Calm and collected, that's me.
I think perhaps I've settled down a bit since yesterday, and therefore can continue my thoughts on Nebraska wind energy development without fear of imminent cardiac arrest. Which is good, because there is plenty to comment on.
As I noted yesterday, Nebraska Public Power has announced it will generate 10% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020. This is quite possibly the weakest goal of any state that has a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), as these sorts of things are called. New York, for example, has a goal of 24% by 2013. And New York has less than a tenth of Nebraska's wind energy potential. So it's not hard to tell that Nebraska's public power districts are essentially falling down on the job.
Particularly infuriating is the litany of reasons trotted out by public power spokespeople to explain why Nebraska is so far behind in developing wind energy projects. Here's my favorite:
State officials have said a main reason is that federal incentives for wind energy have only been available to private companies.
Which means Nebraska Public Power districts don't qualify. Let's think about this for a while. The famously self-reliant state of Nebraska can't encourage wind energy because they don't qualify for federal subsidies? That's ridiculous, and moreover, I've never seen the public power districts going to Lincoln to ask the state legislature for tax incentives for wind energy. On the contrary, they've opposed wind all along. More important, why in the world are we ceding our authority over renewable energy development to Washington, DC? Isn't this the supposed reason we have public power, to allow the people to control their public power districts? Do we really have to go hat in hand and beg the feds to subsidize wind power in Nebraska? Pitiful.
And it's not like Nebraskans are opposed to wind power. A recent University of Nebraska poll found 89% of rural Nebraskans believe wind power should and will be an important part of our energy future. From the UNL press release:
Ninety-one percent agreed or strongly agreed that more should be done to develop such alternative energy sources as ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar.
"Rural Nebraskans think we ought to be trying everything. We ought to be blending everything together to come up with a reasonable package" to address energy needs, said Randy Cantrell, a rural sociologist with the university's Rural Initiative and Center for Applied Rural Innovation.
Twenty-eight states have a renewable portfolio standard, which requires electricity providers to obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a certain date. Four others have goals in place. Nebraska has neither.
"Nebraska's own Senator George Norris, who championed the Rural Electrification Act more than 80 years ago, would roll over in his grave at this, because we are not adapting," said agricultural economist Bruce Johnson.
"It's a total incongruity," he added. "Here's over 90 percent of rural Nebraskans saying we really need to move toward renewable energy and it's a safe bet that metro-Nebraskans feel the same way. But where are the elected leaders of the state who have hardly begun to move on this?"
One example of obvious, but so far unrealized, growth potential in alternative energy is wind.
"Given that Nebraska is ranked sixth nationally in wind-power potential, this state should be front and center on wind energy development, not just on ethanol production which has sort of fallen into Nebraska's lap," Johnson said.
I challenge anyone to find another issue that has such unanimous support across our state.
Moreover, wind can provide an enormous economic benefit, particularly to rural areas. A wind turbine factory in Pipestone, Minnesota (pop 4,000) employs 500 people and has an estimated $15 million payroll. They're having to bus workers in from Worthington. They are also running out of houses for the workers. I would put these things under the category "problems rural Nebraska wishes it had".
Really, I don't particularly care why Nebraska lags so far behind in wind energy development, though it does provide decent fodder for blog posts. I want to know how we're going to catch up. Unfortunately, the goal of 10% renewable energy and 430 megawatts of wind power over the next 12 years is an insult to those who care about the environment and the future of rural Nebraska.
Nebraska wind
You are poorly tuned into the issue. If New York adds more wind, their electric rates, which are among the five highest in the country, will go down. Nebraska is one of the five lowest in the country. Adding wind drives the rates up. Also many of your rural electric cooperatives and others in the Nebraska utilities (not NPPD) are adamently opposed to wind. Ask Gary Hedman at Southern Public Power. Totally against wind because it is not needed for generation and drives up the cost.
Fine out more before ranting and raving.
True, but...
Thanks for pointing out more utilities than NPPD are opposed to wind power. I used NPPD as a focus because of their recent renewable energy pronouncement; however, the other utilities in the state opposed to wind are just as incorrect as NPPD.
The assumption that lowest cost electricity generation is the "holy grail" of public power in Nebraska is one that has driven much of the aversion to wind power. However, such an attitude both ignores the larger social /economic/environmental concerns inherent in energy production and the historical realities of electricity in Nebraska.
Clearly current electrical rates in Nebraska do not take into account the true cost of greenhouse gas pollution, or the other various forms of pollutions associated with coal-fired power plants (though many efforts have been made to take some of those into account). Nor do the estimates of wind energy cost include the economic benefits of wind production through turbine construction and manufacturing jobs, etc. Also not included in cost calculations are the profits local school systems and governments can make off of wind power. Also important is the fact a "cap and trade" system is a virtual inevitability- and the power companies with substantial wind holdings will stand to make a great deal of money, probably recouping their entire investments to date. That investment to date is the key, though- they're in a position to make a great deal of money because they invested up front.
Perhaps most important, I believe the reason we have public power, instead of private, is to take into account these concerns, not to ensure cheap electricity. Public power, and particularly rural electric co-ops, were created to perform a social good- provide electricity to everyone, regardless of geography, income, etc. Low cost power is one part of that. However, many of our rural areas would still not be electrified if we entirely relied on private power. In fact, at one time many rural areas received a substantial government subsidy to rural electrification, because it was rightly perceived as a social good the private sector would not provide, due to lack of profitability. Wind power (not to mention broadband internet access) is much the same today.
I support wind because I support rural communities
Lowest Price?
Dan hit the nail on the head when he talked about what economists call "externalities". Externalities are costs that occur that do not get factored into the price of a product. Pollution is one of those costs and Dan covered that well. The companies selling power do not pay for the pollution to the environment but everyone else does collectively. You might argue that since everyone pays for those costs, they shouldn't be counted. That would be a good argument if there were no alternatives. There are alternatives. Wind power does not have those same costs. Since it doesn't, from an economic perspecitve, those costs should be counted when comparing wind energy to fossil fuels.
There are other costs that are becoming more apparent to the population at large. We have all paid more this last year when oil and fossil fuels spiked to record levels. Everytime there was a supply disruption due to rebels in Nigeria disrupting the oil supply from that country, we all paid for it at the pump. Our children will be paying for the wars in the Middle East that are fought to protect our supply of oil. Even Osama Bin Ladin's excuse of blowing up the trade centers was a cost. His reasoning was that if you can't fight capitalist imperialism over oil with a convential war, use terrorists. That cost, based largely on our own involvement in the middle east, fell squarely on the World Trade Center, the symbol of Capitalist Imperalism. Many people lost their lives because of these policies. Our national economy was affected to a large degree also. We have squandered our country's wealth on sustaining that system and we have done it on the backs of our children who will have to pay the bill because it was all financed, not paid for through taxes. How much better would it have been to spend money on sustainable energy here at home than to rely on an unsustainable resource that enriches the Bin Ladins of the world?
The problem we have is that we focus on lowest cost by not counting all the costs.
Wind energy, as long as God allows the sun to shine, does not have these costs. It will also leave money here in the U.S. and in our rural communities. That money has a multiplier effect. Each dollar spent in the U.S. goes around in the economy many times over as citizens spend their earnings here in the U.S. and not in the middle east. When it goes to the middle east, it supports all the things we are against as a society.
When the hurricanes of past seasons rode through the Gulf of Mexico, we saw the price of oil spike. We have another hurricane season now with Gustav and other potential hurricanes that threatens our oil and gas from those areas. How is the threat to our supplies of energy from the Gulf of Mexico any different than the argument that wind in Nebraska doesn't blow consistently?
It is time politicians started doing the math correctly. ALL COSTS should be factored in the decision of investments. We should not be held hostage to the conventional energy industry because they get to determine what costs to count and what costs do not count. That math is just too costly to the people of the United States, and in the world.
We need policy decisions that allow all of the costs of our energy to be counted, not one sided math that benefits the oil industry or any other industry.
Diversification is the key to stability. Wind energy from the plains can help provide that diversity. In the long run, it might be the least costly energy we have.
Tom
Post new comment