Alternative Energy Picking Up Steam

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

No matter how much some on this blog protest, the move to alternative energy sources is picking up momentum across the country.

I was in South Carolina last week visiting my brother. Pictured is a large array of solar panels adjacent to a huge Walmart distribution center. An electrical co-op also had solar panels outside one of its administration buildings. These were in rural, western South Carolina, near the Georgia border. No one can accuse those folks of being woke, progressive Democrats.

As described in an article in The Washington Post, higher ed institutions around the country are moving to reduce their carbon footprint. There are some innovative approaches. Ball State University in Indiana replaced its 70-year-old heating system with the largest geothermal plant in the country. That move cut its carbon footprint in half and saves the school $3 million a year in energy costs. The University of Iowa has switched to a biomass energy facility. The leftover oat hulls from a Quaker Oats production facility, approximately 40,000 tons annually, are its primary fuel source. The school also grows and harvests miscanthus grass, a bamboo-like grass that grows to 12 feet tall, for its biomass plant. For those people who lament that solar panels are diminishing farmland, they need to visit the University of Minnesota at Morris. There they will see more than 600 solar panels placed eight feet above the ground with cattle grazing and crops flourishing around them. The school also has two giant wind turbines.  The combination of alternative sources annually produces twice the electricity the school needs. It exports the surplus to the town.

Virginia institutions of higher education are beginning to take steps to reduce the carbon emissions on their campuses. Second Nature is an organization “committed to accelerating climate action in and through higher education.” The presidents of eleven public and private Virginia colleges and universities have made “a formal commitment with respect to climate leadership on their campus.” The commitment involves pledging to reduce carbon emissions and promote resilience. The public Virginia institutions on the list are George Mason University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Radford University.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

44 responses to “Alternative Energy Picking Up Steam”

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    They still aren’t economically viable and only value is virtue-signaling and money laundering Dem graft, but you do you

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Walmart and South Carolina is “money laundering Dem graft”?

      1. Donald Smith Avatar
        Donald Smith

        They’re smart enough to take advantage of government subsidies for “green” energy.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          And if it were a laissez-faire economy, it would have collapsed in 2001.

      2. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        The entire alternative energy system is viable only with government subsidies. Government subsidies = influencing investment behavior into ways that would not pay off without the subsidy, which is usually perfect for graft. Even in SC and certainly the stupid windmills offshore in VA (and killing dolphins and whales up north).

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      My solar system is extremely economically viable. One of the better investments I’ve made…

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Oh, OK. And an “investment” because of the tax credits and the power company being forced to buy your electricity. But what about the poor people? Is it fair you got that and they didn’t?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Ummm… fossil fuel companies receive “tax credits” you know…

          The power company is indeed regulated (as it should be) but gets to “buy” my green power without investing in the generation facility at non-green power rates then resell at a markup. A good gig if you can get it.

  2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    With enough subsidies, people will build igloos in Texas.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      … or oil wells in Texas…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Or McDonald’s in China…

  3. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    People not being able to afford food, rent and electric is not progress Dick.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    During the day we reduce the hydrocarbon to electricity demand, which reduces demand for hydrocarbons, which reduces prices for hydrocarbons, which destroys Russia’s economy, which improves the chances that Ukraine can end the war…

    1. Nathan Avatar

      Get real.

      If Biden hadn’t signaled U.S. weakness with the pathetic and disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Russians might not have invaded in the first place.

      One year after the fall of Kabul and the Taliban’s return to power, Afghanistan is in dire straits, and America and the broader West have yet to conduct a proper post-mortem of the policy failures there. Worse, Russia appears to have taken the US withdrawal as an invitation to launch a new war of its own.

      But make no mistake, the fall of Kabul last year had repercussions that have yet to be fully appreciated. It demonstrated that the US might not have the staying power or the strategic patience that is necessary to achieve a military victory or ensure a lasting peace in countries where it has intervened. It showed that any other relatively marginal country or region might also be abandoned in the interest of focusing US resources on China.

      The Kremlin certainly took note. Shortly after the Taliban’s takeover, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s national-security adviser noted publicly that the Ukrainians could not rely on the US to stick around for the long term. Within weeks of the fall of Kabul, Russian troop trains and tank transports had begun their massive move toward the Ukrainian border. As one war ended, another began.

      – Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and prime minister from 1991 to 1994

      The entire article is worth reading.

      https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/afghanistan-us-failure-set-stage-for-russia-invasion-ukraine-by-carl-bildt-2022-08

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The question isn’t whether the American government can use various methods of coercion to get companies and people to do its bidding. That government gave us the Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran Contra, Syria, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a reversal of US energy independence and a massive unsustainable national debt. Our government has proven, time and again, that it can foist bad ideas on the American people.

    The question is whether green energy, without deficit increasing government subsidies, is economically viable at this time. If so, why are mandates and subsidies required?

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      “The question is whether green energy, without deficit increasing government subsidies, is economically viable at this time.”

      Why should green energy have to meet a standard fossil fuels don’t…?

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        It shouldn’t. There should be no subsidies for fossil fuels either.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Government subsidies have been used throughout our history to encourage new technologies. Case in point: railroads. They were given massive amounts of public lands that enable them to expand across the country. Then, as others have pointed out, are the subsidies for fossil fuels. Companies pay a below-market rate for drilling on public land and the actual royalty rate paid is lower than the nominal rate due to loopholes, exceptions, etc.

      Furthermore, the coal industry enjoys tax breaks in Virginia.

      1. Nathan Avatar

        Below market rates still result in a net gain, unlike many alternative boondoggles that send our tax dollars into a black hole.

        “Federal revenues from oil and natural gas leases provide income streams that support a range of federal and state policies and programs. Revenues from oil and natural gas leases on onshore federal lands totaled $4.202 billion in FY2019.”

        -Congressional Research Service

        Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantee. How’s that “investment” doing?

        Remembering “Solyndra” – How Many $570M Green Energy Failures Are Hidden Inside Biden’s Infrastructure Proposal?

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/04/12/remembering-solyndra–how-many-570m-green-energy-failures-are-hidden-inside-bidens-instructure-proposal/?sh=11e440542672

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          When you don’t have skin (money) in the game, does it matter if you close up shop a week afterwards?

          People often forget the amount of individuals who went bankrupt in all these industries they demonize, before the Government stepped in.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        The Federal Government didn’t subsidize Vanderbilt or Oil in the 1800’s, when they were starting. The subsidizes came after they were profitable and owners held monopolies. The same can be said for Coal, which subsidies didn’t start till 1932.

      3. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        There should be no subsidies for anything produced by a for-profit company.

        Giving tax breaks for the dying coal industry in Virginia is just another manifestation of campaign contribution driven stupidity from the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I’d ‘upvote’ that comment twice if I could.

    3. WayneS Avatar

      The question isn’t whether the American government can use various methods of coercion to get companies and people to do its bidding. That government gave us the Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran Contra, Syria, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a reversal of US energy independence and a massive unsustainable national debt.

      Don’t forget the 55 mph speed limit.

      😉

  6. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The question isn’t whether the American government can use various methods of coercion to get companies and people to do its bidding. That government gave us the Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran Contra, Syria, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a reversal of US energy independence and a massive unsustainable national debt. Our government has proven, time and again, that it can foist bad ideas on the American people.

    The question is whether green energy, without deficit increasing government subsidies, is economically viable at this time. If so, why are mandates and subsidies required?

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Take away the tax subsidies, and in some places the subsidies for sales back to the grid, and no retail outlet anywhere would have one acre of these panels.

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The stores close at dusk? On cloudy days? No? Then some gas or nuke plant keeps the lights on 75% of the time, because solar works at best 25% of the time. That’s Dominion’s actual data now with years of experience with solar. Results are a bit better further south.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      25% fewer hydrocarbons burned… wonder what that does to the price of gasoline?

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Geothermal and burning leftover oat hulls produces energy at night and on cloudy days. Granted, these are not alternatives available to everybody, but it does show that there are some innovative ways to move away from fossil fuels.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Horse hockey. They are on the grid and ready to use the juice when needed. Show me a Wal-Mart that is energy self-sufficient, off the grid. You won’t find one. They are all over Virginia rate cases because they remain major electricity users. Geothermal might heat the building, but using it to generate small amounts of electricity is insanely inefficient. You need steam for that. Burning oat husks? Wanna calculate that carbon output?

      2. Nathan Avatar

        “…but it does show that there are some innovative ways to move away from fossil fuels.”

        Most conservatives have absolutely no problem with alternatives, if they make sense economically and are reliable long-term.

        I have been interested in organic gardening, self sufficiency and alternative energy production since the 1970s.

        I do, however, strongly object to the demonization and mandates against all fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been instrumental in raising mankind’s standard of living, longevity and food production.

        If someone wants to “go green,” I’m all for it. Just don’t do it on my dime, and don’t kill off the fossil fuel options that others rely on to heat their homes and feed their families.

      3. Nathan Avatar

        Mr. Hall-Sizemore

        Are you aware that Ball State’s own analysis showed that a natural gas alternative would also have produced the much touted 50 percent decrease in carbon emissions, but at a fraction of the cost to install?

        Ball State claims Geothermal will save money over time, but that remains to be seen. I guess time will tell.

        Additionally, information from Ball State is hardly an objective source.

        https://eri.iu.edu/erit/case-studies/ball-state-university-geothermal.html

      4. WayneS Avatar

        How much carbon does burning leftover oat hulls release into the atmosphere?

        It seems to me that burning organic matter would be a step backwards from burning natural gas.

        For instance, from the standpoint of BTUs produced, burning wood releases about 75% more CO2 than burning natural gas, with about twice the overall carbon emissions.

  9. UVAPast Avatar

    Maybe universities should ban cars on campus other than EVs.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      And then denounce the students who can afford to drive EVs (or whose parents can afford for them) for their “privilege”…

    2. WayneS Avatar

      And then denounce every student who can afford to drive an EV for his/her/their/its “privilege”…

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        Every legislature in the country should condition any appropriations to colleges and universities on requirement to limit the non-teaching staff — FTE student ratio to what it was 25 years ago, with the exception of public safety personnel. Decide what’s important but stay within the ratio.

  10. “No matter how much some on this blog protest, the move to alternative energy sources is picking up momentum across the country.”

    Let’s just be clear what BR bloggers are protesting — it’s not alternative energy. I’ll let Haner speak for himself, but I think solar and on-shore wind are wonderful… as long as they’re economically competitive when viewed in the context of grid costs and reliability.

    Essentially, that means solar power and wind up to 30% or so of total electricity output is good. Solar and on-shore wind have the lowest levelized cost of energy of any power source. But over 30%, it becomes a different story because the system then needs expensive backup to offset the intermittent nature of solar/wind output. What Haner and I (and other commenters) are protesting is the damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead rush to a zero carbon electric grid heedless of consequences.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Agreed. Engineering and economics should drive the generation mix, not religion. Natural gas is an excellent baseload choice but if you want to pay the bill, nukes work well, too. The Wal-Marts can posture but baseload keeps the stores open.

    2. Nathan Avatar

      Hydroelectric can provide the best storage for excess capacity. Water is pumped up when there is excess capacity, and then generates electricity when needed flowing down.

      But unfortunately, the greenies are against building damns, and want to destroy the existing ones. They seem to have a genuine aversion to reliable energy.

  11. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    I think it was Obama that said we need more of all of the above. However, tax credits for solar and EVs are for the well-to-do. Much of America cannot afford the cost of solar panels or an EV. Given the many pronouncements about income inequality from the left, how does this fit in? An issue that should be discussed, especially as there aren’t enough rich people to pay for everything on the “progressive menu.”

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/31/share-of-americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-jumped-in-2022.html

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Just keep jacking up the deficit and the national debt. What could possibly go wrong?

      The Chinese and the Saudis are doing what? Avoiding the dollar in their bilateral trade? What? The Chinese and the Brazilians too?

      Oh well, who cares? Free stuff! Loose money! Cancel student debt to buy votes!

  12. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Our utility monopoly system rewards construction of new plants, not to mention enormous tax credits from Congress. Also the cost burden is put onto the middle class, whereas most states give business users quite a big discount on electricity cost. So there is not much resistance from business users, in fact they would like to see more green elect since they are not the ones paying the full cost. Some green sources such as *onshore* wind are cost effective, and super cost effective with huge tax credits.

  13. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Interesting by the way, that Dominion’s new direction to go after super-expensive zero-carbon electricity (offshore wind and nukes) has apparently depressed the stock price. Some say the profits will come back once Dominion gets building the huge plants (that we have to give them a profit just for building it, as a monopoly)

Leave a Reply