The Green Energy Policy
They have one and it is none of the above -- including "renewables"
From
Investors Business Daily:
Do Greens Have A None-Of-The-Above Energy Policy?
Two environmental groups in April filed suit to block an energy project they said would seriously harm the local ecosystem.
It wasn't a coal plant, or an oil refinery, or a nuclear reactor. It was a wind farm � the very sort of "clean" energy environmentalists champion as an alternative to dirty traditional supplies.
But the Portland Audubon Society and Oregon Natural Desert Association say a wind farm on Oregon's Steens Mountain, along with needed access roads and transmission lines, would threaten eagles, sage grouse and bighorn sheep and call it the "antithesis" of "responsible renewable energy development."
Also in April, an appeals court took up a lawsuit seeking to stop a 399-megawatt, 3,200-acre solar power plant in Panoche Valley, 130 miles southeast of San Francisco. Environmentalists say it will harm the endangered blunt-nosed lizard and kangaroo rat.
"No one disputes the necessity for solar energy," the green groups' attorney told the court, but "it is improper on this site."
Environmentalists are openly hostile to oil, coal and nuclear energy. And while some had backed natural gas as a "bridge fuel," opposition has soared as a U.S. supply glut makes gas far cheaper.
The article also links to this excellent site sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
Project No Project
From the website:
Progress Denied
If our great nation is going to begin creating jobs at a faster rate, we must get back in the business of building things.
Project No Project assesses the broad range of energy projects that are being stalled, stopped, or outright killed nationwide due to �Not In My Back Yard� (NIMBY) activism, a broken permitting process and a system that allows limitless challenges by opponents of development.
One of the most surprising findings from the catalog of projects is that it is just as difficult to build a wind farm in the U.S. as it is to build a coal-fired power plant. In fact, roughly 45 percent of the challenged projects that were identified are renewable energy projects.
They also did a
98 page study (PDF) showing the job creation and net income of these stalled projects. Very well researched and referenced. From the study's
Executive Summary:
Progress Denied: A Study on the Potential Economic Impact of Permitting Challenges Facing Proposed Energy Projects
This study estimates the potential loss in economic value of 351 proposed solar, wind, wave, bio-fuel, coal, gas, nuclear and energy transmission projects that have been delayed or canceled due to significant impediments, such as regulatory barriers, including inefficient review processes and the attendant lawsuits and threats of legal action. These energy projects were reviewed and cataloged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as part of its Project No Project initiative and are available at www.projectnoproject.com. To be clear, we do not believe that all of the subject projects ever would or necessarily should be approved, constructed, or operated. However, the Project No Project initiative and our independent research, which is summarized in this study, demonstrate that impediments such as regulatory barriers to energy projects can substantially reduce and impair private investment and job creation. After a year of research on these projects, the following are the major highlights of our study: �In aggregate, planning and construction of the subject projects (the �investment phase�) would generate $577 billion in direct investment, calculated in current dollars. The indirect and induced effects (what we term multiplier effects) would generate an approximate $1.1 trillion increase in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), including $352 billion in employment earnings, based on present discounted value (PDV) over an average construction period of seven years. Furthermore, we estimate that as many as 1.9 million jobs would be required during each year of construction.
�The operation of the subject projects (the �operations phase�) would generate $99 billion in direct annual output, calculated in current dollars, including multiplier effects, this additional annual output would yield $145 billion in increased GDP, $35 billion in employment earnings, based on PDV, and an average 791,200 jobs per year of operation. Assuming twenty years of operations across all subject project types, we estimate the operations phase would yield a potential long term benefit of $2.3 trillion in GDP, including $1.0 trillion in employment earnings, based on PDV.
�Therefore, the total potential economic and employment benefits of the subject projects, if constructed and operated for twenty years, would be approximately $3.4 trillion in GDP, including $1.4 trillion in employment earnings, based on PDV, and an additional one million or more jobs per year.
Some pretty substantial numbers and, as I said, the study has the references to back up their numbers...
Posted by DaveH at August 13, 2012 2:13 PM