Here's a sensible piece from NY Times about the gap between what politicians and advocates say and do and the situation 'on the ground.' The hard realities of building electric infrastructure should now be coming clear even to the die-hard wishful thinkers, but some are so imbedded in their ideologies that they are undeterred.
'Renewable' and 'alternative' electric energy are only a miniscule and expensive-to-build part of the mix . It's not that we shouldn't build more renewable sources into the mix, but our goals need to be tempered with a good dose of common sense. Texas and New Mexico seem to get it, but most states don't.
The Democrat candidate for governor of Vermont had proposed an unrealistic wind/alternative energy plan. I parodied it here because Vermont has this love/hate relationship with its environment and the production of needed energy. Moreover, many are beguiled by the idea sponsored by politicians currying votes that we can 'save the planet' by getting 'all' our energy needs differently and quickly.
Many Vermonters would close Entergy's Vermont Yankee nuclear plant tomorrow if they could, but they present no realistic new alternative energy sources to replace the inexpensive 35% of our baseload needs, nor the substantial financial contribution that Vermont Yankee makes to several funds to benefit Vermont's environment, economic development and low income folks to help them pay for energy use.
Al Gore is mostly clueless about energy realities and seems to have been captured as a pawn of the greenies. No matter, most realistic thinkers dismiss his rants.
Note: George Sterzinger, quoted below, was a former head of Vermont's Department of Public Service who has apparently been basking in the light of reality.
"...Yet the experience of states that have adopted similar goals suggests that passing that requirement could be a lot easier than achieving it. The record so far is decidedly mixed: some states appear to be on track to meet energy targets, but others have fallen behind on the aggressive goals they set several years ago.
The state goals have contributed to rapid growth of wind turbines and solar power stations in some areas, notably the West, but that growth has come on a minuscule base. Nationwide, the hard numbers provide a sobering counterpoint to the green-energy enthusiasm sweeping Washington.
Al Gore is running advertisements claiming the nation could switch entirely to renewable power within a decade. But most experts do not see how. Even with the fast growth of recent years, less than 3 percent of the nation’s electricity is coming from renewable sources, excepting dams.
“I think we are really overselling how quick, how easy and how complete the transition can be,” said George Sterzinger, executive director of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a Washington advocacy group."
...In New England, the trend is to build more plants that run on natural gas and oil, not wind, said Gordon van Welie, chief executive of the entity that operates New England’s power grid.
...Experts said that without far more attention to the practical barriers, including the lack of lines to carry power, those new goals will be as difficult to meet as the old ones.
...A national standard, if the government decided to impose one, would put an even greater premium on new power lines, because more electricity would need to be moved from parts of the country with abundant wind and sunshine to the great cities where power is consumed.
The Energy Challenge - Energy Goals a Moving Target for States - Series - NYTimes.com
cr30bbCopyRTextLandingAveSunset+(5).jpg)
Many Vermonters would close Entergy's Vermont Yankee nuclear plant tomorrow if they could, but they present no realistic new alternative energy sources to replace the inexpensive 35% of our baseload needs, nor the substantial financial contribution that Vermont Yankee makes to