California's Crazy Energy Policy

Recently, a California District Court of Appeals upheld the State's controversial cap-and-trade program.  A program that is clearly intended to reduce green house gases for electricity production.  Yet, the State keeps approving the building of new power plants, while at the same time, promoting rooftop solar for private homes.   The irony of approving conventional power plants is that the State plans to have half of its electricity production from renewable energy by 2030.

But, here's the real craziness.  California already has too much power.  In fact, in March of last year, solar farms were shutdown because too much power was being put on the electrical grid.  It was electrical overload and it is more than likely to happen again and again.  A study by the L.A. Times found that California will have 21% more power than it needs by 2020.

For a state that is so energy conscious, it would love to single handedly save the planet from global warming, it sure has a strange way of going about it.

References:

California's cap-and-trade program survives a legal battle in a win for Gov. Jerry Brown and environmentalists: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-cap-trade-decision-20170406-story.html

What Will California Do With Too Much Solar? https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/04/04/what-will-california-do-with-too-much-solar/

Californians are paying billions for power they don't need: http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/ 

Cap-And-Trade Costs California Businesses $1 billion: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/26/cap-and-trade-costs-california-businesses-1-billion/ 

Obama's Latest "Green" Legacy: Destruction of Wilderness Areas.

For decades, Democrats and environmentalists have blocked and drilled for oil and gas in the almost humanly uninhabitable and so-called pristine land known as the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  The fear was that any drilling would disrupt fragile wildlife in the area.  In 2015, President Obama finalized a ban on all drilling in the "Refuge" by expanding the span of land covered by the ban to 12 million acres.

But, this concern over preserving wildlife appears to be gone to the wind (literally) because Obama has  now finalized plans to allow wind farms and solar power plants on millions of  acres of federal land in our Western states.  Already, 60 renewable projects are approved to begin before he leaves office.

The problem with wind and solar is that they, themselves are killers of wildlife.  Birds, by the thousands, die each year by either being burned to death at solar collection farms; or hacked to death in the blades of wind turbines.  Worse, is that many of the birds being killed are protected raptors such as the Bald Eagle.  Additionally,  the abnormal ground vibrations and noise from wind turbines have caused still births and birth defects in animals who either live or are confined near these operations.

Some environmentalists are now seeing the light that "green" energy is not nearly as "green" as they would like.  But, their silence all these years has now resulted in massive wind and solar projects on  once-protected lands.  This is thanks to Obama trying to cement a legacy with the climate change people.  The fact is, that drilling for oil and gas has far fewer deadly affects on wildlife than wind and solar.  I suppose we'll just have to chalk up the lives of the wildlife being killed by these technologies as a small (?) price to pay for saving the planet.  Anyway, those dead creatures can't vote, so what the hell!  Let's just do it and save the planet anyway!

Lastly, here are the Federal regulations for killing a Bald Eagle:

The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment.

Maybe this should be applied to Barack Obama for being "repeatedly" complicit in the killing of these majestic birds!

References:

Arctic Refuge drilling controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

Obama finalizes plans to ban oil and gas drilling in ‘undisturbed’ Alaskan refuge: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/4/obama-finalizes-plans-ban-oil-and-gas-drilling-bea/

BLM sprints to cement Obama's green legacy: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060044896

Windfarms and birth defects: https://wcfn.org/2014/03/31/windfarms-vertebrates-and-reproduction/

Bird deaths at Calif. power plant a PR nightmare for industry: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011853

License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/

Save the Eagles International: US wind farms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought: Contrary to what we are being told, wind farms will cause the extinction of many bird and bat species: http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html

Greens Concerned Vast Federal Land Clearances for Renewable Energy Projects Might Harm Nature: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/29/greens-concerned-vast-federal-land-clearances-for-renewable-projects-might-harm-nature/

Federal-lands rule pits green groups against wind, solar firms: Renewable energy firms have been flocking to sites on federal lands. Now pricing by the Bureau of Land Management is about to change toward competitive bidding similar to the system for oil and gas companies: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1027/Federal-lands-rule-pits-green-groups-against-wind-solar-firms

Federal Laws to Protect Bald Eagles - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html
 
pb

Another Renewable Power Disaster

On September 15th, I wrote about how unreliable and uncontrolled wind and solar was putting our electrical grids at risk.  The focus of that blog was on a near meltdown of the power grid that occurred earlier this year due to the overproduction of solar power in Germany.

Well, we have yet another example of the impact of unreliable renewable power.  This time in South Australia, where the problem was wildly fluctuating winds on September 28, that resulted in the complete shutdown of wind power and the triggering of a blackout:

Simply, the quick and wild fluctuations in wind energy could not be managed with the insertion of conventional power, and the result was a blackout.  In fact, because the winds were so strong, the turbines actually shut themselves down to keep from ripping themselves apart.

Of course, the Energy Minister of Australia -- a liberal politician and advocate of renewable power -- refuses to believe that the lack of wind power had anything to do with the resulting massive blackout, and therefore, Australia should continue to pursue its aggressive wind and solar plans.  Really?

References:

Roof-Top Solar Is Putting Our Electrical Grid at Risk: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2016/09/roof-top-solar-is-putting-our.html

Renewables 'not to blame' for South Australia blackout, but energy debate rages: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewables-not-to-blame-for-south-australia-blackout-but-energy-debate-rages-20161002-grt4lo.html

Source of above chart: South Australia’s blackout apparently ‘triggered by the violent fluctuations from the Snowtown wind farms’: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/01/south-australias-blackout-apparently-triggered-by-the-violent-fluctuations-from-the-snowtown-wind-farms/

SA power outage: How did it happen?: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/sa-power-outage-explainer/7886090

pb

Happy Earth Day! China Dumps Wind...Japan Builds Coal Plants!

Once again, the environmental activists around the world got their Earth Day on April 22.  Speeches were given. Trees were planted. But, this year, something special happened.  175 nations signed the Paris Climate Agreement on that day.... So, ah yes, the earth will be saved.

The only problem with the so called non-binding Paris Climate Agreement is that it is already being "unbound" by both China and Japan in massive ways.

China -- the world's largest polluter with CO2 making up nearly a third of the world's carbon emissions and the world's leader in wind power -- has recently decided to pull the plug on wind power expansion.  The reason?  Too much of the power is wasted and wind variability is causing damage to the electrical grid because of surging.  So, we have to assume that China -- who already brings a new coal fired plant online every 7 to 10 days -- will have to step that rate up in order meet its rapidly growing demand for electricity.

Japan, too, is bringing 43 new coal plants online because, following the Fukushima
accident, it is shutting down its nuclear plants and replacing them with coal.  Apparently, wind and solar were not an option.  Probably for economic reasons.

In my opinion, Japan and China are demonstrating how flawed the push towards renewable sources of energy is.  In the U.S., we have an Ivanpah solar power plant in California which -- at a cost of $2.2 billion -- is a failure.  Unable, to produce the promised amount of power, it may actually be shutdown if more tax breaks and tax money aren't poured into it.

Simply, neither wind nor solar are sustainable, consistent, and reliable sources of energy.  And, the world's dependence on fossil fuels will never go away.  Earth Day or not.

References:

175 countries sign Paris Climate Agreement: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/175-countries-sign-paris-climate-agreement/article8512480.ece

World's Largest Polluters: https://www.google.com/search?q=world+largest+polluter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

China is a world leader in wind power generation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China

China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted: http://www.headlines-news.com/2016/03/30/1045288/china-stops-building-wind-turbines-because-most-of-the-energy-is-wasted

As U.S. Shutters Coal Plants, China and Japan are Building Them: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/ 

Could California’s massive Ivanpah solar power plant be forced to go dark?: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/could-californias-massive-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-be-forced-to-go-dark-2016-03-16 

Why All of Us Are Paying For Your Neighbor's Solar Power

Even if you have a solar power system of your own, you will also be paying for your neighbor's as well.  And, the more systems that are installed, the more you will pay.

As much as 30% of the cost is offset by using tax dollars in the form of rebates, tax credits, and other incentives. With actual installed costs being between $15,000 and $29,000, the buyers of solar get taxpayer-supported subsidies of as much as $4,500 to $8,700; certainly making the upfront cost a lot more palatable. 

But, it doesn't just stop with your dollars.

Every time a personal solar power system is installed, the local commercial power company loses some revenue.  However, that company cannot reduce any costs other than fuel because they still have to provide power to that house for those times when the sun doesn't shine.  So, simply, you have a formula for rate increases.  It's a problem similar to the electric car.  Electric cars use the same road that all of us use but pay no gasoline taxes towards the building or maintenance of those roads.

Now, to the big kahuna of why your paying for your neighbor's solar: Net Metering. In 44 states, net metering means that the public utility must buy back any excess power production from a solar installation at, usually, retail pricing. And, retail includes all the costs to upgrade and maintain the electrical grid and engineer and bill for it.  Costs that the residential solar customer doesn't incur.  Thus, some public utilities must raise prices to cover operational costs that have been lost to net metering.  However, now with the advent of smart meters, the utilities are in the position to measure how much excess energy they are paying for and are better positioned to only pay wholesale for it; a fact that has greatly increased the breakeven point that the customer would see when making a decision to buy solar.

The reality is that solar is not cost effective and in order to make it cost effective, every non-solar customer is paying heavily.  This is especially true for the poor, who in no way, could afford to shell out thousands of dollars for a solar power system; even if their home was large enough and strong enough to support it.


References:

Federal, state and local solar tax credits and rebates: http://www.solarcity.com/residential/solar-energy-tax-credits-rebates

Cost of Solar Power:  http://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease/cost-of-solar

Nevada could lose 6,000 jobs without net-metering cap hike: http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/nevada-could-lose-6000-jobs-without-net-metering-cap-hike

The Myth That Wind and Solar Will Replace 80% Of Our Energy

In his 2011 State of the Union speech, President Obama said this "By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources."  As a result of that comment, many people, mostly liberals, claim that wind and solar could replace most of our current power production.  But believing Obama's comment, reveals an infantile understanding of the capabilities of these two technologies.

Most people see a wind turbine's blades revolving and they think its producing power.

Not so.  Wind turbines will start turning at about 4 mph but won't start producing power until they reach what is called the cut-in speed of 7 to 9 mph; and, they don't reach maximum power or its rated power until the wind reaches around 25 mph.  From, that point forward, the turbine blades are actually feathered to insure a constant power production without damaging the turbine itself.  At winds of 55 mph or above, it shuts itself down by completely feathering its blades in order to keep itself from literally self-destructing.  Typically, the average wind turbine resumes power production after several minutes of wind speed below 45 mph.  As a result of all of these conditions, the average turbine only produces power 40% of the time in any given year. Not, exactly a clean source of energy that is capable of providing 80% of this nation's electricity.

Then, there's those clean energy solar panels.

Most people wrongly assume that a solar panel will generate power throughout the day and as long as the sun is shining, but, like wind, that is a wrong assumption. As a practical matter, solar panels, on average, only produce 5 hours of power a day. A solar panel not only needs the sun to shine but the sun's radiance must be at a minimum angle to the panel in order to produce electricity.  In the winter months, when sun is low in the sky, solar panels produce less power.  In the summer with sun high in the sky, solar panels hit maximum output as long as the sun's rays are as close to 90 degrees of the panels as possible.  However, like wind power, 5 hours of 24 hours is only an average of 21% power production in a day.  Also, consider this. Solar power's peak production is at a time when most people are at work or school.  On top of that, peak demand for electrical usage usually occurs after 5 PM and lasts through the evening until people go to bed; at times when solar panels aren't producing power. 

These two technologies are nowhere near providing 80% of our nation's energy needs and they are costing each of us a lot of money.

First, wind and solar are both subsidized by both federal and state tax breaks or by direct federal and state funding.  In other words, the taxpayer is paying for all or some of the cost for your neighbor to go green.  Without tax incentives, I doubt most people would install either of these two systems, because of the cost.

The average person also gets hit in the pocketbook when paying for their electricity usage. By law, in 44 states, the electric utility must buy any excess power produced by a private wind or solar system at the retail price that they are charging for electricity in that local area.  But, paying solar users retail for their excess power is sheer madness.  An electrical utility's retail price is not on;y based on the simple cost of producing electricity, but also the expense of maintaining the power facilities and the electrical grid; including bringing power to a person's house when their solar power doesn't produce squat. Thus, every time a utility must pay someone for their excess solar power, the utility is losing the money it needs to maintain the electrical system in that area.  As result, the utility has no other choice but to raise rates higher than they would otherwise. With that in mind, think about this hypothetical. Assume that half of all power in a given area is excess solar power.  If that should happen, every dollar that an electric utility receives from its non-solar customers would have to be handed over to the solar power producers.  How, then, would a utility even stay in business?

The plain and simple fact is that wind and solar will never be able to cost effectively replace fossil fuel electricity production because for every watt of solar or wind power, an additional 79% of fossil fuel power will be needed to cover the 19 hours a day when wind and solar are unavailable.  Ultimately costs will skyrocket by relying on two unreliable forms of power.

References:

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama called for a goal, "By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources." ^{[13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Obama_administration}

 Wind Power FAQ's: https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-technology.php

Solar & Wind Energy Calculations: The (very) Basics: http://www.solar-estimate.org/?page=solar-calculations

Peak Electricity Demand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_demand

The Hole in the Rooftop Solar-Panel Craze: https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Hole+in+the+Rooftop+Solar-Panel+Craze&oq=The+Hole+in+the+Rooftop+Solar-Panel+Craze&aqs=chrome..69i57.63j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

U.S. electricity prices may be going up for good: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-prices-20140426-story.html#page=1 

Obama and the Left's Misuse of the Term 'Tax Loopholes'

Starting with his presidential run in 2008, and for the last 7 years, President Obama has been talking about closing tax loopholes for businesses.  However, his use of the word "loopholes" is incorrect.  What he should be referring to is "tax incentives" that corporations get for certain business activities. Using the word loopholes makes tax breaks and incentives sound nefarious or even criminal.  The reality is that most of the "loopholes" that the President is talking about are legal tax breaks that the IRS or Congress ruled on as incentives for jobs, or to provide our corporations with international competitiveness.

The biggest tax incentives (or, in his vernacular, loopholes) that the President wants to eliminate are those for buying and operating corporate jets. Along with high CEO salaries, they gall him more than anything else because they are a symbol of wealth. I'm sure he feels that corporate jets shouldn't exist because it's unfair that the average person can't have one too.

Today, if a corporation buys a jet, the cost enjoys accelerated depreciation for tax purposes, of just 5 years under the law.  That's 2 years shorter than the depreciation on commercial jet liners.  Thus, in just 5 years a company can offset nearly all of the cost of buying a jet -- less inflation -- by lowering its taxes.  There is nothing abnormal about this. Corporations have always been allowed to depreciate "high ticket" capital expense items such as replacement roofs, buildings, phone systems, cars, trucks, manufacturing equipment, etc.  At the same time, the operation of a jet and all associated costs are deductible as business expenses in the same way office supplies are deductible under the law, again to lower the tax burden.  Now, to be fair, the use of a corporate jet did have a "tax loophole" in that the corporation could also deduct the cost of using the jet for non-business entertainment uses, but that was identified in 2007 and was finally closed in 2012 by the IRS.

The primary reason that the corporate jet tax breaks exist is to keep over 1.2 million jobs intact.  That's how many workers are directly or indirectly employed in making them and their parts; flying them as pilots and co-pilots; maintaining and servicing them; and, working in the airports they use throughout the country.

Similar tax incentives that Obama believes are loopholes are those that allow oil drillers to depreciate drilling equipment, trucks, and cars.  The expense of drilling the well is also deductible. However, in this case, it is not about fairness but global warming.  Anything he can do to slow down oil exploration and raise the price of oil is his main objective but, like corporate jets, slowing down oil exploration and production will only cost Americans their jobs.  Something we can ill afford in an already slow economy.

Make no mistake about it. Obama has created his own "loopholes".  He has created tax deductions for buying electric cars and solar and wind power systems that only benefit the rich who can afford to buy them.

I think that  -- instead of attacking loopholes that create jobs -- President Obama should think about all the policies that he has implemented that retard job growth.

References:

2015 State of the Union Address:  Obama attacks 'loopholes' for wealthy, business: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-attacks-loopholes-for-wealthy-business/article/2559008

New Dogfight Between Obama and Private Jet Industry: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100439712

Obama budget would slash oil tax breaks while boosting renewables: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/02/02/obama-budget-would-slash-oil-tax-breaks-while-boosting-renewables/

 IRS Lays Out New Rules on Corporate Jet Use: https://www.google.com/search?q=IRS+Lays+Out+New+Rules+on+Corporate+Jet+Use+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Under Obama:  Recovery Has Created Far More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/business/economy/recovery-has-created-far-more-low-wage-jobs-than-better-paid-ones.html

The Browning of Green Technology

While Obama seems to want to double and triple-down on failed and expensive green technologies, the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction.  All across Europe, because of serious debt problems, slowing economies and revenues, and an effort to avoid bankruptcies, governments are considering austerity plans that don't include subsidized wind and solar energy expansion.  Instead, these governments are focusing in on absolutely essential activities.

The same is true in China.  But, China is much different than Europe, in that China's economy is in good health.  So, why not continue government-subsidized wind and solar?  Well, China is no dummy.  They can see that the world is jumping off the solar and wind bandwagon.  They know that one of Spain's biggest reasons for being on the brink of bankruptcy was its push to be the world leader in wind power. The Chinese government knows that the best thing it can do is provide cheap energy for its people and its growing businesses.  After all, it was cheap energy that made the United States such an economic powerhouse.  So, now, that country is investing in oil, nuclear, hydro-electric, and natural gas.

Without government-support, green technologies are doomed.  Green is non-competitive and too expensive  to stand on its lonesome when going up against the cheapness of coal, natural gas, and gasoline in producing energy. Increasingly, the climate science that was supposed to drive "green" is being found to be greatly flawed.

The news articles in support of the above opinion are as follows:

• Time.com: "Will Austerity Derail Europe's Clean-Energy Movement?"
• The Daily Caller.com: "China slows solar, wind expansion undermining White House green PR strategy"