SPEAKOUT: Benefits of solar energy manifold
By Beth Hart and Keith Hay
Saturday, March 22, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Colorado is facing an energy challenge: can we meet increasing energy demand while reducing global warming pollution?
Colorado's Climate Action Plan calls for cutting global warming pollution by 20 percent by 2020. According to a report by the Colorado Energy Forum, the state will need 4,900 megawatts of new generation by 2025. While renewable energy in Colorado is playing a growing role, conventional coal still supplies almost 80 percent of the state's electricity, the source of almost half the state's global warming pollution.
Connecting Colorado's Renewable Resources to the Markets (a recent report by the governor's Energy Office) makes the answer as clear as Colorado's skies: We need to harvest the abundance of our 300 days of sunny skies. By using a very small percentage of our best solar resources, not only will we meet Colorado's demand, we will become a net exporter of clean, homegrown, renewable energy.
Colorado ranks fourth in the nation in solar resources. Several bills in this legislative session will put an "Open for Business" sign on these resources.
House Bill 1164 helps level the field for developers of central-station solar plants. At the same time, several new bills are needed to support homegrown energy that produces electricity and hot water from wind and sun at our homes, farms and ranches so that ordinary Coloradans can contribute to and benefit from the new energy economy.
With the ability to store power for six hours or more, concentrating solar plants - a type of central-station facility - can generate electricity at night and displace coal or natural gas during peak evening hours. We could produce half Colorado's current peak demand by using only 2 percent of the best solar resources in just the San Luis Valley.
With the right policies, by 2020 Colorado could generate enough electricity from central solar to meet our demand, and still sell power to Southwestern markets. These plants will bring an economic boost to rural Southern Colorado. Analysis for an Arizona-based concentrating solar plant the size of a medium coal plant estimated the project would bring in between $2 billion and $4 billion in private investment and create more than 250 permanent, high-paying jobs. Colorado could expect similar results.
As Colorado builds our new energy economy, we should not forget Gov. Bill Ritter's appeal for ordinary Coloradans to reduce global-warming pollution. Mining Colorado's sunny skies could mean that by 2020 we would have more than half a million solar roofs supplying renewable, pollution-free power allowing Coloradans to join the fight while benefiting from the New Energy Economy. Reaching these numbers requires that we act now to build Colorado's solar market.
We can jump-start this market by making sure that all Coloradans have access to rebates, by making sure that all new homes have solar or are at least solar-ready, by providing fair compensation for the power these homes create, and by making solar financing more affordable.
In addition to generating clean electricity, solar power can reduce the state's demand for natural gas. Solar domestic hot-water heaters are an efficient and effective means for homeowners to harness the sun's energy to displace natural gas used for water heating.
There is strong public support for meeting the goals set out in the Colorado Climate Action Plan. Polls show that three-quarters of Coloradans view global warming as a problem, and the same number support cutting the state's emissions. Colorado legislators and regulators should take advantage of this public support to make sure that Colorado meets its energy challenge by developing our solar resources.
There is an answer to Colorado's energy challenge. Our abundant solar, wind and other renewable energy resources will allow us to meet growing demand for energy while cutting global warming pollution. Developing these resources will also make Colorado an exporter of clean, renewable energy to growing markets throughout the West while increasing our energy security and building the state's economy.
Beth Hart is the president of the board of directors of the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association. Keith Hay is with Environment Colorado.
Comments
Posted by ghoax on March 22, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again...the term "global warming pollution" a lie, an unproven claim and the popular "add on" to push an agenda. Wake up people, the greenhouse gas claim is bogus period. Anything that references "greenhouse gas" control based on CO2 should not be considered. CO2 is not a pollutant, there is no warming, the impact man has on CO2 levels in the atmosphere are negligable at best and insignificant according to many true scientists and climatologists. The "data" the alarmists use is flawed, skewed or flat out lies. Why?...it's about control people. The bigger the lie...
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 22, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax payer support, tax hikes, tax subsidies, tariffs, tax credits and more taxpayer supports. Solar, windmills and biofuelshs have been recycled for decades. If $100 crude, $4 at the pump and skyrocketing natural gas prices didn't do the trick over the past 35 years, then let's lose this recycled nonsense and get serious. Why should taxpayers support more expensive and very unreliable sources of energy? And why should proponents have to resort to failed junk science to support their case? 75% of the population believe in global warming? Baloney, you nade that up like you fabricated global warming. Besides, how long ago was it that 100% of the folks believed in a flat earth and that the sun revolved around the earth?
Let's promote real solutions that are reliable and economic. We need to open up ANWR, open up the outer continental shelf, build nuke power plants, exploit endless supplies of coal and natural gas, build more refineries and drill for oil. We need to lose the "feel-good" and focus on national security, economic growth, jobs and incomes while we still have that opportunity.
Posted by glowrock on March 22, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ghoax, where do you get the data to back up your laughingly-wrong ideas? No warming? CO2 is not a pollutant? Well, I guess CO2 isn't TECHNICALLY a pollutant, but the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere, the warmer the climate becomes. I guess it's a pollutant in the same way as having too much of a particular vitamin or mineral in the body is a pollutant. Too much of a good thing.
But honestly, do you actually believe Global Warming is simply a complete fabrication of pure lies and fallacies brought upon the evil socialist communist marxist scientists around the world, all in an attempt to gain world control and power? My god, you're delusional if you truly believe that!
Sure, human impacts on Global Warming isn't 100% verified. At the same time, there's so much evidence pointing in that direction that I don't feel it can be ignored. Besides, why not conserve energy? Why not focus on renewable resources? Oil, coal, and natural gas aren't going to be around forever, so why not at least make an attempt to be more environmentally-friendly and self-sufficient? Why not rely less on foreign fossil fuels? Is any of this a BAD thing?
I think not.
Posted by greenleaf on March 22, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Squatch,
I have to keep saying it: you desperately need new material! You always make it sound as though energy prices have been high since Carter's time in office. Any thinking person who has been around a while knows that isn't true. Gasoline prices were high for a year or so in the 70's during the oil boycott. Since then and until recently we have paid low prices for oil. Why else would General Motors and the buying public even consider a laughable product such as the HUMMER. Suvs and 12 mpg are only concepts that work in times of cheap gas. The same is true of natural gas. Prices only peaked in recent years as demand and competition took off.
I have concluded SAS, that you are only comfortable with yesterday's answers to today's questions. I think you would be wise to pry open your mind to consider such concepts as energy conservation and clean energy. I invite you to become part of the solution. As it is at the moment, you are, unfortunately, part of the problem!
Posted by rellimpank on March 23, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
---too bad the power companies can't limit the juice supplied to the environuts to that produced by windmills and solar panels--after they freeze in the dark we wouldn't hear any more from them--
Posted by kathyM on March 23, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Greenleaf, Gas prices were high for a year or so during the boycott? The boycott occurred in 1973, but by the time I got my driver's license in 1978, the prices were still high (equivalent to $3-$3.50/gal). My dad actually saved money by giving me his gas-guzzling tank (8 mpg!) and carpooling to work. Gas prices eventually did go down, but it took longer than a year or two.
Posted by greenleaf on March 23, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi kathy,
If we both were adults at that time, maybe both of our memories are suspect:>). However, even if you are right and I am wrong, you have to admit a few years of gas prices being high doesn't compare to their being low for the better part of 30 years. Also the inflation corrected prices you mention existed in 1973 and had dropped somewhat within a year or two. Just so my point to dear old SASQUATCH isn't lost: that means that market forces weren't supportive of alternatives for a long enough period to attract venture capital and move the process forward. It did however, lead to the decline of the American auto industry with it's excessive reliance upon gas-guzzling "tanks" such as your dad's. I would say those are SASQUATCH"S market forces at work! Wouldn't you?
Posted by kathyM on March 23, 2008 at 10:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
greenleaf, I think one of the reasons gas prices have been low for a good chunk of the last 30 years is the American auto industry DID respond to the high gas prices (and, of course, Japanese competition). The first efforts were clumsy, but they did save gas.
The general public also responded to the high gas prices; the rampant PR campaigns on carpooling, turning the thermostat down, etc., had some effect. So prices did eventually go down--right along with demand. The oil companies were hurting by the mid-80s.
I haven't looked it up, but I recall doing much sofa-diving and bottle-returning to scare up $1.00-$1.50 (about $2.50-$3.00 today)for the gallon of gas that got me to school and back.
Posted by greenleaf on March 24, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kathy,
I had a 1965 Buick Grand Sport with q 445 cu.inch engine that got 8 miles per gallon (as a young man I had more hormones than brains). When the oil crisis came, I literally couldn't afford to drive that car. I took the bus until I was able to sell it. I then bought a used VW bug (there were no economical American cars). Even then, it was as you said: hard to come up with gas money. I usually could only afford a few gallons at a time.
Today, the family car is a Prius that gets 50 MPG. Again American auto manufacturers can't get within 20 mpg of that figure. Deja vous all over again!
Posted by jackson_foi on March 24, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"With the right policies, ... sell power to Southwestern markets."
Beth and Keith, why does it take policies to make this work? Why wouldn't you just go to the Fed, get some free money, start construction and begin running the power companies out of business? If by policies, you mean subsidies, then Colorado subsidies for Colorado consumption is already being done, but for Vegas air-conditioning load probably should not.
Posted by kathyM on March 24, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
greenleaf, During the embargo my mom drove a Ford Pinto. After it died, she traded it for a hideous 1978 Buick Century Special, one of the early full-sized cars with a V6 engine. My dad and stepmom had a Ford Fairmount, a real piece of junk but got decent mileage. My all-time favorite was my 1981 Toyota Tercel. All-vinyl interior, no radio, no AC, four speed, a zillion mpgs.
But if we still owned my dad's 1966 GTO, I'd be driving all 400 hp of it!
Posted by mytwosense on March 26, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It always puzzles me when people talk about solar energy as a "failed" technology. Here's a comparison that might put solar's progress in its proper light, at least to thinking people:
Solar has really only been around for about three decades, yet already powers many commercial businesses and residences around the world. It took over three hundred years for the internal combustion engine to be perfected so that it could run our cars!
Nuclear power plants require limited resources to run, like uranium. More wars as we fight over yet another precious resource.
We already do a lot of drilling and gas mining in this country, and have reached peak production in many of these places. There are areas of Texas that are now wastelands. ANWR would require years of exploring before any oil would be tapped, it's not like there's a guyser of oil waiting there right now. And even then, the output would be a drop compared to our consumption rates.
Oil shale processing is basically the equivalant of scraping the bong. It also requires incredible amounts of energy to process, so we'd be using more energy to produce it than we would likely get back. This is why the industry has never been able to produce more than 25,000 barrels of the stuff, in the years and years they've been trying.
As for coal, more ripping up the land, and for what? It won't power our cars, the biggest source today of our energy consumption, and it's a limited resource, too.
Me personally, I'm putting my bets on the emerging technologies ahead for our energy solutions, not the limited fossil fuel strategies in the rear view mirror.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.