Friday, March 18, 2011

More alternative energy nonsense

The Bureau of land Management and the US Department of Energy are holding public meetings to accept public comments on so-called solar energy zones in six Southwestern States, including Utah. These zones are areas that have been identified as suitable for for "utility-scale solar energy development." The following are the comments I submitted at

Regarding alternative energy development, I oppose government taking a role in any way other than necessary regulations and enforcement to protect the rights of the people and to protect wildlife and the environment. I therefore urge the total rejection of using public funds to study the impact of any proposed solar energy zones or to prepare any form of impact statement. I urge the total rejection of any government subsidies for any form of alternative energy development and production. All those costs must be born entirely by the commercial and/or private entities that intend to profit from solar energy. If "green" energy is such a good idea, why hasn't any power company already established significant wind or solar farms entirely at its own expense?

Experience shows that alternative energy technologies (ie solar and wind) are not profitable without government subsidies. Consequently, the government and the developers must anticipate that the equipment installed in the proposed solar energy zones will break down long before they break even, let alone make an unsubsidized profit. I therefore demand that prior to approval, any entity that installs any alternative energy system on public land be required to set aside sufficient funds to promptly remove and properly dispose of all obsolete, unused, damaged, and worn out equipment and restore the land to its natural condition. The California countryside is littered with broken-down wind turbines because they don't even produce enough reliable electricity to pay for repairs or removal. We must stop that taxpayer-subsidized nonsense!

Because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind rarely blows at optimum speed, both solar and wind power are so unreliable that conventional power sources (coal, gas, hydro, nuclear) must be sized to provide 100% of the energy needs of the customers. Therefore, to protect the consumer's expectation of constant, reliable, on-demand energy, any entity that installs any alternative energy project on public land must also install, maintain, and operate a conventional energy source to ensure that the facility, as a whole, always produces at least the rated output of the alternative energy source.

Any alternative energy project on public land must have no adverse effect whatsoever on other historical uses of that land such as wildlife habitat, grazing, hunting, recreation, mineral development, logging, etc.

Since alternative energy advocates consider conventional energy sources to be evil, I demand that any alternative energy development in the proposed solar zones be done entirely without using carbon-based fuel or other conventional sources of energy. That includes not using any energy whatsoever that is derived from carbon to manufacture, transport, install, and maintain any of the equipment, wiring, foundations, and other structures associated with the project.

1 comment:

  1. Another of Obama's dream "green" investments collapsed this month -- exactly in the month some experts predicted. Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels, closed its doors after obtaining a half-billion dollar infusion of taxpayer money. See Jon Stewart's analysis at

    Government central planners must immediately stop using taxpayer money to force products and services into the marketplace. Only free-market forces can introduce new products and services efficiently and wisely. Politicians, bureaucrats, and other central planners cannot.