Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Germany's Example - April 30, 2010
Thank you for your article on Germany's example of a country where renewable energy is having an impact. I know it is hard for most Americans to understand why Germany, a country with relatively little high level renewable resources is so supportive of their development. Could it be that the Germans are more aware of the true costs of energy production and use?
We in America are still not factoring in the true cost of our energy. This is partly due to the special interest, large impact and control the energy industry has in our nation. We must ask the question -- why are our energy costs half of what other countries pay? Are we so pompous that we think we are just that much smarter than all other countries and have a monopoly on energy technologies? I think not!
Our energy industry was instrumental in our nation's growth but we must ask ourselves if we are going to let it become a large part of our nation's demise. The coal mine disaster in West Virginia and the crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have left a trail of death that seams to have already slipped from our memories. They both will have devastating long-term consequences on not only the local economies and communities, but on states and our entire nation.
With regard to our local, state, and national energy policy, we must ask ourselves "how is that short-term, profit-oriented, instant gratification mentality working for you?" The honest answer today is "not very well." We can not continue to rob from Peter to pay Paul today and saddle our children and grandchildren with a world full of problems. I suggest we factor in all of the costs of our energy use. I think the decision making ability on which energy resource to use must be placed back in the control of the consumer. Individual consumers will have less special interests influence on energy policy. If we do an honest evaluation we may come to the same conclusion as Germany -- we can no longer afford to be complacent regarding the issues surrounding our use of energy. It affects us socially, economically, politically, and environmentally. We must establish a new direction that leaves a legacy of good stewardship.
Ron Horstman
President
Common Sense Energy Solutions
RWH Ventures Inc
Letters from Readers - May 20, 2010
I am amazed by how many presumably intelligent and industry expert readers let their political perspectives cause them to deny clear scientific consensus regarding the contribution of man-caused greenhouse gases to climate change. (A recent poll shows that 78 percent of Wall Street Journal readers don't consider even the lengthy National Academy of Science report definitive). While the future impact of change is unknown and therefore the justified level of mitigation efforts remains debatable, the rhetoric on both sides makes pursuit of reasonable public policies difficult. We need a new energy system that is sustainable economically as well as ecologically, and good engineers and investment managers to develop it. At the risk of extending rather than resolving debate, I offer the following common-sense proposals.
1. Maximize efficiency programs. (Most are cost-effective, reducing demand growth facilitates later points).
2. Optimize renewables. (Weaker word since renewables must become cost-competitive without subsidies, including full cost of required storage, new "wide area" transmission and other enablers not currently available to offset intermittency).
3. Invest in new technologies. (Shift current fossil fuel subsidies to fund innovation in storage, new renewables (including vehicle fuels), carbon capture and sequestration, etc. Place a price on carbon based on "insurance value" of potential harms avoided).
4. Solve for the gap. (Despite those best efforts, reasonable forecasts show continued need for fossil fuels, nuclear and other imperfect sources so reflect costs of mitigating extraction, waste and other "externalities" to incent efficiency efforts).
Bill Blessing
The overwhelming consensus among the world's scientists is "global warming is real, and it is being substantially exacerbated by man." The fact that the scientific community is constantly examining and challenging its own findings doesn't mean it doesn't have some very basic agreements on facts. The NRC just came out with its latest assessment which only confirms the mass of evidence gathered daily. To think that the earth is impervious to man's processes is just naive.
Man has denuded all of the forests and grasslands throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, India, North America, most of South America, Spain, Portugal, southern France, etc. There is not a single U.S. state or country in the world that hasn't suffered from man's forestry and grazing practices -- often denuding to a point of no recovery. What's so tough to believe that we can't significantly alter the atmosphere and the climate? Efforts to live more sustainably are the result of recognizing and taking responsibility for man's misuse of land, water, air, flora and fauna. Not out of some esoteric, green hug, love of furry animals -- it is a cold, hard reality of our own survival as a species incredibly reliant on the balanced functioning of our environment -- including little slimy snails, bacteria, bees, and everything between.
What scientists cannot agree on -- the pace of warming, the possible results and timing, or the effects to be experienced. They do agree that they don't have enough knowledge and that the consequences at some point will be significant and life changing. To the extent that we can control our own destiny, it is our responsibility to do so. God forbid they just stop investigating because "we can't figure it out, so I guess we should just quit -- besides we may not like what we learn". It is not OK to discredit evidence out of a fear for change, rely on mystical interpretations, or have blind faith in myths and fantasy about man's "special" place in the world. He's just one more species on this planet who can disappear because he can't adjust to the environmental changes that he also affects.
Keith Thompson
Enron Made Suckers of the Media - May 28, 2010
This article makes me wonder even more about the claims of man-made global warming. The main stream media has made the theory into fact without doing their own research. How similar to the Enron scam. It is not an easy science to understand so we just believe. Didn't see very much in the main media about the emails that were hacked and what should be questioned.
If you talk to folks in the geological realm they know there have been large swings in the earth's temperature through the ages and that was before man was around. Any real investigative reporters out there?
Doug McMillan
You can expand your article to include politicians. When our elected officials obtain "star status," journalists (I am using that term very loosely) lose their objectivity and report the sensational rather than just the facts. Unfortunately the newspaper readership isn't discriminating enough to demand more. Enron certainly put together a very good spin department, but as you said, that would not have worked had the press been interested in getting and reporting the truth and they are just as guilty now in covering not only economic issues but the political arena as well.
Jim Johnson
The Enron reprint is very vital at this time in Michigan. In this state we have had two of the three proposed new up-to-date coal-fired power plant proposals shot down by state regulators due to lack of producing the information showing the need for more power as one of the main obstacles. The other is the cost to the consumers and I am sure there are other little quirks that were not mentioned. I my estimation even the thought that our Canadian-born Governor has hometown concerns for clean energy that would lower the contaminated clouds that are produced by coal plants.
Now I am all for clean energy. And there are many newer systems in power production with coal that can offer clean energy or cleaner energy than is now created by the existing older operating plants, which in turn would generate less air contamination than is now being produced. Also, when the need for power consumption is stressed with all those new hybrid electric vehicles on the roads it will take a longer time at that point to build the power producing plants.
Adding significantly to the determination is the fact that power needs will increase and the cost to build the plants in the future will definitely increase in the future. It seems to me that if we build plants at today's cost in preparation for future requirements we will be prepared for the future of electric vehicles and we will generate jobs that can help keep the economy moving ahead.
Maybe, the regulators were taken aback by the Enron crisis and are using that as the hidden quirk for not approving the new power plants.
Patrick Skiba
Your recap of the Enron situation is timely, as we have similar situations developing today with regard to renewable energy, and "smart grid". In the case of renewables, many people with certain philosophical or financial interests are deluging the media with claims that are false, misleading, or just innocent wishful thinking. Most reporters don't know the difference between a kilowatt and a kilowatt-hour, and don't understand that a gallon of ethanol has significantly less energy content than a gallon of gasoline, so their reporting typically is nothing more than a repetition of other people's claims as to the purported benefits of various technologies and resources. As a result we get absurd statements such as:
" "the X windfarm (or solar array, or whatever) can produce Y megawatts, enough to supply the electricity needs of Z thousand homes". This of course this is not true, since consumers will not curtail their power use during times when these intermittent, non-dispatchable resources are dead.
" "Joe Smith, president of XYZ renewables, says his proposed windfarm can produce electricity for 7 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is competitive with the local utility's rate of 9 cents." Nearly all reporters fall for this irrelevant comparison. It makes no sense to compare production (wholesale) costs to retail costs, which include many other necessary cost components associated with generating and delivering reliable electricity. The correct comparison would be against the utility's present cost of existing electricity supplies, which will be only about 40 - 50 percent of the retail rate.
Similarly, the smart grid advocates are feeding the public and reporters all types of claims as to the many and varied benefits that the "smart grid" will make possible, and the reporters are simply repeating these claims. Reporters rarely question whether the claimed "benefits" are likely to actually occur, whether they are desirable, and at what cost they would be achieved. It would seem obvious that critical questions are whether anyone actually wants any of the claimed "benefits", whether anyone is willing to pay for them, and to whom the benefits would actually accrue. Consumers can buy a normal dishwasher for $400; how many would want to spend an additional $100 for a "smart grid enabled" one that refuses to operate until the utility says it is convenient (profitable) for it to supply electricity, or until the wind is blowing with sufficient strength? In this example it is clear that the appliance manufacturers and sellers will make more money, and the utility may p! rofit, as may the electricity generators. However, it is the consumers who are paying for all this; have they received sufficient benefits by paying more and having someone else control their energy use pattern?
Just as President Eisenhower warned us in his farewell address of the dangers of allowing excessive influence from a "military-industrial complex" we must today be wary of the advocates of particular energy sources and control schemes. New technologies are "good" if their implementation results in improved outcomes. Before implementing costly new generation resources or "smart grid" schemes, we need to have agreement on what goals we are trying to accomplish, determine to what extent certain technologies can help achieve those goals, and evaluate whether the net cost is acceptable, both in terms of dollars and impairment of individual freedom. Thoughtful evaluation of today's proposed energy schemes is necessary if we are to avoid additional Enron situations.
Richard (Rick) Gonzalez, P.E.
Chief Engineer, Transmission Planning
Excel Engineering, Inc.
As one who lost money in Enron's dive to perdition (where it belongs), I have learned to not trust the media which set Enron up on a pedestal. The way the bulk of today's media currently manipulates the American public for political purposes is another symptom of this same disease.
Take, for example, the recent Gulf oil spill. President Bush would have been crucified for it in short order, as he was in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, but President Obama remains relatively unscathed in the midst of one of history's greatest environmental disasters. The abuse of Arizona's Governor for her state's recent rightful stand on the issue of "illegal" immigration is another stark example. Of course, the global warming hysteria rooted in a very shaky man-made climate change theory has turned into a witch's brew of conflicting opinions, sketchy data, and downright deceitfulness to the point that insanity has completely displaced reason and common sense (i.e. Cap-and-Trade legislation).
Regrettably "truth, justice, and the American way" are no longer revered terms in main stream America because of our country's profound loss of values stemming from its largely inept, unprincipled "leadership" in Washington DC; activist federal judges who maliciously strive to soil our Constitution rather than honor its clear, indisputable precepts; and the media's widespread penchant for sensationalism and what amounts to an irresponsible, radical-based agenda. To take this one step farther, the Nazi principle of "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth." seems to be one of the hallmarks of today's media and political arena. "Have you no honor?" is an appropriate question for their overall, ongoing egregious conduct!
Don Drumm
Are we surprised any more by their corruption and outright stupidity? The "media", with few exceptions, have become totally enthralled with glitz and glamour, and with promoting an agenda at odds with American values. The "guard dogs of Democracy" have been neutered by their associations with big names and "Hollywood".
As point of reference, substitute "Barack Obama" for references to Enron, and see if the principle points of the article are not sustained.
Norris Bettis
Respond to the editor.
