Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras

Breaking News:

Subscribe

Mike Rosen's energy rant was fact free

This letter has not been edited

Bradley D. Collins, Boulder

Published September 4, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Text size  

Re: The New Energy Depression.

Mike Rosen’s rant on Wednesday’s op-ed section was entirely free of fact. Let me help out. The American Solar Energy Society’s “Green Collar” jobs report outlines the potential for economic development based on the renewable and energy efficiency industries. The facts are that 8.5 million jobs exist in these industries in the U.S. today with millions more on the way. The 2006 revenue for these U.S industries was nearly $1 Trillion - more than Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobile and GM combined that year. (See the report at www.ases.org - click green collar jobs report). Over the past few months the Rocky Mountain News has reported healthy growth for these industries in Colorado.

FACTS: Renewable energy has brought 600 new jobs at Vestas Wind Systems in Windsor; 500 new jobs at AVA Solar in Longmont; 40 jobs coming to Blue Sun Biodiesel in Golden; 300 new jobs at Ascent Solar Technologies in Thornton; 140 new jobs at Renewable Energy Systems America in Broomfield; 50 new jobs soon at the Siemens R&D Center in Boulder; and by 2011 an astounding 7,000 new jobs coming to the new ConocoPhillips Renewable Energy Research Center in Louisville. These are but a sample of the recent high quality, high paying jobs in the Colorado New Energy Economy.

FACT: More Coloradans are employed in the renewable and efficiency industries than in oil and gas - thanks to the voters for passing Amendment 37, to the legislature for creating reasonable incentives, and to Governor Ritter for making Colorado an attractive place to do business.

Regarding oil shale, I’d like Rosen to explain where the water and energy will come from to process the stuff into anything useful and cost competitive. And who will pay for the process? If he doesn’t want government to do it, I suspect it will never be done. And he ought to ask the fine folks in Rifle if they think oil shale is a good deal for them.

Comments

  • September 5, 2008

    6:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SheikYurBooty writes:

    Bradley - we don't need your so-called "facts."

  • September 5, 2008

    7:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Fact - Bradley, you should have begun with - The facts are that 8.5 million “subsidized” jobs exist in these industries in the U.S. today with millions more “subsidized jobs” on the way.

    As you admit, government money has created these jobs. Oh, wait! I’m sorry. OUR money being spent by the government has created these jobs. Solar and wind are not cost effective alternatives for the foreseeable future, that is, without OUR money being spent by the government to support them. Nor are wind and solar reliable enough to eliminate conventional power plants. Our house is 100% wind and solar, I know.

    I would not believe anything a self-serving organization like the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) says about jobs and revenues. You do because that’s your agenda. You live in the People’s Socialist Republic of Boulder and think you speak for Rifle? With people like you leading the way, gas at the pumps will hit $10 a gallon in a few years.

  • September 5, 2008

    9:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    timflh401 writes:

    Fact - the entire solar and wind industry is based on subsidized payments from the taxpayers. Those industries cannot compete against the traditional electric industry resources. And don't come back with your "big oil" subsidy argument. Oil does not compete in the electric generation business with very limited exception on the east coast and Hawaii. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas are the traditional fuels of the electric industry with a great existing renewable resource, hydroelectricity, used where the anti-dam division of the enviro lobby hasn't achieved its goals yet.

  • September 5, 2008

    10:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rightwingnut writes:

    Why not address what mikeinhartsel has said rather than try and attack him? Does he have a valid point or not?

  • September 5, 2008

    1:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dragonfly writes:

    I believe it was reported recently that if government (monies) failed to help the wind industries, they may have to close plants and lay off workers. Hmm.

  • September 6, 2008

    12:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    Wechasa wrote, "I would bet that there might be a solar powered vehicle coming down the pike in the lifetime of many posting here."

    I doubt it. The top surface area of the average car is around 10 square meters. The sun delivers about 1000 watts per square meter maximum to the earth's surface. So even if the car's top surface was completely covered with solar cells that were 100% efficient, and you drove the car only at the equator at high noon on a clear day in the middle of summer, these cells would deliver 10,000 watts or a little more than 13 horse power maximum.

    A Honda Civic typically has 8-10 times that much power.

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

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.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints