When a former
“senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S.
News and World Report, you should be able to trust it. But when the author
states that the Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19
weeks of temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the
claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100 percent solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a
union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone
pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The
portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1179 miles
long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to
take two years.
TransCanada’s
spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle
these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and
the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways,
schools or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden
Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK
if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very
people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the
On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs
creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.”
He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this
emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third
of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar
installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of
American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the
world—every three minutes.”
This may be true
but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists
for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all
new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it
does not include sound economics.
First, efficient
and effective base-load, coal-fueled electricity that has provided the bulk of
America’s power is being prematurely shut down by regulations prompted by
environmental lobbyists and promulgated by the Obama administration. It is
virtually impossible to get a new coal-fueled power plant permitted in the U.S.
Even natural gas-powered plants, such as the one planned to replace the Salem Harbor coal-fueled plant, meet with resistance from
groups such as Grassroots Against Another Salem Plant, which “has pledged to
use peaceful civil disobedience to block construction of the gas plant.” And,
of course, just try to build a nuclear power plant and all the fear-mongers come
out.
What’s left?
Renewables, such as wind and solar, receive favorable treatment through a
combination of mandates and subsidies. Even industrial wind and solar have
their own opposition within the environmental lobby groups because they chop up
and fry birds and bats— including protected bald and golden eagles.
The brand new
report, Solar Power in the
U.S.
(SPUS), presents a comprehensive look at the impacts of solar power on the
nation’s consumers.
Clearly, without
the mandates and subsidies, this “solar energy disruption” would go dark.
We’ve seen
companies, such as Solyndra, Abound Solar, and Evergreen Solar, go bankrupt
even with millions of dollars in state and federal (taxpayer) assistance. I’ve written extensively on these stories and that of Abengoa—which received the largest federal loan guarantee
($2.8 billion) and has resorted to questionable business practices to keep the
doors open (Abengoa is currently under investigation from several federal
agencies).
SPUS shows that
without the subsidies and mandates these renewable projects can’t survive. For
example, in Australia, sales of solar systems “fell as soon as the incentives
were cut back.” Since the Australian government announced that it was
reconsidering its Renewable Energy Targets, “investments have started to dry
up.”
Knowing the
importance of the “incentives,” the solar industry has now become a major
campaign donor, providing political pressure and money to candidates, who will
bring on more mandates, subsidies, and tax credits. Those candidates are
generally Democrats, as one of the key differences between the two parties is
that Democrats tend to support government involvement. By contrast, Republicans
lean toward limited government and the free market. The GOP doesn’t “disdain”
solar, but they know it only survives because of government mandates that
require a certain percentage of renewables, and specifically solar, in the
energy mix, plus the subsidies and tax credits that make it attractive.
Therefore, they can’t get excited about the jobs being created as a result of
taxpayers’ involuntary investment, nor higher energy costs. There is a big
difference between disdaining solar power and disdaining the government
involvement that gives it an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
The blog post
compares the “solar energy disruption” to what “occurred when direcTV and Dish
started to compete with cable television. More choices emerged and a whole lot
of new jobs were created.” However, those jobs were created through private
investment and the free market—a fact that, along with solar’s dependence on
incentives, he never mentions. Likewise, the jobs supported by building the
Keystone pipeline would be through private funding.
The blog’s author
touts this claim, from the book Clean Disruption: “Should solar continue
on its exponential trajectory, the energy infrastructure will be 100 percent
solar by 2030”—15 years from now. Even if state and federal governments were to
continue to pour money into solar energy—which, as is pointed out in SPUS,
subsidies are already being dialed back on a variety of fronts, there is no
currently available solution to solar’s intermittency.
SPUS draws upon the
example of Germany, which has led the way globally in solar and other
renewables. Over time the high renewable penetration has contributed to
residential electricity prices more than doubling. Renewables received favored
status, called “priority dispatch,” which means that, when renewable
electricity becomes available, the utilities must dispatch it first, thereby
changing the merit order for thermal plants. Now many modern natural gas-fueled
plants, as well as coal, couldn’t operate profitably. As a result, many were
shut down, while several plants were provided “capacity payments” by the
government (a double subsidy) in order to stay online as back-up—which
maintains system stability. In Germany’s push for 80 percent renewable energy
by 2050, it has found that despite the high penetration of renewables, given
their inherent intermittency, a large amount of redundancy of coal- and
natural-gas-fueled electricity (nuclear being decommissioned) is necessary to
maintain the reliability of the grid.
As the German
experience makes clear, without a major technological breakthrough to store
electricity generated through solar systems, “100 percent solar by 2030” is
just one more fantasy.
The blog post ends
with this: “the GOP congressional leadership ignores these new jobs inside an
innovative, disruptive energy sector that is about to sweep across the country
it leads—in favor of a vanishingly small number of mythical Keystone ‘jobs’
that may never materialize. It makes you wonder. Why?”
The answers can be
found in SPUS, which addresses the policy, regulatory, and consumer protection
issues that have manifested themselves through the rapid rise of solar power
and deals with many more elements than covered here. It concludes: “Solar is an
important part of our energy future, but there must be forethought, taking into
account future costs, jobs, energy reliability and the overall energy
infrastructure already in place. This technology must come online with the
needs of the taxpayer, consumer and ratepayer in mind instead of giving the
solar industry priority.”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive
director for Energy Makes
America Great Inc. and the companion educational
organization, the Citizens’ Alliance
for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio
program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly
column.
No comments:
Post a Comment