Las Vegas Sun

May 5, 2015

Currently: 65° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Renewable energy mandate too costly

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Shutting down NV Energy’s coal-fired power plants is probably a good idea from an air pollution standpoint, and it shouldn’t increase the cost of power if the coal is replaced with natural gas.

But as Thursday’s story indicates, NV Energy and the renewable energy industry are trying to pile much more expensive alternative energy onto consumers by falsely tying it to the coal issue.

NV Energy says its plan will cost an additional 4 percent, total, over the next 20 years. But if that is true, why does Senate Bill 123 allow rate increases of 5 percent a year? That could mean rates going up 165 percent in that time.

Renewable energy has nothing to do with toxic coal plant emissions, and more than doubling the cost of electricity to pay for it would take billions of dollars out of our economy.

It’s time to recognize that we can’t afford the state’s 25 percent renewable energy mandate, and quit trying to confuse the public to convince them otherwise.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 22 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The "greeners" have a huge dilemma. For decades they have been warning that the sky is falling because the U.S. will run out of conventional energy sources. Lo and behold, not only did the U.S. not run out, but there is more now than ever before. And likely will be for a long, long time to come.

    Carmine D

  2. All of the carbon we are converting to carbon dioxide originally came from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The catch is that it took hundreds of millions of years of natural processes for that atmospheric carbon to be converted to coal, petroleum and natural gas and stored in the ground. We have reversed much of that natural process, for the most part, in just the past two hundred years.

    A careful examination of the history of flora and fauna on this planet shows that it has not always been a hospitable location for many forms of life.

    So when people allege that they know what the price of hydrocarbon fuels will be for the next twenty years, they really don't. More importantly they don't know the ultimate cost of continuing to use them as we have.

  3. Who to believe? Some guy in a letter accepted by editors with weak science background or this?

    "In a recent evaluation of RES compliance-cost data available for 14 states, LBNL estimated that all but one state experienced cost impacts of less than 2 percent, with some utilities even reporting consumer savings. For example, renewable energy investments spurred by the Minnesota RES lowered electricity prices for Xcel Energy customers--the state's largest utility--by 0.7 percent in 2008 to 2009. Xcel also estimated that meeting the RES through 2025 would increase costs by just 1.4 percent.

    In Kansas, recent RES-driven development by the state's two largest utilities, which will put them more than halfway toward meeting their 20 percent by 2020 target, is resulting in a modest 1.7 percent rate increase according to the Kansas Corporate Commission. Compare that actual data with the whopping 45 percent rate increase projected in a bogus study of the Kansas RES by opponents trying to drum up support for their repeal effort." I'll take actual science over Tom Keller's rants.

  4. "I wonder if Carmine has ever heard of "climate change" and what it does to a planet such as earth over time?"

    I remember when the "greeners" called it global warming! How did that work out for you?

    Carmine D

  5. "Oil cannot last forever!"

    Wrong. The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and by 2020 will be energy self sufficient. In fact, the U.S. by then will be a net exporter of oil rivaling the middle east.

    As usual, the "greeners" were and still are chicken little: The sky is falling.

    Carmine D

  6. Carmine,
    Do you know who Frank Luntz is?

    You might rely less on your obviously faulty memory and then you wouldn't appear so foolish.

  7. Fossil fuels are finite.
    "In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil -- that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36 years.

    Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

    Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet -- a bonanza -- and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years.

    Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work."


    "The "tipping point" for oil supply appears to have occurred around 2005, says Murray, who compared world crude oil production with world prices going back to 1998. Before 2005, supply of regular crude oil was elastic and increased in response to price increases. Since then, production appears to have hit a wall at 75 million barrels per day in spite of price increases of 15 percent each year.
    "As a result, prices swing wildly in response to small changes in demand," the co-authors wrote. "Others have remarked on this step change in the economies of oil around the year 2005, but the point needs to be lodged more firmly in the minds of policy makers."
    For those who argue that oil reserves have been increasing, that more crude oil will be available in the future, the co-authors wrote: "The true volume of global proved reserves is clouded by secrecy; forecasts by state oil companies are not audited and appear to be exaggerated. More importantly, reserves often take 6 -- 10 years to drill and develop before they become part of the supply, by which time older fields have become depleted."
    Production at oil fields around the world is declining between 4.5 percent and 6.7 percent per year, they wrote."

  9. Mark:

    Not to worry about "appearing foolish," you should be more concerned about actually being foolish.

    Carmine D

  10. Posting from 2003...give me a break Mark.

    Do yourself a favor: Turn on the Benghazi hearings and learn something today about how wrong you and your fellow posters here were on the events and facts of that day and evening and aftermath.

    Carmine D

  11. Carmine,
    Are you saying that Frank Luntz wasn't behind the change in terminology for public consumption? That would definitely make you foolish to deny this is what occurred. The exact point is that this happened in 2003. Get it? I thought not.

  12. Benghazi hearings are Republican propaganda.


    "Ultimately, the hearing may resolve few if any of the questions that Republicans have raised about how robustly the military responded to the attack. The answers the witnesses provided Wednesday left both sides stuck where they were before: Republicans insisted that the military could have done more to scramble fighter jets and deploy combat forces to help fight off the militants, while Democrats were firm that the military did all it could in a confusing situation in which the closest help was too far away.

    Mr. Hicks described asking in vain for air support from Italy, which he was told could not make it there in time. Then, later, he pleaded for soldiers who would never come.

    The low point in the attack, he said, came when the prime minister of Libya called to inform him that Mr. Stevens had died. "I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life," he said, fighting back tears as he described how he and his team in Tripoli then quickly began their efforts to evacuate.

    Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the committee's senior Democrat, sharply criticized Republicans and the committee chairman, Representative Darrell Issa of California, in particular, accusing them of distorting the facts of the investigation for their own partisan purposes.

    Noting that the nation's top military and intelligence commanders have all said that American forces could not have reached Benghazi in time to save any of the four lives lost, Mr. Cummings, his voice rising, said he had seen no evidence that these officials should not be believed.

    "Our committee has a fundamental obligation to conduct responsible oversight," he said. "But we also have a duty to thoroughly investigate these claims before we make public accusations."

    He continued, "In contrast, what we have seen over the past two weeks is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan manner, but rather to launch unfounded accusations and to smear public officials.""

  14. Wordy and worthless Jeffery, lad.

    2003? 2003? Really? Luntz? This Obama syndrome of blaming GOP is really taking on a new life. Now we're going back decades!

    Pulitzer for FOX. Even the mainstream media is covering now. With Clinton's January 2013 hearing words: What difference does it make! ....Followed by Nordstom's tearful reply.

    Hillary is history. Obama beat her for the Presidency in 2008 and will beat her again in 2016.

    Carmine D

  15. "There have long been claims that some unspecificed "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'."

    Carmine D

  16. It's not the number of posts lad Jeffery, it's the number of words. Some like me have a lot to say and say it frugally. Some like you have nothing to say and say it verbosely.

    Carmine D

  17. Jeffery lad, sorry about frumpy Hillary in 2016. But she let "ego" get in the way of "empathy" on January 23, 2013. It cost her the nomination.

    Carmine D

  18. Lad Jeff:

    Glad to hear that you think that your heart's in the right place. Now, get to work on your mind.

    Carmine D

  19. Carmine,
    Who was that climate 'skeptic', when did this occur, and what was the reason for the change?

  20. "Lad Jeff:
    Glad to hear that you think that your heart's in the right place. Now, get to work on your mind."

    Well at least Jeff has a mind to work on...

  21. Are you pining because you don't Mark?

    Pulitzer for Benghazi...Mark my words.

    Carmine D

  22. Hi Jeff,
    You just can't fix delusional, so the poor boy Carmine should be pitied. Also, I would reiterate to you that the Pulitzer is awarded to print media and Faux News is not print nor is it news but it does do propaganda well enough to encourage the delusional such as Carmine.