wind (page 8)

  • Post

    ‘Renewables are incapable of replacing hydrocarbons at scale’

    This isn’t news to Locker Room readers (some recent examples), but I’m glad to read this in The Hill this week from Kathleen Hartnett White. Here’s a brief snippet, with the understanding that there is plenty more where this comes from: Policymakers intent on imposing a…
    Jon Sanders, March 31, 2016
  • Post

    How lobbyists and economic impact studies trick you

    Jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs are good, right? The economy needs jobs. Now, let’s draw your attention to jobs right here in my industry. If you just give my industry a subsidy, or a special tax break not available to anyone else, especially not my competitors, then you can create jobs…
    Jon Sanders, February 29, 2016
  • Post

    Carbon-tax zealots concede: renewable energy may never compete

    Depend upon it: news stories, industry studies, and especially lobbyists’ materials all frame the success and future importance of solar in terms of government programs. Not consumer demand and certainly not lower rates. The same can be said for the other big nondispatchable energy source, wind. — Rights & Regulation…
    Jon Sanders, February 26, 2016
  • Post

    MIT Technology Review: ‘Suddenly, the Solar Boom Is Starting to Look like a Bubble’

    …it's well known that the renewable energy industry's business model is entirely based on and utterly dependent on capturing public subsidies. It's all about winning government goodies.—Yours truly, 8/28/15 You've probably heard this one. And if you have only a topical understanding of solar energy, you probably believe it. It takes a lot of lobbying and also a lot of media repetition and deliberate memory-holing to keep people thinking that solar is a viable, one-for-one replacement for traditional energy sources. See if this sounds familiar: Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute lamented the untimely scale-back of tax breaks for renewable energy, since the competitive viability of wind and solar technologies was "one to three years away." Was that in yesterday's News & Observer? Was it in this week's email blast to legislators by solar lobbyists? Was this at a recent university event? No. It was from thirty years ago. That is, 1986.
    Jon Sanders, February 15, 2016
  • Post

    Zero-emissions, efficient, dispatchable nuclear energy creating division among environmentalists

    If you’re an environmentalist terrified by the prospect of a temperature increase of a quarter-degree Fahrenheit by 2100 unless the whole world acts now (you know, America could cease doing everything and it’d still have no impact on the climate), and if you don’t mind tearing down some industries, hiking…
    Jon Sanders, February 8, 2016
  • Post

    When comparing net energy subsidies…

    As my colleague Roy Cordato explained in his 2013 Spotlight report on energy subsidies, the proper way to compare energy subsidies is not by looking at gross subsidies, but net subsidies. Why net subsidies are economically more relevant is because they “include not only the monetized value of policies that subsidize the relevant industries but also…
    Jon Sanders, January 27, 2016
  • Post

    ‘MythBusters’ could do a whole season on renewable energy malarkey

    Some takeaways from Dan Way’s Carolina Journal report yesterday: 1. Your facility can get all its electricity from traditional fuel sources and pretend they’re powered by renewable sources. (Media, environmentalists, corporate PR people, and especially renewable energy lobbyists love perpetuating that fiction.) The Duke customer could purchase as much as 100…
    Jon Sanders, January 27, 2016
  • Post

    Putting inconvenient facts down the memory hole — a local example

    In today's Carolina Journal, publisher Jon Ham decries "a disturbing trend among mainstream news outlets these days"—which is "putting inconvenient news or facts 'down the memory hole.'" Ham's examples come from national media. I will provide a local one, from the Fayetteville Observer. But first: What on earth would make news or facts inconvenient to a fact-based news organization? Do we feel compelled to describe opening a car hood as inconvenient to a mechanic? Or reading a book as inconvenient to a scholar?
    Jon Sanders, January 15, 2016