 The Sarasota Herald-Tribune does a wonderful job of giving its readers one side of the story in their editorial, "Going solar in DeSoto".
In fairness we will give you the other side of the story on solar power. It is not pretty.
First, why did Florida Power and Light (FPL) agree to build this solar plant in DeSoto County? FPL has long maintained that Florida was not a good place for large-scale wind and solar projects, but in the past year, as Crist and the public pushed for more green energy, FPL responded with plans for Florida.
According to John Dorschner from the Miami Herald, "Taxpayers are likely to help pay for the project. Most expect Congress to renew the solar tax credit of 30 percent -- meaning that FPL would get to shave about $200 million off its taxes." So Governor Crist and "the public" want it and taxpayers will subsidize this exercise in futility. Government using my tax dollars to fund a solar plant that makes no sense in Florida and I will get no benefit from. Sound familiar?
Now let's compare solar power to natural gas, coal and nuclear. John points out in his article the following about energy plants:
Costs: Natural gas, the cleanest and most expensive fossil fuel, costs 9.4 cents a kilowatt-hour, according to the California Energy Commission. That nasty, dirty coal, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, is also the cheapest. An existing plant can produce electricity for 2.1 cents a kilowatt-hour, FPL regulatory filings say. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) states, "Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 1.76 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel."
Now, consider solar. In Germany, where solar is well developed, utilities are paying suppliers about 79 cents a kilowatt-hour to homeowners who have panels on their roofs. "The costs are driving us nuts," says Nate Blair of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Estimates vary from 21 to 39 cents a kilowatt-hour, depending on the [solar] technology used.
There are currently two solar technologies available. Photovoltaic and solar thermal.
According to the Miami Herald, "Experts at Carnegie Mellon and the California Energy Commission say that solar thermal might cost 18 to 29 cents a kilowatt-hour. In theory, heated water -- or oil or salts -- can be stored until the sun sets, then released to power turbines." However, FPL executive Eric Silagy says, "The technology does not exist in the world to economically store large amounts of electricity."
Even after adjusting for the benefits of producing carbon-free power, "the cost of solar [Photovoltaic] PV remains many times higher than the market valuation of the power it produces," says Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute.
In this country, the sun's rays are most powerful in the Arizona and California deserts. Florida gets about 15 percent less light than the Southwest, says the Florida Solar Energy Center. That means solar power will cost considerably more here than in the Southwest. Then solar has to be integrated into the main electric grid, since the sun doesn't shine all day -- adding more costs. "You need some backup power," says John Reilly, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology energy economist. "That redundancy is an expense."
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune at the end of their editorial tells the "big lie". They state there are, "intensifying concerns about climate change..." No there aren't!
The evidence based data showing the Earth’s failure to continue warming has confounded the promoters of man-made climate fear like the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. The American people have consistently rejected climate alarm as a Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 shows the American public’s concern about man-made global warming is unchanged from 1989.
So there you have it. Solar power costs more, is less reliable, must be backed up because the sun goes down, requires government subsidies to be economically feasible, consumers will pay much more for it, and people don't care about carbon emissions.
Sounds like a perfect fit for the liberal environmentalist Herald-Tribune and their allies.
We have said repeatedly that nothing should be off the table when it comes to generating cheap reliable power. We do, however, want to get the biggest bang for our buck. Clearly Florida is not the best place for solar power plants. The Arizona and the California deserts are.
Finally some good news. Seminole Electric Cooperative's plans for a new clean coal generating unit are back on track following an Appeals Court order directing the state to issue a needed permit. With this 750 megawatt class 3 plant we will have some real cheap and reliable power for Florida. This is a definite step in the right direction.
Trackback(0)
Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.  |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed