Ratcheting up renewable energy requirement will cost jobs, not create them

When the global warming alarmists set a goal for the amount of renewable energy Nevada must produce and the state successfully achieves that goal, it is not a sign of success. It is a sure sign the goal — gosh darn it — just wasn’t high enough.

For eight straight years NV Energy has met the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that ratchets up each year until it reaches 25 percent for 2025. It is currently 20 percent.

A sign of success?

No. According to Sean Gallagher, vice president of state affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association, that just means the goal was too low.

Solar panels

“NV Energy’s announcement demonstrates its commitment to expanding utility scale solar energy. Reaching their goal also makes clear that it’s time for Nevada to raise its Renewable Portfolio Standard to the next level, providing companies the certainty they need to invest, which will bring even more solar jobs to the state. Nevada residents will have their say on the ballot in November, and we strongly encourage them to vote to raise the state goal to 50 percent renewable energy by 2030,” Gallagher is quoted as saying in a press release.

To that end a group calling itself Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future is pushing a ballot initiative that would increase the RPS 50 percent by 2030. They have until the second week in June to collect 110,000 signatures to get it on the ballot in November.

Supporters talk about how many renewable energy jobs will be created.

But a study commissioned by Nevada Policy Research Institute and conducted by Beacon Hill Institute of Suffolk University found the current RPS is already costing Nevada jobs. Imagine what a doubling will do?

The report is titled RPS: A Recipe for Economic Decline. Using a range of estimates from low to high, Beacon Hill estimates the current RPS could cost Nevada between 590 and 3,070 jobs by 2025. This is because power bills would increase from less than 2 percent to nearly 11 percent due to the RPS.

While the residential power user’s bill might increase anywhere between $20 and $130 a year, an industrial ratepayer could expect power bills to increase from nearly $7,000 to more than $47,000 a year.

“One could justify the higher electricity costs if the environmental benefits — in terms of reduced greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other emissions — outweighed the costs,” Beacon Hill reports. “However, it is unclear that the use of renewable energy resources — especially wind and solar — significantly reduces GHG emissions. Due to their intermittency, wind and solar require significant conventional backup power sources that are cycled up and down to accommodate the variability in the production of wind and solar power. A 2010 study found that wind power actually increases pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

“Thus, there appear to be few, if any, benefits to implementing RPS policies based on heavy uses of wind.”

But never let the facts get in the way of a global warming alarmist.


16 comments on “Ratcheting up renewable energy requirement will cost jobs, not create them

  1. Anonymous says:

    “A 2010 study found that wind power actually increases pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” I tried the link, but it led nowhere. Can you direct me to the source?

  2. Steve says:

    Google has a really powerful search engine.
    If you use it you might find that link is old and the company was sold. You might also find several associated articles you can “debunk” to your heart’s content.

    But, don’t take my word for it…..use any search engine you like….after all, they all lead back to Google.


  3. Anonymous says:


    “The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a nonprofit “partner” organization of the American Energy Alliance, which is a 501(c)(4) grassroots organization designed to communicate IER’s policies to voters. The groups are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. He also worked for former strident anti-environmentalist members of Congress Tom Delay and Rich Pombo. Pyle regularly attends the mega-donor summits organized by the Koch brothers.

    In 2016, the Charles Koch Foundation contributed a total of $173,380.

    In 2015, the Charles Koch Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute contributed a combined total of $97,495 to IER.

    IER was founded in 1989 from a predecessor nonprofit organization registered by Charles Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr. The American Energy Alliance was founded by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute to fight the BTU tax proposal in 1993, and in recent years has been funded by Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries.

    One of IER’s directors is Steven Hayward with the American Enterprise Institute and the Pacific Research Institute. In 2007, Hayward was exposed for offering to pay scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change $10,000 for written critiques of the IPCC’s newest findings.”

    Wasn’t me that questioned the link originally but the new one sure is questionable.

  4. Steve says:

    Shouldn’t you be critiquing the content rather than attacking the source?

    Oh…wait a minute. That goes totally against Patrick’s thought structure….in his world, no one is allowed to have their own opinion. Let alone have it supported by others with money.

    Better tell PBS to cancel NOVA!


  5. Rincon says:

    If a source is garbage, then the presenter of said source has failed to adequately support his or her argument. An unsupported argument is an opinion and nothing more. I’m never persuaded just because someone else has an opinion differing from my own.

  6. Rincon says:

    Easy enough to neutralize Thomas’ assertion by playing his own game. Here are a bunch of sources asserting that greenhouse gases reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions:

    Click to access Wind-climate-fact-sheet-low-res.pdf

    Opinions are like butts. Everyone has one, but not all are equal. .We’ve been through this with electric vehicles. It was garbage then and it’s garbage now. In this country, we all pick a team and root for it regardless of truth. Show me a study from Princeton and I might believe it. Show me one from the Heartland Institute and I give it the same respect as I do a study by Greenpeace. Only a zealot would do otherwise.

  7. Steve says:

    You are trying to have it both ways, babe.

  8. Rincon says:

    OK, let me simplify. Since one can find a source to say just about any ridiculous thing, it’s nonsense to critique content if the source of that content is dubious.

  9. Steve says:

    Total BS, Rincon.
    Once one knows the bias of the source it is totally possible to filter it out and ascertain the veracity of the content and even locate the source of the original facts.
    Once you that has be fleshed out, the bias allowed for, conclusions reached can be fully understood for what they are.

    As long as we seek to allow only one side or the other in our material and eliminate all from sources we simply reject out of hand as too biased to ever contain any useful input, not only will we be forever locked in opposition, outside forces will find it easier to divide us.

  10. Steve says:

    “Once you that has be fleshed out” ??? Yikes!

    Once that has been fleshed out…..

  11. Rincon says:

    You ignored the numerous sources that disagree with Thomas’ contention. Who’s right? Or do you think truth is negotiable?

  12. Steve says:

    I ignored what?
    I didn’t even comment on any of them.

    I was clear that attacking the source is ignoring it.

    No one is doing anything other than throwing links and fighting about bias.

    Try reading the source and discussing its factual basis instead of calling it biased and untrustworthy without giving it so much as a cursory glance, huh?

  13. Rincon says:

    As I said, we went through this with electric cars and, as usual, the Conservative propaganda machine was found to be pumping out its usual bull cookies. As a society, we’ve gone through this with lead poisoning, DDT, tobacco, global warming, and much more.

    I clearly remember reading all kinds of carp from Conservative sources railing about supposed deficiencies in our temperature measuring acumen (I still see it occasionally from the wacko fringe), claiming that the earth wasn’t really warming. Even a mere 7 or 8 years ago, Thomas found some wackos claiming that global warming was over, quoting them despite their miserable track record and obvious bias. I dutifully countered this garbage and was proven correct. When those claims fell to the wayside (without any of the perpetrators ever admitting they were wrong) due to the obvious melting of glaciers, warming of both icecaps, rising ocean waters, etc., the next fallback is that the warming is from natural sources. While busily carping (as they had earlier about temperature measurements) about imaginary deficiencies in the science backing the anthropogenic argument, they completely fail to provide an alternative explanation and casually dismiss the fact that the temperatures we see today were predicted with reasonable (actually amazing) accuracy 30-35 years ago by scientists who were putting their careers on the line. When the Conservatives in this country are finally driven to admitting that natural causes are unlikely, the next fallback is to claim that adapting is cheaper than preventing as if it was a choice of one or the other, which in itself is illogical. Another 20 years or so will fly by as more damage begins to accrue. Reversal of the stupidity of the last 30 years or the next 20 is not possible. Conservatives have succeeded in making our bed and having all of us lie in it.

    So yes, when Conservatives trot out the same tired, biased, and inaccurate sources, I tire of fighting imaginary science. Just as you might not spend a whole lot of time debating the merits of some fringe statement by Greenpeace, I prefer not to play these silly games. You are welcome to your imaginary science. I prefer the real thing. Anyone who seriously believes these thoroughly impeached sources cannot be reached, just like Greenpeace wackos.

  14. Steve says:

    Rincon, wow, just wow.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s