Obama's Tonya Harding energy policy
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
March 1, 2010
Politicians would have us believe there's a Brave New World of renewable energy out there. But like the book, the reality of our current energy policy is more of a dystopia.
Case in point: With great fanfare last October, President Obama took a trip to Florida to celebrate raising the electricity bills of Sunshine State residents.
Well, not really. But that is in effect what happened.
Florida Power and Light had three new solar power plants coming online, and the president was eager to show that he was following through on his campaign promise to increase America's supply of renewable energy. So he attended the unveiling of one of the plants.
What the president didn't mention is the plant cost $152 million, funded by a 31 cent increase in monthly electricity bills.
That's not counting the cost of outrageous federal subsidies. Energy Department estimates show federal subsidies of solar power amount to $24.34 per megawatt hour of solar energy produced, compared with 25 cents per megawatt hour for fossil fuel power plants -- nearly 100 times more.
The levelized cost of generating solar power is four times as much as the energy produced by conventional coal and natural gas power plants. The cost of this Florida power plant visited by Obama is expected to be six times the cost of a conventional fossil fuel plant, according to the Institute for Energy Research.
And the new solar plant the president visited will only provide enough electricity to supply 3,000 of Florida Power and Light's more than 4 million customers. Even with astounding federal subsidies, the Department of Energy estimates solar energy generated only 0.02 percent of U.S. electricity in 2008.
On the campaign trail last year, Obama said that his administration's goal was to have 10 percent of America's electricity needs supplied by renewable energy by 2012 and have 25 percent of our electricity supplied by renewable sources by 2025.
It's too soon to call this a broken campaign promise, but these figures are so wildly unrealistic it's safe to write it off already.
In 2008, just 7 percent of America's electricity consumption came from renewable energy sources. According to the Department of Energy's (rosy) estimates, fossil fuels supply 84 percent of America's energy needs. Even with a gigantic push toward renewable energy, fossil fuels are still projected to supply 78 percent of America's energy by 2025.
Far and away, the biggest source of America's renewable energy is hydroelectric power. But the same environmental groups making the push for renewable energy are decidedly opposed to building more dams. (The Sierra Club opposed its first dam project in 1913.) Wind power costs 1 1/2 to two times as much as conventional power and will likely require major upgrades of our power grid.
So where are these new sources of renewable energy going to come from? It would take a civilization-altering technological breakthrough to meet the president's goals. Don't bank on it.
Meanwhile, renewable energy isn't getting cheaper, so radical environmentalists are trying to make conventional power plants more expensive. One energy expert who wished to remain anonymous describes this as the "Tonya Harding energy policy." You can't beat the competition, so you kneecap it with taxes and regulatory hurdles. This certainly explains cap-and-trade legislation.
There are plenty of legitimate environmental and national security concerns that justify shifting away from carbon-based energy sources. We should vigorously pursue new technologies to meet our energy needs. But the best way to meet America's future energy goals is to make sure our energy policy doesn't impoverish us in the here and now.
Mark Hemingway is an editorial page staff writer for The Washington Examiner. He can be reached at mhemingway@washingtonexaminer.com.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com |
