Editorial: Nevada should reject 50 percent renewable energy

Are Nevada voters and lawmakers falling for a scam?

In an article titled “Solar Power to Hit the Wall in Nevada” in “American Thinker” this past week, retired engineer Norman Rogers says we are.

In November, Nevada voters approved by nearly 60 percent a constitutional amendment that would require 50 percent of the electricity consumed in the state to come from renewable energy sources by 2030. This past legislative session lawmakers passed a law requiring the same thing and Gov. Steve Sisolak promptly signed it.

“Solar power and wind power are loved by the left, but have the serious problem of erratic delivery of power,” Rogers writes. “Wind dominates solar except in places with poor wind and good sunshine, such as Nevada, where I live. In states where a lot of solar has been installed, such as California and Nevada, solar is running into a wall that is related to the time delivery of solar power versus when the electrical grid’s need for power.”

Currently, according to Rogers, about 10 percent of Nevada’s electricity comes from solar, 10 percent from geothermal and the rest from natural gas and imports from other states.

Rogers explains that solar installations are approximately 70 percent subsidized by government. As a consequence, solar power that really costs $70 to $80 per megawatt-hour, can sell for as little as $25 to $30 per megawatt-hour due to the subsidies. If a battery system is added, the energy cost is likely to balloon to $80 or $90 per megawatt-hour. Natural gas power costs about $20 per megawatt-hour, according to Rogers.

Though the self-styled environmentalists demand more green energy many are balking at this project, saying it is too large, too close to wilderness and would damage wildlife and the environment.

A 2013 study by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, which was commissioned by the Nevada Policy Research Institute, estimated the current Nevada renewables requirement of 25 percent by 2025 could cost Nevada between 590 and 3,070 jobs by 2025. This is because power bills would increase from somewhere around 2 percent to nearly 11 percent. 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 — costs that would be passed on to consumers. Imagine what doubling the renewables would do.

Rogers also notes that solar power is an expensive way to reduce carbon dioxide, costing about $140 per metric ton. The Obama administration estimated the social cost of carbon to be only $50 per metric ton.

On his website NevadaSolarScam.com, Rogers writes, “Solar energy works fine for remote cabins and weather stations in the mountains. For supplying the massive needs of modern society, it is quite useless – a scam. Solar is expensive. It can’t be counted to perform when it is needed. Solar stops when a cloud goes in front of the sun. It goes to sleep every night. In sunbaked Las Vegas, demand for electricity peaks on summer evenings, just as solar is putting on its pajamas.”

Rogers concluded his “Thinker” article by writing, “The bottom line is that solar is not a good method of supplying electricity and it is not a good method for reducing CO2 emissions. It keeps going because the promoters constantly lie and spread propaganda. They often brag about cheap solar purchase contracts without mentioning the huge subsidies and the state mandates that force utilities to buy solar (and wind).”

When that constitutional amendment again appears on the ballot next year, Nevada voters should wise up and reject it, sending a message to lawmakers to repeal the 50 percent renewable requirement before it costs a lot of jobs and money.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

5 comments on “Editorial: Nevada should reject 50 percent renewable energy

  1. HighflyinBrien says:

    Amen! Spot on Mr. Mitchell…if we wait for the skyrocketing electric bills to arrive, it will be too late.

  2. Anonymous says:

    You also “forgot” that wind causes cancer.

  3. Steve says:

    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    Should this thing survive the next vote, ss Nevada approaches the 50% requirement, a whole slew of previously nonrenewable energy sources will suddenly be found to be renewable, bet me?

  4. Rincon says:

    Forbes disagrees: “The price to build new wind and solar has fallen below the cost of running existing coal-fired power plants.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#65b9976631f3

    Nevertheless, this definitely an arguable proposition. What really galls me though, is that instead of advocating measures that actually save money while reducing CO2, Conservatives merely bash any talk of progress whatsoever. A partial list of these cost saving measures: Retrofitting HVAC systems and insulation, driving hybrid vehicles, producing electricity from landfill gas, waste recycling, clinker substitution by fly ash, 1st generation biofuels, better tillage and residue management, etc, etc.

    And of course, while Conservatives fret about our electric bills, which, in my case, come to less than 1% of my income (meaning that your 2-11% increase in prices would eat up perhaps 0.1% or maybe even (my God!) 0.2% of Nevadan income), they’re busy defending the assets of three richest men in America who have a greater net worth than the entire bottom half of our population – 160 million people. https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/jul/19/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-bill-gates-jeff-bezos-warren-buffet/

    They do this so that their children can enjoy the costs of a warming planet as well as the costs of paying off our debt – “In 2018, the gross federal debt amounted to around 65,600 U.S. dollars per capita.” https://www.google.com/search?ei=h0QZXb3TJNPstQbR2qfYBg&q=national+debt+per+citizen&oq=national+debt+per+citizen&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l6.3277.9977..10432…1.0..0.259.2483.17j7j1……0….1..gws-wiz…..10..35i39j0i131j0i67j0i131i67j0i20i263.mpKVFomFTj0
    And you all cheer as the Trump Administration adds more than Obama to that debt, during good times!
    Our children are likely to have a lower standard of living than ours. We have also allowed this country to deteriorate to near third world status in many ways, such as say, infant mortality and adult lifespan, all while paying the exorbitant expenses of what is by far the most expensive health care system in the world, which you defend to the hilt. Be sure to whip out your little American flag on the Fourth to show your kids how patriotic you are. Leaving them this mess will build character!

  5. Rincon says:

    Just the latest in the propaganda campaign perpetrated by those nasty scientists:

    “…since the early 2000s, as the planet has warmed, the jet stream has been behaving strangely. Jet stream winds, which naturally undulate, have become even more gnarled, and the big wavy patterns sometimes slow to a crawl, or even completely stall.

    “The winds are actually slowing down, and it’s a very wiggly snake now,” Masters said.

    A sluggish jet stream is cause for concern. When it slows or gets stuck, high- or low-pressure weather systems that correspond to the jet stream’s ridges and troughs intensify, stretching out rainy episodes, heat waves or droughts for days — or even weeks — at a time. Studies suggest that climate change is driving these new patterns, which means extreme temperatures could be more common in the future.”

    “Unusual jet stream behavior has been recorded every three to five years since 2000 — in 2003, 2006, 2010, 2015 and 2018 — turning what scientists initially thought could be an isolated abnormality into what appears to be a pattern.” https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/strange-wavy-jet-stream-blasting-europe-heat-scientists-say-could-ncna1024826

    A coincidence, to be sure, since Thomas has assured us that the Earth is no longer warming, even though the scientists say it still is.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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