Don’t hold your breath waiting for your elected officials to realize ‘green’ energy is an economy killer

Nevada’s politicians — from Carson City to D.C. — are dead set on single-handedly saving the globe from warming, even though there are 1,200 new coal-fired power plants on the drawing board around the world and despite the fact there was been no appreciable global warming in nearly two decades.

Mighty noble. Mighty stupid.

In 1997 Nevada lawmakers passed the first renewable portfolio standard (RPS), since then it has been steadily increased until the law requires Nevadans to get 25 percent of our electricity from renewable resources by 2025. And the state’s senior senator and Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, thinks that’s too lenient.

Table from study of economic impact on Oregon due to its PRS, which is the save as Nevada's

Table from study of economic impact on Oregon due to its RPS, which is the same as Nevada’s

In this session of the Nevada Legislature there are eight separate bills addressing s0-called “green” energy and not a single one attempting to repeal the RPS, despite study after study showing that building renewable energy — especially wind and solar — generation has no impact on greenhouse gas emissions and may even make them worse because they are intermittent and must be backed up by idle fossil fuel generators.

A study by The Beacon Hill Institute in Boston and the Cascade Policy Institute in Portland, Ore., found that Oregon’s mandate for 25 percent of power from renewables by 2025, the same as Nevada’s, could increase power bills by somewhere between 14 and 34 percent and reduce the number of jobs in the state by between 10,000 and 25,000.

A study by the American Tradition Institute and the Rio Grande Foundation predicts that New Mexico’s 20 percent by 2020 RPS will increase that state’s power bills by somewhere between 6 percent and 32 percent, while destroying an average of 2,859 jobs — within a range of between 506 jobs under a low-cost scenario and 4,573 jobs under a high-cost scenario.

Using Energy Information Administration, Nevada Policy Research Institute calculated Nevada’s residential electricity rates have risen more than 5 percent per year since the first RPS was enacted. Prior to that power bills increased about 3 percent a year. If the current rate of increase continues, by my calculation, Nevadans will be paying 20 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2025 — nearly double the current rate of 11.3 cents per kWh.

“The expanded development of these resources will threaten the stability of the state’s electricity grid and raise electricity prices across the board,” the New Mexico study warned. “Moreover, the environmental benefits of wind power are a mirage due to the necessity of keeping backup power generation sources online and available to cycle-up when wind power is unavailable.

“RPS standards were put in place without taking into account long term and unintended consequences, and they carry demonstrably high costs with dubious benefits. Lawmakers should eliminate entirely or postpone them until they can debate all facets of the policy and make
informed decisions about how best to serve New Mexicans while being responsible environmental stewards.”

NPRI’s “Solutions 2013” book recommends: “Because of the renewable mandates,Nevadans are required to expend ever greater resources to obtain the same amount of energy. This is the very definition of economic inefficiency.

“Repeal of the RPS will lead to higher living standards and faster job growth.”

I think we’d all be much better off if our politicians chose an alternative method to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by simply holding their breaths until they turn green.

10 comments on “Don’t hold your breath waiting for your elected officials to realize ‘green’ energy is an economy killer

  1. Rincon says:

    We’re covering old ground here, Thomas, but I just want to point out the quality of your research to readers. A Google search of Beacon Hill Institute, Cascade Policy Center, American Tradition Institute, the Rio Grande Policy Center, and the Nevada Policy Institute reveal them all to be Neoconservative extremist groups. This is the equivalent of a Liberal quoting Greenpeace.

    I also warn readers not to swallow the “no appreciable global warming in nearly two decades” line. Not an absolute lie, but it distorts reality to the extreme. For the truth, see the real figures for the Earth’s temperature:

  2. Athos says:

    Wait a minute, Tom. All this green energy spending is making million$ for Harry’s little boy, Rory, isn’t it?

    And what’s good for Whorehouse Harry (THE CROOK) is good for the country!

    Rincon, when you leave to live in the cave, can I have your giant flat screen TV?

  3. The Australian: “THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend.”

  4. Athos says:

    Steve, we’ll all be Hobbits, living peacefully unaware, in our Hobbit holes!

  5. Athos says:

    If there ever was a reason to point out the complicit media, and how skewed they really are, look no further than the green job dreams vs reality truth. Not only do these jobs cost million$ to create, they add million$ to our energy bills, and why?

    Because man is so arrogant as to believe his actions cause global warming?

    No sir.

    It’s to perpetrate ANOTHER government – aided scam to profit our lords and ladies. Sir Algore, if you please. (and don’t forget Rory2010!)

    And then these Chicago thugs have the nerve to promote class envy (the rich! the filthy rich!)

  6. Rincon says:

    From Wikipedia re: The Australian:

    Mitchell (who is the Editor in Chief – R)has said that the editorial and op-ed pages of the newspaper are centre-right,[9] “comfortable with a mainstream Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd, just as it was quite comfortable with John Howard.”[2] According to other commentators, however, the newspaper “is generally conservative in tone and heavily oriented toward business; it has a range of columnists of varying political persuasions but mostly to the right.”[10] Its former editor Paul Kelly has stated that “The Australian has established itself in the marketplace as a newspaper that strongly supports economic libertarianism”.[11]

    Why is there never anything from the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Time, Wikipedia, Nature or Science? It’s always from some conservative publication. Unfortunately, just as I’m sure you have found too much questionable information in the mainstream media to trust them, I’ve found enough near-falsehood in the Conservative media that I do not trust them. The truth is in the graph.

  7. Athos says:

    You look to the graph, Rincon. I’ll look to the increase in Reid’s bank account and the decrease in my own!

    I do get the TV, right, old buddy?

  8. […] based an preliminary findings from sketchy data Nevada lawmakers are pushing eight different bills to encourage the use of “green” energy, Harry Reid is threatening the utility company […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s