Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Opinion

Thursday
Mar 18, 2010
Clouds And Sun
Clouds And Sun 55° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu

Opinion


EDITORIAL: Lights out

Our 'alternative' energy future really means no energy at all

Do the forces now in charge of our energy future prefer that the American economy continue to grow based on the exploitation of plentiful and less-expensive coal and other fossil fuels, or by replacing those older power sources with wind, solar and other "renewables," regardless of the cost?

Based on developments here in Southern Nevada last week, the answer would appear to be ... that it was a trick question to begin with. Those in charge today have no intention of providing the foundering American economy with the new energy resources it needs to resume its growth, at all.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Judging a judge
  2. Open ... and shut
  3. A lottery would raise money for education
  4. Only the private sector can create wealth
  5. Net neutrality
  6. Open court



Last week, tired of wasting time promoting a relatively clean, low-cost energy option opposed by the entire ruling political class, from President Obama and U.S. Sen. Harry Reid on down, utility NV Energy formally withdrew its application through the state Public Utilities Commission to build the Ely Energy Center.

The $5 billion, 1,500-megawatt central Nevada plant would have generated enough energy to power 900,000 homes. It will now be delayed at least a decade, until costly technologies can be developed to capture all such a plant's harmless emissions of carbon dioxide -- a gas necessary to life on Earth, a gas of which mankind's production is dwarfed by that churned out by the oceans and volcanoes, but to which eco-extremists attribute the supposed danger of "global warming."

Meantime, Air Force officials urged the federal government to deny construction applications for a $700 million solar power plant near the Nellis flight-training range, up Tonopah way, about 175 miles northwest of Las Vegas -- even though the company had already shifted its site 25 miles further away from Air Force lands than originally planned.

The Nevada plant was supposed to be a showcase for the Los Angeles outfit SolarReserve; one of the largest solar plants in the world, using heat-transfer technology developed for space rockets by United Technologies and powering about 50,000 homes.

But Nellis Air Force Base commander Col. Howard "Dave" Belote said in a statement Monday that locating the solar plant anywhere near the huge Nellis range "is incompatible with our vital national security operations." The Air Force recently -- and similarly -- also blocked a proposed wind power project near its range.

Oh well. Time to turn back to developing our own, domestic supplies of oil and natural gas.

Or ... maybe not. In another high-profile reversal, the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management decided immediately after its latest lease auction Tuesday to suspend the sale of all 31 Utah oil and gas drilling parcels offered and purchased.

The decision was reminiscent of action taken by new -- and oh-so-green -- Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in February, scrapping leases on 77 Utah parcels "near wild areas or national parks" sold in the final days of the Bush administration.

The BLM had initially described Tuesday's auction as protest-free, meaning none of the 42 parcels offered were encumbered by a formal protest from conservation or other groups.

The Denver-based Center for Native Ecosystems had, in fact, filed a protest covering all the parcels that were offered Tuesday, but the BLM rejected the complaint because it came in too late. For the same reason, the agency dismissed other objections filed by the Washington, D.C.-based Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. (Note such groups protest all the parcels. None are judged acceptable.)

But in Tuesday's reversal, Selma Sierra, the director of the BLM's operations in Utah, decided to accept protests from both groups despite the fact they were filed after a May 13 deadline.

Bidders -- some of whom already have hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in leases that haven't been issued from two previous Utah auctions -- will still be expected to pay for their parcels, even though the BLM won't be issuing any actual leases.

If the green-dominated federal government is going to block both solar and wind power development here in the desert Southwest -- at the same time it blocks new oil and gas leases on millions of acres of God-forsaken desert scrub -- what's America's energy-hungry economy going to use to replace coal and nuclear and natural gas in the years to come? Hamsters on treadmills?

The answer is that the green extreme doesn't care if we starve in the dark. They think there are too many humans on the planet to begin with.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 43 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 11:40 AM: Kent:

Surprise!

I wouldn't leave you here all alone to shout into the wind.

Kent, no matter how many times you try to argue that just because every scientific organization on earth believes man is a significant cause of global warming that it doesn't mean that its true, I will be here to remind you that it doesn't mean its any LESS true... just cause you keep repeating yourself.

And yes Kent, BS, is all you have "argued" you've claimed that just because every scientific organization on earth says that man is a significant cause of global warming does't make it true...but that's it.

And, Kent, I appreciate that you don't want to gather any evidence that has been considered by every scientific organization on earth BEFORE they came to the conclusion that man is a significant cause of global warming; how much fun would that be, even if you were capable.

So, do what people like you do, grab a beer, lean back in that Lazy-Boy, and shout "you bettcha" at "Faux" when they tell you that this is all Al Gore's plan to keep us down.


Report abuse

Soylent Green is the Answer wrote on June 29, 2009 10:55 AM: First, we need a world-wide census of everyone on the planet. Then, a sophisticated computer program to see how can reproduce, we lives and who dies.

Everyone marked for deletion will report to the suicide booths. Valuable minerals will be harvested from their bodies and the left-over used for food.


Report abuse

Kent wrote on June 29, 2009 06:54 AM: Well, I am posting this the next day, so I doubt it will be read, but here goes.

Really, patrick: BS is all I've argued? I have merely pointed out the fallacies you have put forward. Since you claim to have gone to law school, I would have hoped you would have a better command of logic.

Again, you repeat the same old thing over and over - that DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE! And you continue to bring in the red herring of the tobacco studies, trying to distract those who are reading your posts. Using red herrings does not suprise me in the least; they are commonly used by lawyers and politicians (of both parties). Tell you what, patrick, why don't you post EVIDENCE for man-made global warming? Go find it!


Report abuse

Rasputin wrote on June 28, 2009 10:26 PM: Dasvedanya, fellow Amerikaners!

William, thanks for a superb scientific breakdown of the situation - even though 90% or more of the population will be scratching their collectives heads in befuddlement.

Right Said Fred is right. And it's going to come to a boil soon, just watch. The people are angry, and have a right to be.


Report abuse

Right Said Fred wrote on June 28, 2009 09:55 PM: Easy there William,

You don't want to confuse the sheeple (people) with the facts. Better that they have a warm fuzzy feeling when they go to bed at night, knowing that they've voted and are part of the democratic process.

Personally, this all makes me sick. Everywhere you turn, for just about anything you want to do, some type of government approval or interaction is required. Don't forget about the lawsuits either. Even if it is approved by the government doesn't mean that some 3rd party will interfere with a lawsuit.

Welcome to Amerika.


Report abuse

WIlliam Ernest Schenewerk, Ph.D. wrote on June 28, 2009 06:56 PM: Starve in the dark is exactly what the greenies want. World communism requires World poverty. Starving is literally true. The 200 MT/y phosphate rock comes with enough uranium to produce 25,000 GWe. From this point of view, nukes consume radioactive waste. After ~1000 years fission product curies is less than uranium curies that are extracted from the fertilizer. We can also use byproduct D2O from hydrogen production to build thorium-U233 breeders. This fuel cycle makes some radiation health experts unhappy because U233 cycle always requires shielding.
I can not wait for the carbon tax. It will have to be ~$1000/tonne-carbon to facilitate shutdown of coal power plants. Even that will not help becasue the marginal natural gas supply is LNG. LNG is no better than coal on a combined CO2 and LHV basis. European gasoline tax is already equivalent to $1000/tonne-Carbon and their fuel consumption has not gone down. Then there is wind energy. CA ISO assigns 20% utilization to wind energy. DOE and Spanish numbers are not much better. 20% wind means 80% airplane motor backup. Airplane motors running 80% of the time use more natural gas than CCGT running all the time. Wet geothermal produces a cubic nautical mile of hypersaline effluent per GWe. 25,000 GWe wet geothermal will probably kill all sea life. After all this we can put Kim Jung Un in charge.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on June 28, 2009 06:12 PM: Jon:

I guess somewhere we did find some common ground, but some obvious differences which I'm sure will never be reconciled.

Yes, it is my opinion that the business/government relationship constantly shifts with one being the "chicken" sometimes, and other times the "egg". For the most part, in my humble opinion, businesses simply have interests that they will protect to a greater degree than a government will. Again, this is not always the case, but in the vast majority of instances economic interests in this country drive policy making, and not the other way around.

The "sphere of influence" which every country maintains to protect what it perceives as its national interests consists of a mix of economic and security interests. Sometimes, many times, these interests combine, but MOST of the times, economic interests prevail for in most cases a nations security is not truly in danger when a banana republic threatens to commit itself to land reform, or nationalize oil fields in a particular country. A country's citizens may ultimately pay more for the products in question, and the companies may sustain some economic losses but this can hardly be said to threaten the national security of a country.

Establishing a "sphere of influence" then, again for the most part, is simply a method by which the politicians in a country may more easily take military actions against a region or country pursuant to its economic interests. Normally, the economic interest to be protected is quite narrow such as the case in the banana republics where this country repeatedly intervened to protect the interests of United Fruit and others.

And the Korean "war" was fought because Russia wasn't at the U.N. that day. And unfortunately I just ran outta words.


Report abuse

Jon H. wrote on June 28, 2009 02:33 PM: patrick,

So, you appear to be arguing that The US was engaged in a traditional fascist type government relationship with Big Industry. You claim that a hand-in-glove, relationship existed where big industry profited by using the US government’s military force to achieve a goal.

Yes Patrick, I agree with much of your argument, our government is a mixed economy that is a blend of Socialism, Fascism and a ghost of Free Market Capitalism to kick around. All that our government does must have a profitable goal . . . and yes big industry is part of that package. Now the question is, who is the puppet and who is the puppet master? Is it Government that runs Big Industry, or is it Big Industry that runs Washington? Or is it possible that it is a synergetic relationship that works both ways. I choose the latter, and the balance changes as the power of each group rises or falls.

So yes, the political power in this country exists both in our political parties and in big business.

The Republicans favor the Fascism part and the Democrats favor the Socialism part. The Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same Collectivist coin . . . truly the same in most respects.

You further claim that the Spheres of Influence doctrine of stopping the threat of Communism was simply propaganda?

So, am I to understand that the Korean and Vietnam War were fought for what?

Are you claiming that the loss of markets to the Communist World View was not a concern for the United States and its business interests?

By the way, patrick, good arguments on your part . . . welcome to the party. We truly only differ on the reading of the facts due to our different world views.


Report abuse

patrick wrote on June 28, 2009 01:55 PM: Jon:

There is not a single informed individual today that does not know the history of Iran and the U.S. actions of overthrowing the elected leader of that country.

There are few, who are familiar with the subject who dispute the reasons why we intervened; it happened at the behest of the British Government acting on behalf of British Petroleum. This is historical fact and no amount of "he was a communist clouds the issue for most people.

The takeover of Chile by Pinochet is yet another example of American corporate interests (in that case ATT and Richard Milhouse Nixon) that succeeded in influencing American policy to permit the intervention of American military forces to get them what they wanted.

The Congo, Hondurus, Venesuela, Cuba, the list is practically as long as the list of countries, and even longer since some of the no longer exist, in the world today. You don't think they called them "Banana republics" for nothing do you?

Communist was merely a code word, used to inflame the American publics opinion against whatever regime existed in the area to permit the use of American military force against the regime that was denying access to our beloved corporations.

Argue that we all benefit because of what these corporations forced the American public to endure, argue that we need the bananas, uranium, oil, telephone deals, "in the national interest", but arguing that we did it to stop communism is just naive.


Report abuse

Gib wrote on June 28, 2009 01:54 PM: If you want another global warming skeptic, check out the EPA

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml


Read All Comments