We’re Not Alone In Wondering About Hype Of A Green Energy Economy
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
According to a number of political leaders, from President Barack Obama to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, from U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Nevada Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, the boom of economic prosperity lies in Nevada cashing in on the green energy bonanza just waiting for windmills and solar panels to capture. We’ve been wondering about where this grand and massive influx of jobs and economic boosting green gold is going to come from. In past posts we’ve shared the actual economic studies that have been conducted on other country’s (primarily Spain) who have done what our elected leaders want done to us.
It’s always good to know that you’re not the only one thinking these types of thoughts and we took some great comfort in reading this piece, which also identified some of the same points of the hype not matching with the reality of what can be delivered.
Having witnessed some of the boom associated with alternative energy development in my home area of southwestern Minnesota. I have been aware of what can be realized by those who have the private property to locate windmills and receive payments for “renting” their “wind rights” to those who generate electrical power.
As a 20-plus year resident of Nevada, I also understand that my new “home state” isn’t what my old home state is. That 90 percent federal land thing makes for a whole different dynamic than the rolling hills of privately owned property around Lake Benton, MN. Royalty payments to the federal government have some trickle to local communities in Nevada’s rural areas, but nothing to match the private sector trickle up that occurs when you pay individual landowners for the use of small patches of their land and the wind that blows over that land.
Initial construction jobs will offer some opportunity for putting some unemployed construction workers back on payrolls, but once built, the operational phase of alternative energy facilities doesn’t require much labor.
What alternative energy facilities do require in order to be successful is much higher energy prices than what traditional, carbon-based sources would cost. Herein lies the reason for the heavy taxes associated with the Congressional efforts to install Cap-and-Trade. There is no shortage of government central planning a foot in this scheme, driving energy costs upward to make the higher costs of alternative energy appear to be acceptable and more price-competitive. Take away the tax credits for the alternative energy, forget about the incentives manipulated by government edict and see how many projects pencil.
In the meantime the negative consequences of forcing energy prices higher, through government created escalation, will be an even greater millstone around the neck of our already drowning productive sector.
In closing these thoughts it is important to point out that in spited of the negative tone, presented here, alternative energy does have merits and development should be pursued. Expanding the contribution that alternative energy can provide can be advanced without destroying the advantages we’ve benefited from through the use of traditional carbon-based energy sources. Cost-effective methods of producing and delivering reliable and affordable energy should not be rejected in exchange for the siren-call of green, politically-correct alternatives.
According to a number of political leaders, from President Barack Obama to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, from U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Nevada Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, the boom of economic prosperity lies in Nevada cashing in on the green energy bonanza just waiting for windmills and solar panels to capture. We’ve been wondering about where this grand and massive influx of jobs and economic boosting green gold is going to come from. In past posts we’ve shared the actual economic studies that have been conducted on other country’s (primarily Spain) who have done what our elected leaders want done to us.
It’s always good to know that you’re not the only one thinking these types of thoughts and we took some great comfort in reading this piece, which also identified some of the same points of the hype not matching with the reality of what can be delivered.
Having witnessed some of the boom associated with alternative energy development in my home area of southwestern Minnesota. I have been aware of what can be realized by those who have the private property to locate windmills and receive payments for “renting” their “wind rights” to those who generate electrical power.
As a 20-plus year resident of Nevada, I also understand that my new “home state” isn’t what my old home state is. That 90 percent federal land thing makes for a whole different dynamic than the rolling hills of privately owned property around Lake Benton, MN. Royalty payments to the federal government have some trickle to local communities in Nevada’s rural areas, but nothing to match the private sector trickle up that occurs when you pay individual landowners for the use of small patches of their land and the wind that blows over that land.
Initial construction jobs will offer some opportunity for putting some unemployed construction workers back on payrolls, but once built, the operational phase of alternative energy facilities doesn’t require much labor.
What alternative energy facilities do require in order to be successful is much higher energy prices than what traditional, carbon-based sources would cost. Herein lies the reason for the heavy taxes associated with the Congressional efforts to install Cap-and-Trade. There is no shortage of government central planning a foot in this scheme, driving energy costs upward to make the higher costs of alternative energy appear to be acceptable and more price-competitive. Take away the tax credits for the alternative energy, forget about the incentives manipulated by government edict and see how many projects pencil.
In the meantime the negative consequences of forcing energy prices higher, through government created escalation, will be an even greater millstone around the neck of our already drowning productive sector.
In closing these thoughts it is important to point out that in spited of the negative tone, presented here, alternative energy does have merits and development should be pursued. Expanding the contribution that alternative energy can provide can be advanced without destroying the advantages we’ve benefited from through the use of traditional carbon-based energy sources. Cost-effective methods of producing and delivering reliable and affordable energy should not be rejected in exchange for the siren-call of green, politically-correct alternatives.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/26/2009 10:04 AM 
Categories: Alternative Energy
Tags: Green Energy Hype Alternative Energy Cap-and-Trade
Categories: Alternative Energy
Tags: Green Energy Hype Alternative Energy Cap-and-Trade
Comments