagine they are thrilled at the prospect.

“Cheaper and more plentiful electricity from Wyoming’s relatively untapped grid, including wind power, is a key factor,” said an NCAR spokesman. Who are they kidding? Wind accounts for an insignificant portion of Wyoming’s electricity. It’s coal that is responsible for keeping rates at about 6.03 cents per kilowatt-hour in Wyoming; as opposed to Colorado, where the rates are above 8 cents, according to the article. In fact, here is a map showing that states that use coal to generate the bulk of their electricity needs enjoy lower rates:



Colorado still uses coal to generate about two-thirds of its electricity; and that is the only reason why rates have not shot much higher. Coal mining has also been a mainstay of Colorado’s economy since 1864. Meanwhile, Vestas Wind Systems has announced its decision to lay off 500 workers at its Windsor plant – despite tax credits, subsidies and stimulus money. Notwithstanding the so-called promises of the “new” energy economy, unemployment is a very old problem, especially if it’s your job that’s on the chopping block. It’s time to send our elected leaders a strong message – energy policy is not a zero sum game; Colorado needs all the power it can get and we should not favor one energy source over another.