Las Vegas Sun

October 31, 2014

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

Letter to the editor:

Don’t hide the cost of green power

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.

The Legislature should vote no on Senate Bill 123, which would hide the costs of green power from the public. We have the right to know what we are paying for green power. With the requirement that 25 percent come from renewable energy sources by 2020, this will be a significant additional cost to the consumer.

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: 10 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. All or nothing at all. Green and renewable power sources don't trump conventional energy sources. Both have to coexist in the future. One no better than the other except to those who want and use them. Be honest and provide the true costs so customers can make up their minds intelligently and pick and choose correctly.

    CarmineD

  2. And as I've repeatedly pointed out, the time to explore alternative energy sources, including nuclear, is well BEFORE we actually need them. I'd normally say we should start NOW, but actually we should have started years ago. And yes, it'll cost money, some of which will be to no avail. That is the cost of exploring ANY new area of interest. Ending a project with no usable result appears to be a waste - EXCEPT that negative data remains data! It indicates an option we need pursue no further.

  3. "I have seen claims from solar advocates that you can install enough panels on your Nevada home now that will pay for themselves in seven years (2020) and then you won't even have a power bill." Warrior

    During Sandy, many of the NJ homes with solar were hit hard. But the public figured these homes would be first online with sun power. Wrong. Apparently the panels are hard wired into the electrical grid, as a default fail safe, so when the grid is out so are the panels. Consumers don't know about this because it's never mentioned by the solar fans. BTW, New Jersey and California, I believe, have the highest number of homes with solar panel users in the country. IN PART BECAUSE of the tax credits awarded to the buyers and users in these States to convert to renewable energy. Didn't help for Sandy survivors in NJ.

    CarmineD

  4. When I started driving in the early 1970s I was paying a little over $.30 a gallon for gasoline. Today it's nearly 15 times higher than that. In the near future when people have to start paying hundreds of dollars to fill their cars up with gas they're going to have green energy hanging off their fannies.

    Before the financial collapse crude was close to $150 a barrel and gas was at six dollars a gallon in some parts of the country. Had the financial crisis not happened we would probably be looking at eight dollars a gallon today. New technology is always costly and then economies of scale drive down prices over time. Solving our energy dependence should be a national priority. Instead we've been playing games for 30 years. The Chinese spend 10 times what we spend on developing alternative energy. You think they know something we don't?

  5. Chapline,

    You stated "Could all this be the primary cause of greatly expanding earthquakes and sinkholes?" The answer is no.

    More to my point of writing, why state something as fact that you 'feel' is correct? Why?

    The late great statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan said " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

    Please heed his sage advice.

    Purgatory

  6. Personally, I think the real future lies with hydrogen fuel cells. Use solar to power the sea-water cracking plants to get hydrogen from water, and get nothing but pure water back as the only combustion emission.

    That is an added bonus considering fresh water will become a limiting resource in the near future.

  7. El_Lobo,

    This is not a political issue, at least, not for me other than it will take political will and power to address it.

    Logic simply exists. (And please, let's avoid Russel's Paradox and go for the intent here.)

    Unfortunately, it is not possible to isolate taking the needed steps to convert from fossil fuels to newer forms of energy from the economic impact of doing so. Even small increases in the cost of energy, say 10%, can have dramatic and widespread impact on the quality of life for the majority of people.

    I think that we must look at what the "natural" energy chain is, starting with nuclear, extending into solar, and at the bottom (so to speak) geo-thermal. Both solar and geo-thermal are ultimately the result of nuclear energy.

    We currently are working from the very bottom of the secondary energy chain when we use fossil fuels. Wind and tidal forces are only slightly higher on the secondary chain. Bio, such as algae fuels, are probably at the top of the secondary chain. (Using corn, a primary food source, for fuel is just plain idiotic.)

    To bring this rambling back to the start, we can not ignore the economics involved. But since economics has a substantial component involving human emotions such as greed and fear it is difficult to apply science (logic) to it in other than broad, general terms that of necessity dictate that some segments of the population will be harmed in the transition.

    Barring a truly global civilization, the best we can hope for is that "we" will do better than "they" in the process.

  8. El_Lobo,

    There are some who try to make it political, that doesn't mean it is, or should be. The sooner that people who are concerned about this throw off the blinders of political ideology and look at it as a pure engineering/survival project the better off we will be.

    Mother Gaea isn't a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Whig or anything else. She is simply an angry old b***h that *will* win in the end.

  9. "I think El Lobo and his Liberal friends should start riding bikes since he hates the use of oil. Doubt he will though. Lobos all talk no walk.

    Oh clean energy...mmmmmm....Solyndra?" Chuck333

    The huge lie that the electric car buyers and users buy into is that they are righteous because they use electric cars. What they don't say [or perhaps know] is that to keep that car charged during its useful life uses up more electricty and carbon emissions than a comparable a gas powered vehicle.

    CarmineD

  10. "Secondly, sooner or later we're going to run out of oil or what oil that we have will be so expensive that the average American won't be able to afford it..." El Lobo

    Wrong. By 2030 the USA will be the largest exporter of oil in the world and China will likely be ou
    ir biggest customer. Currently we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and will remain so.

    If EPA didn't put so many regs on refineries here in the USA, gas would be $1.90 a gallon now rather than $3.70 and climbing.

    All or nothing at all. All energy sources should coexist together. Let consumers and customers decide what they prefer to buy and use not the government forcing one over the other on them.

    CarmineD