Each turbine will be as much as 487 feet high with a blade diameter of 192 feet. The company claims this project will employ 20 people during the construction phase and result in four permanent jobs.

 According to the company website, “Torch Renewable Energy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Torch Energy Advisors Incorporated (“TEAI”), a diversified energy company with 27 years of experience developing, acquiring, and operating over $10 billion of oil and gas properties, gas pipelines and processing facilities, oil and gas services businesses, and renewable energy projects.”

 The website of TEAI provides little detail about their projects. Rather, they seem to be a vehicle for venture capitalists and other investors. TEAI says, “Torch Energy Advisors, Inc. (TEAI) maintains or manages the interests of third parties’ interests in a variety of oil and gas producing properties, natural gas pipelines and hydrocarbon treating and processing facilities.”

 The proposed location of the Red Horse 2 Wind Farm seems to be well away from habitation. That is good because there is some evidence that low-frequency vibrations from wind farms cause illness, dubbed wind turbine syndrome, which includes sleep problems, irritability, and depression: see “Health Hazards of Wind Turbines.”

 According to the Willcox Range News, Torch plans initial construction to begin in the 4^th quarter of this year with turbine installation in the 2^nd quarter of 2014, all contingent on the outcome of bird and bat studies. Wind turbines tend to chop up birds and bats. This is of some concern since the Willcox Playa Wildlife Area hosts hundreds of species of birds during the winter migration.

 This article originally appeared in the Arizona Daily Independent.

See also:

Wind turbines versus wildlife

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/04/10/wind-turbine-farm-proposed-for-willcox-area/feed/ 2 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/04/05/the-economic-impact-of-arizonas-renewable-energy-mandate/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/04/05/the-economic-impact-of-arizonas-renewable-energy-mandate/#comments Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:59:58 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1770 In a recent, rather befuddled, guest opinion in the Arizona Daily Star, solar energy advocate Terry Finefrock urges the Arizona Corporation Commission to compel our electric utilities to install more solar energy generation. Finefrock starts his article with this sentence: “I challenge the Arizona Corporation Commission to fairly evaluate all electricity-generation technologies and act to actually reduce ratepayer and taxpayer costs.” I agree with that sentence. Ironically, Finefrock’s call for mandating more solar energy will have the opposite effect.

The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, MA., has been studying the probable impact of renewable energy standards and tariffs (REST) on a state-by-state basis. This month they published their analysis of Arizona’s renewable energy mandate. You can read the entire report here.

They calculate low, medium, and high estimated impacts. Among their findings are:

The current REST rule will raise the cost of electricity by $389 million for the state’s electricity consumers in 2025, within a range of $239 million and $626 million.

The REST mandate will cost Arizona’s electricity consumers $1.383 billion from 2013 to 2025, within a range of $857 million and $2.221 billion.

Arizona’s electricity prices will rise by 6 percent by 2025, within a range of 3.7 percent and 9.7 percent.

These increased energy prices will hurt Arizona’s households and businesses and, in turn, inflict harm on the state economy. In 2025, the REST would:

Lower employment by 2,500 jobs, within a range of 1,500 jobs and 4,100 jobs.

Reduce real disposable income by $334 million, within a range of $202 million and $543 million.

Decrease investment in the state by $38 million, within a range of $23 million and $61 million.

Increase the average household electricity bill by $128 per year; commercial businesses by an average of $686 per year; and industrial businesses by an average of $28,600 per year.

See also:

Petition to Arizona legislature – Dump Renewable Energy MandatesThat post gives six main reasons why we should dump Arizona’s renewable energy mandate. Among those reason are that renewable energy such as solar and wind are much more expensive and very unreliable and the unreliability puts the stability of the electric grid in danger.

The proposed tower, essentially a hollow cylinder, is planned to be 2,250 feet tall, 1,200 feet wide at the top, and 1,500 feet wide at the bottom. This project is described by David Ferris in Forbes here with an update here. It is claimed that such a structure could generate 610 megawatt-hours of electricity, of which about 100 MWh would power the plant.

The technology is based on work done in Israel in the mid-1970s (see Wikipedia article here). The tower is supposed to work as follows: Water is sprayed into the air at the top of the tower. This causes the air to cool and drop down the tower at up to 50 mph. It exits the tower by passing through turbines which produce electricity. You can see a more detailed explanation and a short video at the website of Solar Wind Energy here.

According to the Forbes article, one tower will cost $1 billion, plus another $100 million to pipe water from the Sea of Cortez. There will also be additional costs to build a desalinization plant. Neither the Forbes articles nor the company website provide an estimate of the amount of water required.

Forbes reports that Solar Wind Energy is negotiating with the Bureau of Land Management to lease 1,700 acres of desert land near San Luis. The company hopes to have the plant built by 2018. Forbesnotes that the “project does seem farfetched, and the company’s stock is trading at a penny a share, down from a high of 32 cents two years ago.”

In the Forbes update, reporter David Ferris finally gets some answers from Solar Wind Energy president Ron W. Pickett; here is part of that article:

Where would the money come from?

Pickett said the company wouldn’t need to generate much of its own capital because it would license the technology to a project developer. The company is in talks with “a very credible, notable development company noted for its energy accomplishments,” Pickett said.

Has a scale model been built?

I was astonished to hear that the biggest physical scale model the company (or anyone else) has built is “about four feet tall,” Pickett said with a chuckle. “There’s nothing unknown, and no unknown algorithms, in this system,” he added. The company is confident in its computer-aided design models, and plans to move directly from four feet tall to 2,250 feet tall — the tallest structure ever built in North America.

I agree with Ferris: the project seems farfetched.

The project hinges on Mexico granting permission to build a pipeline across environmentally sensitive land of the Colorado River delta. This area is also an earthquake hot spot (see Arizona earthquakes, 1852-2011, a video time line), so the tower and pipeline would have to be constructed to withstand the seismic activity.

Remember these schemes?

Solar Updraft Towers, an alternate, alternative energy source

Two 2500-foot solar towers to be built in Arizona

REST requires that electric utilities generate an ever increasing amount of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar. The mandated goal is to reach a total of 15% renewable generation by the year 2025. The commissioners wanted “to capitalize on Arizona’s sunshine and other ‘green energy’ opportunities” according to an ACC press release. Currently, Arizona produces about 7% of its electricity from renewable resources but that figure counts the 6% from hydroelectric generation. We currently get less than 1% from so-called green energy sources. The integrity of our electrical grid will be in danger when 15% of our electricity is generated by unreliable sources such as wind and solar.

In addition to utility-owned projects, REST requires the utilities to produce a growing percentage of the total electricity from “distributed generation,” i.e., residential or non-utility owned installations. That means, for instance, solar panels on your roof or on the roof of your business or on shopping malls. The distributed energy requirement started at 5% of the total portfolio in 2007 and grew to 30% of the total renewable mix this year. We all pay for the subsidies associated with this requirement.

The rationale for REST is essentially political correctness embraced by some gullible Corporation Commissioners. The stated rationale is two -fold.

First, the commissioners want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But in the entire U.S., only about 1% of electricity is generated by burning petroleum. In Arizona, petroleum generates less than 0.1% of our electricity. Besides, America has abundant domestic sources of petroleum if only the feds would let us exploit it.

The other rationale is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and thus forestall dread global warming.

Six reasons why we should lay REST to rest:

1. Electricity generated from renewable sources is much more expensive than conventional generation. That expense is reflected in higher electricity bills. For instance, my bill from Tucson Electric Power itemizes an expense for “Renewable Energy Standard Tariff” and another charge for “DSM Surcharge.” (DSM is demand side management, more on that later). In 2011, TEP raised about $35 million from these charges. The ACC estimates that from 2010 to 2025, the surcharges for electricity from REST will cost consumers $1.2 billion more than they would have paid for conventional energy sources.

The cost of being politically correct is essentially a regressive tax which will cause low income households to shoulder a greater burden than higher income households because the energy costs make up a larger portion of their budget.

2. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, unpredictable, and unreliable. Increased generation from unreliable sources will make our electric grid more susceptible to blackouts and brownouts. Solar and wind generation typically produce at only about 20% of rated generation capacity. Tucson Electric Power operates one of the largest solar PV arrays in the United States, a 5-MW system. But during five years of operation it has produced at only 19% of it rated capacity. Even in Arizona, clouds cause rapid fluctuation in the array’s power output.

3. Because generation from renewable energy sources is intermittent and unpredictable, these sources require backup generation which is usually by burning fossil fuels. Because the time and duration for backup generation need is unpredictable, the fossil-fuel fired backup generators cannot be run efficiently. Experience in Europe shows that backup generators actually use more fuel and produce more carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants such as sulfur dioxide than they normally would if they were run efficiently for primary generation.

A new report from the European Nuclear Energy Agency analyzed the effects erratic intermittent source generation on the electric grid: The report considers “six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies – coal, gas and nuclear – have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar. The costs for renewables vary depending on the country, technology and penetration levels, with higher system costs for greater penetration of renewables.”

4. Use of renewable energy will not impact climate. By using data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, NOAA, and the IPCC, it is possible to estimate the temperature impact of carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, if we stopped all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.08ºC by 2050. If Arizona stopped all carbon dioxide emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.0015ºC by 2050. Will you notice? (Data from Science & Public Policy Institute report “Analysis of US and State-by-State Carbon Dioxide Emissions & Potential ‘Savings’ in Future Global Temperature & Global Sea Level Rise“

Besides, the increasing emissions from other countries such as China will completely wipe out any imagined savings from REST.

5. Wind turbines cause health problems due to low frequency vibrations. (See here)

In the United Kingdom a new study “claims thousands of people are falling sick because they live near” wind farms. Wind turbine syndrome is alleged to cause dizziness; increased blood pressure, sleeplessness, and depression among other things. All due to low-frequency vibrations. In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr. Carl Phillips, one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists, concluded that there is “overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.”

6. Political philosophy: Who is in charge of public policy, state legislators as representatives of the people, or the Arizona Corporation Commission?

Rationing electricity:

Above, I mentioned DSM – demand side management. The REST program requires electric utilities reduce the amount they produce, i.e., ration electricity. “Arizona’s public utilities will be required to achieve annual energy savings of at least 22%, measured in kWh, by 2020, with the savings to increase incrementally as a percent of retail energy sales in each prior calendar year to reach that goal.” ( ACC Source).

One of the ways to achieve DSM is through use of the so-called “smart grid” and “smart meters.” Smart meters placed on your house or business will allow the electric company to monitor and control your electricity use via radio-controlled commands to your meter. If you use too much air-conditioning, for instance, the electric company will be able to turn it off.

Because these systems are radio controlled they are vulnerable to mischief by hackers who may decide to turn off the A/C in a shopping mall or neighborhood.

Renewable energy is not as green as advertized.

For example, many PV solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. A major environmental cost of photovoltaic solar energy is toxic chemical pollution (arsenic, gallium, and cadmium) and energy consumption associated with the large-scale manufacture of photovoltaic panels.

A Cato report found that the materials required for thermal-solar projects were 1,000 times greater than for a similarly sized fossil-fuel facility, creating substantial incremental energy consumption and industrial pollution.

A wind farm uses about 85 times the area required by a gas-fired plant, about 10 to 80 acres per megawatt capacity. Solar requires about 10 acres per megawatt, still much larger than fossil fuel plants. This large footprint may impact wildlife.

Besides chopping up birds, a study from M.I.T. says wind turbines cause a rise in local temperatures of up to 1.8ºF because the turbines disrupt local air flow that can transport heat away from the land surface.

Conclusion:

My argument here is not against any use of renewable energy because there may be circumstances where such use is appropriate. My argument is against government mandated use which raises our electricity rates unnecessarily, distorts the market, and makes our electric grid less reliable.

Renewable energy mandates are bad for ratepayers, bad for the environment, and even bad for the state’s economy because of the increased electrical costs on business and the expense of government subsidies required by the mandate. The mandate fails to accomplish the stated rationale and is essentially just a politically correct eco-fad (with a little crony capitalism thrown in) that increases our electricity costs but provides no benefit. When the new Arizona legislature convenes in January, tell them to lay REST to rest. Dump the mandates.

UPDATE:

There is a new paper from the University of Delaware that claims “Renewable energy could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 percent of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses…” The claim is based on computer modeling: garbage in, garbage out. Anthony Watts injects some reality to this nonsense: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/10/a-lol-press-release-on-renewable-energy-from-wishful-thinkers-at-the-university-of-delaware/#more-75558

UPDATE 2: Privacy concerns with smart meters, from National Geographic.
In theory, the information collected by smart meters could reveal how many people live in a home, their daily routines, changes in those routines, what types of electronic equipment are in the home, and other details. “It’s not hard to imagine a divorce lawyer subpoenaing this information, an insurance company interpreting the data in a way that allows it to penalize customers, or criminals intercepting the information to plan a burglary.

UPDATE 3: An executive of a solar company argues against mandates and subsidies for renewable energy. Read the whole article here.

“In reality, it [solar] is hopelessly inefficient from an economic sense to be a fix for our CO2 concerns.” “Subsidies are much worse that just wasteful, they’re diabolical. They lull us into thinking we have almost solved the problem and they hinder us from seeking the real solutions.”

Page’s prediction is based on observation of the geologic record. He notes that there has been no net warming since 1997 even thought carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has risen 8.5%. Page says that atmospheric temperature is driven by sea surface temperature (SST) which is, itself, solar driven. The oceanic oscillations control the general climate. There is good correlation between solar cycles and SST, but note that because of the enthalpy and thermal inertia of the oceans, there is a 10 – 12 year lag between solar cycle troughs and global SSTs. This lag time definitely establishes cause and effect similar to the lag in carbon dioxide changes following temperature changes in the major glacial cycles as shown in ice cores The graph below shows the variations in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the major oceanic oscillation (the red line is actual measurement, the blue line is predictive modeling.) (Graph source here.)

Page says than in the figure “an approximate 60 year cycle is obvious by inspection and this coincides well with the 30 year +/- positive (warm) and 30year +/- negative (cold) phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” The graph “shows warming from about 1910 to 1940-45, cooling from then to about 1975, warming to about 2003-5 and cooling since then. Total warming during the 20th century was about 0.8 degrees C.” He also says that it is clear that we are entering the beginning of a 30-year cool phase of the PDO.

Page goes on to say:

“The major ice age climate cycles are controlled by the sun – earth orbital eccentricity, and the earth’s obliquity and precession. These cycles are approximately 100,000, 41,000 and 21,000 years in length respectively and are well documented in the ice core and geological record. It is useful to keep in mind that the warmest temperatures in the current interglacial occurred about 7500+/- years ago and the general trend is now a cooling towards the next ice age.”

“These long term cycles are modulated by quasi cyclic trends in solar activity which may be decadal, centennial, or millennial in length. Of particular interest in deciding where we are with regard to the solar cycles is the approximately 1000 +/- year cycle which produced successively the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the recent 20th century warming.”

These cycles are shown in the 2,000-year temperature reconstruction below (the white line is the smoothed curve):

Page says that “A reasonable case can be made that the warming peaks of a 60 year PDO cycle and the 1000 year solar cycle coincided at 2000 +/- and we are likely on the cooling slope of both.”

For a broader view, the graph below shows a temperature reconstruction for the past 11,000 years:

In his conclusion, Page says “Often the signal for a climate direction change is a see-saw effect between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is still reflecting the peak in the warming trend with low summer ice values. The first indication of a cooling event is however the increase in Antarctic sea ice which has already occurred.” (See my post: The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw)

Page is not alone is his prediction. Two years ago I reported that NASA was also predicting a cooling period based on the same natural parameters. (See NASA Says Earth Is Entering A Cooling Period).

If this predicted cooling trend comes to pass, it will show, once again, that the forces of natural variation easily overcome the weak warming effect of carbon dioxide. And, by the way, if indeed the predicted cooling trend proceeds, atmospheric carbon dioxide will decrease because a cooler ocean can absorb more carbon dioxide.

This phase shift has some policy implications. It shows that curbing carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels is unnecessary and perhaps contraindicated. If you believe that such emissions do have a significant effect on global temperature, we should continue and perhaps even increase emissions to forestall or lessen the effect of the cooling trend lest we find ourselves in another “little ice age.”

A study published earlier this year asked: “Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?” The answer is “not much.”

Richard York of the University of Oregon studied the use of alternative energy in 130 countries to assess the contribution of various forms of non-fossil fuels. The study showed “that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity.”

Nuclear and hydro generation were the best of the alternatives to fossil fuels. Each kilowatt-hour (kwh) of nuclear generation of electricity displaced about 0.2 kwh of fossil fuel generation; hydro displaced about 0.1 kwh. Wind and solar generation did not displace any fossil fuel generation.

There are two reasons for that last result. First, wind and solar generation, while increasing, still represent a very small part of the generation capacity compared to consumption. But the main reason for lack of impact of solar and wind generation is that they are unreliable, intermittent sources that require backup generation, and that is usually by fossil fuels. Furthermore, because the fossil fuel backup generation must be on-call, it cannot run efficiently and therefore it actually uses more fuel than it would had it been the primary source. And incidentally, the backup generation also produces more carbon dioxide emissions than it would have had it been run efficiently as primary generation.

York concludes: “These results challenge conventional thinking in that they indicate that suppressing the use of fossil fuel will require changes other than simply technical ones such as expanding non-fossil-fuel energy production.”

See also:

The scale problem for solar and wind generation of electricity

Renewable energy mandates raise electricity costs

Renewables receive bulk of tax preference subsidies

Electricity generated by wind power may raise temperatures and costs

Wind farms raise local and regional temperatures

Blowing in the Wind, a look at green jobs

EIA says Clean Energy program will increase electricity costs 29%

Robert Bryce, writing in Energy Tribune, takes out his calculator to see how much land would be used to achieve the green utopia (see his full article here).

The International Energy Agency expects the increase in demand for new electrical generation to be 450 terawatt-hours per year, which was the average annual increase every year from 1985 to 2011 (1 terawatt = 1 million megawatts).

How much solar energy would be needed to meet that demand? Bryce notes, “Germany has more installed solar-energy capacity that any other country, with some 25,000 megawatts of installed photovoltaic panels. In 2011, those panels produced 18 terawatt-hours of electricity. Just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand, the world would have to install about 25 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s total installed base, and it would have to do so every year.” Where are we going to put all those panels? Apparently Germany has had enough with their solar experiment and are now building 23 new coal-fired plants.

For wind, the problem is even greater. For instance, Bryce notes that by the end of 2011, the U.S. had 47,000 megawatts of installed wind-energy capacity which produced about 120 terawatt-hours of electricity. “Thus, just to keep pace with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy, we would have to install about 3.75 times the current installed wind capacity in the U.S. every year.”

So how much land would be required for wind generation to meet the annual increase in demand? Bryce says that “The power density of wind energy is roughly two watts per square meter or about five megawatts per square mile. Therefore, just to keep up with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy alone, the global wind industry will need to cover a land area of some 35,000 square miles — about the size of Indiana — with wind turbines. And it will have to do so every year.”

Will those 35,000 square miles be carved out of natural habitat every year? Fossil fuel and nuclear plant generation have a much smaller footprint.

In the U.S., as the Department of the Interior designates more and more land suitable for solar, environmental groups have howled about the potential destruction of habitat for animals such as the desert tortoise.

As more and more wind farms are established, people are realizing the costs, not just for electricity, but for health and habitat as well as the scenery. Bryce reports that in Europe alone, there are now more than 500 anti-wind groups.

See:

Health Hazards of Wind Turbines

Windsmills are killing our birds

Wind Turbines Spread While Bats Take Beating

Bats, Birds, and Blades

Wind farms raise local and regional temperatures

It’s “all of the above” except for the re-imposed moratorium on off-shore drilling which locks up 85% of the potential for gas and oil discovery and production. The Congressional Research Service released a new report comparing President Obama’s offshore drilling lease plan for 2012-2017 with previous plans offered over the last 30 years by prior Administrations. The 15 proposed lease sales in President Obama’s new plan represent the lowest number of lease sales ever offered in a plan since the process began in 1980. The Obama Administration has also delayed and cancelled several lease sales – conducting only 11 out of the 21 originally scheduled sales in the previous 2007-2012 lease plan.

It’s “all of the above” except that Obama’s EPA has promulgated stifling regulations against electricity production, especially for coal generation.

It’s “all of the above” except Obama’s Secretary of the Interior has withdrawn about one million acres in Arizona from uranium exploration and development, ignoring the lack of scientific evidence that such activities could pose potential harm to the Colorado River drainage system.

(See Uranium mining ban near Grand Canyon all politics, no science )

The Institute for Energy Research has assessed Obama’s energy policy as follows:

There has been a shift in energy policy over the past four years that aims to move our country into a “greener” future. This new energy policy includes an increase in subsidies for alternative energy sources such as solar, biofuel and wind power as well as stricter regulations on affordable sources like coal, oil and natural gas. After four years, has this shift in policy left American consumers with a better energy landscape? Are Americans really better off now than they were in 2008?

The answer is no. The government’s alternative energy subsidies have wasted taxpayer money, while new regulations continue to stifle affordable energy development. States like North Dakota — where most of the land is privately-owned and not under federal control — have been able to develop their vast energy resources despite these new policies, and have been thriving as a result. As a whole, however, the U.S. economy is hindered by this “green” energy agenda. At the end of the day, these policies hurt the American people through higher prices for essential energy needs like electricity and gasoline.

See also:

The Cost of green energy

Renewables receive bulk of tax preference subsidies

The myth of green jobs

Blowing in the Wind, a look at green jobs

In California:

The California Manufacturers and Technology Association released a new report that suggests costs associated with California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) may be a lot higher than previously estimated.

The new study estimates “that the average California family will pay an additional $2,500 annually by 2020 when AB 32 is fully implemented. In addition, the state is expected to lose an additional 262,000 jobs, 5.6 percent of the gross state product, and a whopping $7.4 billion through decreased annual state and local tax revenues as a result.” See more here.

In Germany:

From Spiegal Online: “Solar subsidies cost German consumers billions of dollars a year and are widely regarded as inefficient. Even environmentalists are concerned that Berlin’s focus on solar comes at the detriment of other renewables. But the solar industry has a powerful lobby, and politicians have proven powerless to resist.”

“Next year, a three-person family will likely have to pay up to an additional €175 ($220) to finance the construction of renewable energy infrastructure.”

“A new study by Georg Erdmann, professor of energy systems at Berlin’s Technical University…[estimates that] subsidies for renewable energy, including an expansion of the power grid, will saddle energy consumers with costs well over €300 billion ($377 billion)” between now and 2030.

“Photovoltaics are threatening to become the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy. Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country’s power supply, and only erratically at that.” See more of the story here.

As Kermit once said, “It isn’t easy being green.”

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/13/the-cost-of-green-energy/feed/ 1 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/05/23/tucson-solar-project-not-a-good-deal-for-taxpayers/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/05/23/tucson-solar-project-not-a-good-deal-for-taxpayers/#comments Wed, 23 May 2012 14:52:50 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1354 Two years ago the City of Tucson began installing solar systems on City properties. Now those installations are ready to produce electricity. The City touted the project as saving money in electricity costs and generating revenue. On its face that would seem to be a good deal, but the details leave questions.

The project was financed by selling $11.2 million worth of “Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.” According to City Energy Manager Douglas Crockett, these bonds carry an annual interest rate of 1.97%. That means taxpayers will have to pay $220,640 in interest each year for a total of $5,516,000 in interest over the 25-year project life. Since those bonds will eventually have to be paid back, total cost the taxpayers (or ratepayers) is therefore $16,716,000.

The City estimates electricity cost savings of $3.9 million over the life of the project. They also claim the project will produce $6.2 million in revenue over the next 25 years. Savings plus revenue to the City total $10.1 million, but the taxpayer cost is $16,710,000 (interest plus principal). It appears that taxpayers would have been better off had the project not been built. If my perception of this project is in error, I would like a detailed explanation by the City explaining why the project is good for taxpayers.

This project seems to me to be another simple-minded, politically correct ploy to appear “sustainable” much like the $196 million the City is spending to build their 3.9-mile long, 19^th century concept, “modern street car.”