Red State Update

Ok, Debunk this.

 

The transcript of President Obama's weekly address on whitehouse.gov is titled, "President Obama Lauds Clean Energy Projects as Key to Creating."  Creating what? one might ask.  The word "Jobs" seems to be missing, perhaps like the jobs themselves.

 

The President loves to talk about green jobs -- so much so that after his speech the DailyKos reassured the left wing base that the whole jobs thing is a smokescreen:

 

President Obama's major selling point for clean energy technology this morning is jobs, jobs and more jobs. He does indeed talk a bit about the planet...[but] he shrewdly uses the job creation argument to bludgeon the naysayers who authored the recent Republican Pledge.

 

The "clean energy" poster child of the week is a new solar energy plant in Ivanpah, California, praised by the President:

 

I want share [sic] with you one new development, made possible by the clean energy incentives we have launched.  This month, in the Mojave Desert, a company called BrightSource plans to break ground on a revolutionary new type of solar power plant.  It's going to put about a thousand people to work building a state-of-the-art facility.  And when it's complete, it will turn sunlight into the energy that will power up to 140,000 homes - the largest such plant in the world.

 

It's worth looking at this model clean energy project more closely.

 

To begin with, Obama is correct that Ivanpah "is going to put about a thousand people to work."  This figure however is the peak work force during construction.  According to Brightsource the average workforce over the three years of construction is 650 workers -- union workers, naturally.  Brightsource, whose CEO John Bryson was a co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1969, reports that Ivanpah is a "labor-friendly project."

 

As with any construction project, jobs created by a specific project are temporary, and once the Ivanpah project is completed in 2012 (after the election, perhaps), the workforce will drop to 86. (The White House states clumsily that "its operations will create 86 operations and maintenance jobs.")  Eighty-six new jobs is better than a sharp stick in the eye, but it's way less than the 1,000 jobs the President uses to bludgeon the naysayers.

 

The President also touts Ivanpah as "the largest such plant in the world."  Ivanpah's 370 megawatt capacity is not insignificant, especially in comparison with the rooftop solar panel arrays one thousandth the size that are lauded indiscriminately in the press, and it is a welcome addition to the nation's power generating capacity.

 

Ivanpah however produces what is described as "intermittent" power.  Fortunately, the sun shines in the Mohave Desert during peak demand for air conditioning in Los Angeles, but the California Public Utilities Commission confesses that:

 

the State will face an increasing challenge to integrate the higher intermittent renewable penetration without decreasing system reliability [i.e., brownouts and blackouts].  As a result, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has initiated a study of the ancillary resources necessary to maintain grid reliability with a 33% RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard, slated to increase from 20% to 33% pending a vote this week by the California Air Resources Board].

 

In other words, in order to avoid blackouts, they'll have to duplicate some of the capacity supplied by renewable energy with "ancillary resources" (coal, natural gas, nuclear) to cover the times when it's dark or the wind isn't blowing.

 

Obama describes the Ivanpah's size with the weasel phrase "up to 140,000 homes."  An average home uses around 9,000 kwh annually, and 140,000 houses need an annual power output of 1,260 gigawatt hours.   If Ivanpah operated at 100% of its 370 Mw capacity round the clock, it would produce 3,241 gwh, which means the plant is operating at 38.8% of its full capacity.  The average capacity factor of solar plants in the Mohave Desert is 19%, so either Ivanpah is twice as efficient as the average, or "up to 140,000 homes" really means "70,000 homes."

 

For comparison, not far across the Arizona border the zero carbon Palo Verde nuclear power plant has a generating capacity of 3,942 megawatts, over ten times that of Ivanpah.  Palo Verde produces 26,782 Gwh annually, a capacity factor of 82% of the 32,753 Gwh it would produce at 100% capacity.   This is slightly below the nuclear industry average of 91%.   Thus Palo Verde has 10 times the capacity of Ivanpah, and produces 21 times the electricity.

 

Then there's Obama's phrase, "made possible by the clean energy incentives we have launched." The White House reports that "the Recovery Act is investing over $90 billion in clean energy," which includes a $1.37 billion loan guarantee for Ivanpah.  It's interesting that Ivanpah's price tag is listed at $1.1 billion.  It's tough to get credit these days, but I guess if you have a green energy project, you get your money plus a 25% bonus.

 

Brightforce therefore doesn't have to worry about financing the project.  Solar power unfortunately is an expensive proposition.  Reuters reports that the Ivanpah's $1.1 billion construction cost works out to $2,800 per kilowatt.  "In contrast, it costs about $900 per kW to build a combined-cycle natural gas plant."  Construction costs are amortized over the thirty-year life of the plant, but one wonders how Brightforce can possibly repay their loan selling a costly product in a competitive energy market.

 

Not to worry, the energy market isn't all that competitive.  As mentioned above, Californian investor-owned utilities (referred to as IOUs) are required by the California Public Utilities Commission's Renewable Portfolio Standard to purchase 20% of their power by the end of 2010 from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

 

The California Public Utilities Commission recognizes that renewable energy is more expensive than conventional energy, and it's willing to pay for it through a slush fund called the Above Market Fund (AMF).  In 2009, the CPUC reports that three utilities were allocated AMF funds of $773 million, and two of the three, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric, had already exhausted their funds by the third quarter of 2009.

 

Brightforce has signed contracts with PG&E and Southern California Edison, although strangely the price the utilities are paying is confidential.  In my home state, Massachusetts NSTAR has agreed to purchase electricity from Cape Wind at 18.7 cents/kwh, more than twice the going rate of 8.8 cents/kwh from natural gas power plants.  PG&E has disclosed a 25-year contract to purchase power from the AV Solar Ranch One plant for 13.3 cents/kwh, which compares to the national average for all sectors reported by the EIA of 10.2 cents/kwh.

 

So there's really no way the Ivanpah business model can lose.  Up-front financing and price guarantees for thirty years down the road.  So who might benefit from such a cozy government-business arrangement?

 

Brightsource investors include Google.org (a member of Van Jones's Apollo Alliance) and the California State Teachers Retirement System.  Billions in federal financing, billions every year for the next thirty years in taxpayer subsidies for above-market priced electricity, with profits going to Obama insiders like the Apollo Alliance and a teachers' union?  Should we really call this "clean" energy?
 
Good Old Honest Obe and all those greenies. Thanks Honest Obe!!!

Views: 241

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We could also build a pipeline from say Canada to the Gulf and the military could patrol that, or drill in ANWAR, off our own coasts, and frak all day and night... but lets take a look at oil subsidies versus wind subsidies...

With the current debate over ending oil producers’ subsidies the question arises as to what subsidies do the producers actually get.  It is a surprisingly complicated question.  Wind producers also get subsidies that take complex forms—investment tax credits, production tax credits, mandates, property tax exemptions, etc.  But the major federal subsidy for wind producers is the option to take a 30 percent investment tax credit or to receive a 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour production tax credit.

“2.2 cents” doesn’t seem like much, but, depending on the time of year, it falls somewhere between 25 percent and 100 percent of the wholesale price of electricity.  Forty percent if frequently used as the average.

So, what would an oil-production subsidy look like if it were the same magnitude?

Deepwater drilling rigs can cost over $400,000 per day.  With other costs, a rough per-well figure would be $100,000,000 per well.  If an oil company could get the same 30 percent investment tax credit as wind producers, the government would write the company a $30,000,000 check for each well completed.  For the lower cost, shallow-water wells, the government would write a check closer to $3,000,000 for every well drilled.

If on the other hand, the oil company opted for a production tax credit (and it was set at 40 percent of the 2010 average price of about $75 per barrel) then the government would write the oil company a check for $30 for each barrel produced (onshore as well as offshore).

If a subsidy like that was the deal oil companies had, then cut away.  But the $4 billion per year that oil’s detractors keep repeating works out to $0.60 per barrel, and upon closer examination they do not even qualify as oil-industry subsidies.

Heritage’s Nick Loris and Curtis Dubay have sorted it all out. Of course, there are subsidies for the oil and gas industry, but they come from the Department of Energy, not from unfair tax benefits, and they work out to about a nickel per barrel.  So, leave it to Washington to misidentify and exaggerate the problem.  It’s as though they are firing a shotgun at the chandelier when the problem is a gnat in the salad dressing.

Of course you totally ignore my point, which is the subsidies that aren't considered subsidies. Like cleaning up the pollution they leave. Paying for the medical bills from all the toxins associated with carbon based pollutants, and the big one: Paying trillions of dollars for the military protecting oil producing countries and the delivery of their product. Plus let's not forget the reduction in omission of greenhouse CO2 and methane.

And, perhaps most importantly, we can go for more energy efficiency. Insulate buildings better. Put in energy-efficient windows. Improve the gas mileage of our vehicles. When you buy a new car, eschew that SUV; you're not going to be driving around in the Klondike. Get rid of those incandescent bulbs. When you replace your  roof, make it white and not some dark color if you live in the sunny part of the country. Quit running  those big neon signs at 2 AM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

So as you see Charles is brimming over with Santorum provided by one of it's top exporters, the Heritage Foundation.

Charles is brimming over with santorum from MC Cain's "soul pole"!

Speaking of following the money ...

| Fri Feb. 3, 2012 3:35 PM PST
Mike Mann

We've documented the long-term effort to malign Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann here rather extensively. Now a coal-backed group is running a smear campaign targeting an upcoming speaking event Mann is holding on campus.

Brought back just ONE of Obes public equity, uh, investments... and there have been more companies to add to the list. Who can keep up with a dim-O-crat from Chicago when it comes to graft? Certainly not dim-O-crat voters... They are blinded by the light from the halo.. he he he.

RSS

Follow Red State Update

Badge

Loading…

Music

Loading…

© 2012   Created by Red State Update.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service