Straightforward analysis shows that the AWEA generation/transmission proposal is very expensive and amounts to spending $4 billion unnecessarily (based on a 400 MW infrastructure).
A representative of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) recently wrote what amounted to an op-ed in Power magazine, claiming that building more transmission lines would make the grid more efficient.
The core of her argument was that more transmission lines would bring wind from distant parts of the country to where it could be used.
She said:
“Now is the time to expand the nation’s network of transmission lines to bring electricity from the country’s most renewable-rich sites to the cities.”
What this would mean, in real terms, is to spend billions of dollars unnecessarily on new transmission lines. It is no free lunch but an expensive, unnecessary second lunch.…
“Perhaps General Motors doesn’t realize that many Americans don’t want to wait an hour to charge their BEV while away from home. Or that they don’t want to pay twice as much for the family car.”
“Who will benefit from this program? Wealthy customers in California and the other ten states who have a Zero Emissions program. Who will lose? Middle-class Americans living in the Midwest who buy SUVs and pickup trucks.”
Saved by the government during the last economic crash, General Motors (GM) again has turned to the federal government for special favor. This time they want to saddle the public with a National Zero Emissions Vehicle (NZEV) program to support expensive battery-powered vehicles (BEVs).
Until now, Mary Barra, GM’s CEO, has done a credible job of guiding GM from its tenuous situation after the government bailout to what, until now, has been steady progress. …
“The court’s naked bias against the use of rivers for hydroelectric projects is demonstrated by its words, ‘damage wrought by exploitation of the waterway.” Using this reasoning, it would be impossible to use any river for hydroelectric power.”
“Environmental organizations routinely oppose the construction of dams for hydroelectric power, i.e., clean renewable energy, while professing that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are an existential threat to mankind.”
“Such opposition against carbon-free capacity dwarfs, capacity-wise, support for wind and solar. How ironic, then, that the public policy program of the climate activists might be net CO2 positive.”
Back in 1992, a writer for Energy Daily [1] noticed something. “A strange thing happened to hydropower on its way to the sustainable energy ball: the party’s environmentalist hosts withdrew their invitation.” Daniel Kaplan continued:
…Long a favorite of sustainable energy groups opposed to more traditional fuels … in the last 10 years environmentalists have turned on hydropower.