Why wouldn’t people want renewable energy?
I have been reading a string of comments on an earlier letter online and am having a hard time understand the resistance there is to renewable energy by some members of our community.
One writer says renewable energy is only 28 percent efficient and to wait until it is closer to 100 percent. How efficient was the Ford Model A? The first oil refinery? The list goes on.
Meanwhile, 99 percent of Costa Rica’s electricity is from renewal energy. In Nicaragua, it’s 54 percent, Scotland 97 percent in household electricity and Uruguay 95 percent. Many of the large countries of the world are getting increasing amounts of electrical energy from renewable sources and finding it cost effective.
Benicia does have a unique problem. Valero through its taxes contributes around 20 percent of the city’s annual budget. To lose this source of taxes would be a major problem for the city. Valero is a profit driven company– this is not a criticism, just a realistic fact of any corporation. It will downsize, stay or leave based on the economics of the industry and/or the Benicia facility. No hard feelings.
Renewable energy is a growing phenomena of the world, not just Benicia and a reality we should not ignore.
The mayor and the City Council would be derelict if they ignore this possibility and do everything in its power to minimize this ever present danger by trying to increase the tax base of Benicia.
It’s a problem with a possible solution. May of us may sit on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I would recommend that many of the readers of this paper should read Tom Friedman’s July 4 op-ed piece in the New York Times titled “Where American politics can still work: From the bottom up.”
To sum up, it is about the desperate situation that Lancaster, Penn. found itself and how members of the community from all sides of the political spectrum got together to advance the city from one of despair to a growing and prosperous city. These people were not connected to the government. They became a boiler room for new and innovative ideas and worked with the city government and local business people to implement them.
They were able to accomplish major improvements because they found that they did agree on many issues. Political ideology was checked at the door.
Ken Vail,
Benicia
Sharing is caring!
You could be correct on political ideology. But that is not how it is presented by the Mayor and Vice Mayor, “Paterson twelve”, Benicia Independent and the Progressive Democrats of Benicia. The “Dear Governor Brown” letter clearly says “End the issuance of permits for new fossil fuel project”. Signed by the Mayor, Vice Mayor and our local Supervisor. As the PDOB clearly states “progressive principles are grounded in liberal ideals”. Also states support of candidates for political office and appointed public officials who promote progressive ideas, programs and actions”. We are sitting in very divided city, county and state. Until the political atmosphere gets close to an even amount of elected officials instead of all state elected officials are Progressive and in some cases super majority in both state house you are up against it. That is exactly how the progressives want it. That will not change anytime soon. There could be a golden savior coming very quickly. That being the enormous amount of CalPers contributions that cities and counties are going to have to make each year. In the case of Benicia it could be an additional amount of $800,000/$1,000,000 additionally each and every year on top of what the city is already paying for many years to come. The local Progressives “I call them Socialist” conveniently ignore that fact. Over the next 2/5 years they will not be able to ignore that fact. Try 4mil to 5mil added to the budget by year five. No economic plan to cover that. Only anti fossil fuel which means anti Valero. It must end. Do you have a good idea to solve this problem? I do, VOTE THEM OUT starting in 2018 and then in 2020. That is the only answer to relieve this very heavy burden on the local residence/voters. Coming together means the end of the Progressive grip. Thanks for the article.
“Why wouldn’t people want renewable energy?” … You only have to look as far as “solar village” in Benicia. How many of their solar systems are still functional? How much has it cost to repair over the years? 15 years is about as long as the renewal will last…granted, dams must be maintained, gas and oil fired power plants must be maintained, nuclear power plants have to be maintained (which “could” have been the ultimate renewable power source except for terrorists). We’ll see in 30 years whether or not Gov Brown’s solar on every roof will pay off…hey, it might, but I don’t want to be the guinea pig.
50 years. 100 years. This all will be desirable and affordable. Today? Nope. The Earth will easily survive. It will adapt.
In the next few generations the next Elon Musk or Steve Jobs will emerge and make the highefficient solar cell and the true paper weight batteries. And they will be billionaires. As they should be.
But for the next 100 years … enjoy the cheap and readily available petroleum products.
Take a deep breath folks .. the market will figure it out. It’s not the end of the world.
The Solar Village was built decades ago and only heated water. With technology that was first developed by the Romans.
Since then, since some haven’t noticed, technology has come a LONG way. A couple of years ago I put solar panels on my home at zero cost to myself through Solar City, now bought by the little known Tesla company who’s stock I really wish I’d bought in 2016. But then that’s just the “socialist” in me talking. Since then I’ve used them to power my almost 3000 square foot, 5 bedroom home for an average cost of less than $200 a month year round. Oh, by the way, that includes winter heat. But then I use that stupid sustainable radiant heat in my floors instead of the wonderfully proven forced air heat that you have to change filters with and kicks up all kinds of mold and dust particles all year long as well.
This “Socialist” loves keeping her money in her wallet and stock portfolio instead of supporting the shareholders of PG&E, BP, Chevron… Who right now really need support because their stock is in the… Well, why kick a mega corp while they’re down? It’s all about the all mighty dollar and right now anyone who likes paying huge bills to down and out corporations should have their head and stock portfolio checked.
Oh and while technophobes are enjoying being in the dark during Benicia’s next power outage, those with renewable solar power can use their power-walls and keeping their lights, entertainment and refrigerators going with that oh so hard to find sun shine that arrives everyday to our town, whether we like it or not.
Substitute the word renewable, with newest technology, or off the grid living and there’s a whole new group of people joining the conversation. All the others can sit in the dark enjoying their not so cheap petroleum products for as long as they want.
I’m just saying, “Let the sun shine, Let the sun shine in, the sun shine in”. The hippy tree hugger in me just couldn’t let it go. I’m singing louder as I look at the credit on my PG&E bill that will off set the “cheap” gas I’ll be using this winter.
“Let the sun shine…”
I remember house shopping years ago and looking at one of the available “Solar Village” units at the time, Yes, they were indeed just originally equipped with passive solar systems.
Interesting read.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/23/more-bad-news-for-tesla-solar.aspx
This:
https://topchronicle.com/business/2018/07/12/comparing-profitability-of-these-two-stocks-sunrun-inc-run-ppdai-group-inc-ppdf/
Gretchen, I hope your solar panels last as long as you want them to. I hope that you continue to enjoy “free” power. Seriously. I hope for world peace, too. But, at 68 I’ve been at the forefront of technology and it has cost me (over and over). My first computer, for an example, was an Apple IIe with 2 floppy drives and a nice monochromatic monitor (green) that cost me over $2200 in 1980 dollars. To put that into perspective, I went through nuclear power school using a slide rule since calculators didn’t exist. Happy that you want to be first in line…just don’t expect all of us to follow suit until it actually is proven tech. As I said before, Solar Village is a good example of what happens when tech is applied and fails to pass the test of time.
Ken – I believe that most people, conservatives and liberals alike support the using renewable energy as much as is feasible from both a cost per KW-hr and from a practical usage POV. But before any discussion on renewable energy begins we need to have a clear understanding of the facts regarding both what is ‘renewable” and how it is factored into the discussion.
Regarding Scotland: “Cleantechnica reports that wind turbines generated enough electricity to meet the needs of 97% of Scottish households”
That is an impressive number and Scotland’s use of renewables has increased from 27% in ’09 to 68% in ‘17. This site gives some good, (but on the surface seemingly contradictory) numbers:
https://www.scottishrenewables.com/sectors/renewables-in-numbers/
For example the website above mentions that 22% of all renewables is from Hydro sources, but also that 50% of the fuel used to generate electricity is derived from nuclear.
Regarding Costa Rica – The use of Hydro Power is the source of over 65% of all of Costa Rica’s energy production with dams like: the Arenal Dam, Lake Cachi Dam, Rio Macho Dam, Pirris Dam, and others (with new ones on the way as well.). The dam at Arenal for example produces 12% of all the countries electricity.
What is “renewable”? – The numbers above for Costa Rica are important because they include large hydro as a “renewable”. The numbers for California do not reflect this source in their calculations. The California Energy Commission reports that almost 30% of the energy produced in California is from ‘renewable’ sources. If we include large scale hydro, the number goes up to almost 50%.
If California is serious about increasing its renewable energy production large scale hydro dams would go a long ways towards achieving that goal (plus the added benefit of increased water storage). Plans are drawn for such projects, but implementation is exceedingly difficult for a large number of reasons.
When it says 97% of Scots households, that omits the need for electricity for industry (such as making scotch!). The article distinguishes hydro and nuclear because the uranium is depleted during nuclear power operations and classes hydro as renewable since they don’t expect a drought. As you said, seemingly contradictory, but really isn’t. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Scotland
Just for a comparison of power sources; Scotland had in 2010 2.1 GW in 100 windfarms in 2010 (according to the referenced article) with plans for another 3.0 GW planned–compare that with ONE f the nuclear power stations which generates 1288 GW. The land use for wind turbines is estimated as 50 acres per Megawatt, so 2.1 GW is 2100 MW times 50 is 105000 acres. Granted, the land is probably also farmed or ranched. The area covered by the nuke plant is much smaller. Similarly for dams to provide electricity, a lot of otherwise useful land is covered in water (TVA anyone?).
The point is, while renewable sources are a nice idea, the density of power generation is small compared to a dedicated power station using non renewable sources. Industry takes a lot of power, homes don’t in comparison. If we all went back to living in caves and farming (ie, killed off 80 percent of the world’s population), then renewable would probably be enough.
Most land that has been tapped for mining purposes, oil production, etc., typically has no land use value after all the resources have been stripped. The US estimate for resource extraction is that 0.1% of the total land is/has been used. That would equal approximately 2,300,000 acres. Perhaps some of these locations, that are no longer operating as mines, could be put into play and utilized as locations for alternative energy production.
I have been involved in work with mining operations in Mexico, Chile, New Zealand and seven states. I say this to add a little background regarding my experience in this field.
About 20 miles west of Elko, Nevada is the tiny community of Carlin. If you then travel north 25 miles from there you will reach the Barrick Goldstike Betze-Post open pit goldmine (Jointly owned by Newmont Gold). From Carlin you will drive past a few streams, some cattle, occasionally a herd of elk and a lot of open desert range land. You will pass no buildings or homes of any kind.
The pit itself is huge, possibly 500 to 600 feet deep and is one of the leading producers of gold in the world. The mine opened in 1975 and has been expanded many times over the years, each expansion requires environmental impact and remediation plans.
As part of the remediation process at Barrick, the upper layers of top soil were removed and set aside on otherwise unused land on the property. The top layers are stacked next to the tailings and these stacks can be 100-200 feet high.
The mine life was originally estimated at 50 years, but likely has been extended due to additional gold layers being discovered. At some point in time, in the not too distant future, the remediation plan’s closing phase will be implemented. Barrick has been required to annually set aside a small percentage of the value of their production into an account (monitored by an independent group). That small percentage now totals in the 10’s to 100’s of million dollars.
The plan calls for; the tailings to be relocated into the pit, the top soil will be used to cover areas for recreational use, the area will be landscaped with native vegetation, campgrounds and picnic areas will be created. The pit will fill with water from underground aquifers (currently these are pumped out up-stream so as to not reach the mine).
The pit will then soon become a lake, fish will be introduced, the land will be turned over to the state of Nevada and “Betze-Post” state recreational area will become a reality (it may well go by some other name though).
In talking to the dewatering superintendent at Barrick he once told me: “When I retire I want to sit in a boat fishing with my grandkids on a lake that I helped create.”
Sounds like pretty good land use to me.
I should have mentioned: In the lobby of the offices at the Barrick Mining Operations Elko is a model (4 ft. x6 ft.) of a representation of what the pit will look like after completion of the required remediation. One note made on the display is that over 50 miles of bicycle paths will be incorporated into the recreational area.
“When I retire I want to sit in a boat fishing with my grandkids on a lake that I helped create.” That sounds very optimistic. I’m sure he will be long gone before this ever becomes a reality (if at all).
Remediation is mentioned. What exactly is the remediation plan as far as contamination? That cleanup of the contamination alone could well reach 10’s to 100’s of million dollars.
I truly appreciate that this mine has a post closure plan and funding in place. However, this has not been the case historically for many, many mining operations. Additionally, when a mining corporation does go bankrupt, clean-up cost become a taxpayer burden, in cases where the former operation becomes a Superfund site.
Who pays for the cleanup when and if the five area refinery’s leave. It will be a 30 year project just to clean it up. So if Benicia puts a plan in for “After Valero” know one now in town will even see it happen. “Except Me”, I will live to 127. You could be looking way down the road say 80 years or more from now if then. All you have to do is remember the Benicia Arsenal. Closed in about 1965 and is still not completely cleaned up. The Valero refinery is massive and will take many years for any future use unless all done as surface construction without going into ,the ground. That will not happen. The best thing to do is take in down a hundred feet and level it off and then a new project could be possible. Again massive project without a place to put the product that is being cleaned out. Sifting it will take much longer. Look how long it takes to replace a service station unless used as it is without going into the ground. At least some have plans and you just stated it takes forever. Might as well keep it as a refinery and learn to live with it or abandon it and look like Akron, Ohio. A true rust belt. These anti fossil fuel fools have no plans. All talk and no action. Doing their best to run Valero and AmPorts out of town. Goofy folks without a plan. Even the Governor thinks that love letter from ,the Mayor and Vice Mayor was from some 1965 hippie group..
“However, this has not been the case historically ” — Very True. Fortunately times have changed and environmental issues do play a big part in mine planning today. Some added comments to the above:
Barrick GoldStrike – I mentioned the aquifer that was pumped out. That water was taken by a field of about 20 deep well pumps and pumped to a holding pond, where the water was treated and temperature regulated (the ground water is too warm), before being released into a stream that feeds the Elko River.
Cortez Gold – (About 150 miles SE of SLC) — I am currently involved in a major water treatment project where ground water is taken, treated and then used by the mine, treated a second time and then used for agricultural use.
Yes, there are many environmental concerns regarding mines, but it has been my experience at the 10-15 mines I have been to that the people at the mines are sincerely doing what needs to be done to be a good steward of the environment,