By ALEX GIMARC
This is the final in my series on Chugach Electric Association’s new dalliance with renewable energy. The second piece discussed solar energy in the Railbelt. Earlier, I discussed wind energy in the Railbelt. Today, we will look at the legislative foundation for pursuit of renewables in Alaska.
The 2010 legislative session was among the most forward-looking sessions from an energy standpoint in decades. There was legislation on renewables, nuclear energy, natural gas and hydroelectric generation. The two most important from a renewables standpoint were SB 220, which set up the renewable energy fund, and HB 306 which set non-binding efficiency and renewable generation goals for Alaska.
The most important of these are the legislative goals in HB 306. Think of them as the crack cocaine or fentanyl of the renewable energy world and you have a small idea how toxic to our pocketbooks these goals are.
The goals adopted in 2010 are a 15% increase in energy efficiency per capita between 2010 – 2020 and 50% of electric generation from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025. We are not close to achieving either goal, with the Railbelt sitting at 20% renewable generation as of 2020.
The renewable energy goals specified 13 years ago in HB 306 were wildly popular, mostly because they were completely toothless, allowing all the Usual Suspects and enablers to virtue signal in support of their personal definitions of a cleaner environment. Like most renewable energy goals, the actual goal was pulled out of thin air, is a nice round number at 50%, and promulgated without a single word about costs before, during and after migration. There was (and still is) no discussion of instability introduced into the electric grid by adoption of the 50% renewable goal.
We are in the next big push to renewables, led by the Biden Administration, among others, for 80% of all electrical generation nationwide by 2040.
As of 2020, 30 states have already signed up. Gov. Mike Dunleavy asked the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) for an analysis last year, suggesting pathways to that goal in Alaska.
NREL responded with five increasingly fanciful solutions, all of which assumed storage, which is never included in any renewable proposal. Among other assumptions, NREL assumed wind and solar based on already installed generation. They assumed 25 megawatts of in-stream hydro in central Alaska, 75 megawatts of tidal in Cook Inlet, 50 megawatts of geothermal at Mount Spurr, 50 megawatts of biomass — all operational by 2040. They all considered at least three battery (storage) options ranging 46 – 70 megawatts at Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer, and Central (Anchorage). Watana hydro was considered in Scenario 1. Nuclear was never considered nor mentioned.
Gov. Dunleavy was in front of this last year, introducing HB 301 and SB 179. While neither bill made it through the legislative process, both were reintroduced this year, by Sen. Loki Tobin (SB 101) and Rep. Jesse Sumner (HB 121). Sumner ought to know better. Frankly, so should the governor.
One of the advantages we here in Alaska have in this move to the Brave New World of complete reliance on renewable energy is watching the experience of other states and nations who were early adopters. We’ve seen spiking energy prices, rolling blackouts, and out-and-out grid failure in California and Texas. We’ve watched spiking electricity prices and deindustrialization in most of western Europe.
One of the more interesting responses came from Sweden in July, which ditched its 100% renewable energy goal in favor of 100% fossil free. They determined that 100% renewable would require magical thinking, “Unobtanium.” A fossil-fuel-free future in Sweden means they will pursue their goals via nuclear and hydro generation. Perhaps we ought to pay attention to them.
If we want to go carbon free, for whatever reason, great. There are affordable ways to get from here to there, ways that ensure the lights stay on, and the grid remains stable. Renewables are not on that path. Whatever we do, costs and storage must be considered rather than believing the vague claims we regularly get from all the usual rent-seeking suspects in the renewables advocacy industry, legislative democrats, and even the governor’s office itself.
In many ways, renewables and the various portfolio goals are word thinking, magic words and incantations, all promising a painless journey to our sparkling, environmentally friendly future. As usual, the road to very hot places are paved with good intentions, something we will hear a lot about in the upcoming legislative session.
Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.
“Renewable” energy is a con.
Correction: The entire environmental movement is a con.
According to the first three laws of thermodynamics (0th, 1st and 2nd), energy is not “renewable” as suggested by the literal meaning of that political term. All energy used is simply transferred from one state of existence to another. When used, energy must either be replaced in some manner or conserved to use later. Think, your furnace transfers energy into your home and your insulation conserves it.
On the other hand, if enviros are referring to “renewable” as the never-ending supply of solar and wind energy then they should call it “endless,” or perhaps “inexhaustible.” No energy is “renewable.” The problems with wind and solar are inconsistency, expense, and environmental impacts. Electric vehicles have a higher carbon footprint that traditional vehicles. Solar panels and wind turbines suffer from similar technical limitations. Its a fanciful, feel-good agenda without practicality.
The word “renewable” should be reserved for things like apartment leases or marriage vows.
According to the first three laws of thermodynamics (0th, 1st and 2nd), energy is not “renewable” as suggested by the literal meaning of that political term. All energy used is simply transferred from one state of existence to another. When used, energy must either be replaced in some manner or conserved to use later. Think, your furnace transfers energy into your home and your insulation conserves it.
On the other hand, if what enviros are referring to by “renewable” is the never-ending supply of solar and wind energy then they should call it just that–“endless,” or perhaps “inexhaustible.” It is not “renewable.” The problems with wind and solar are inconsistency, expense, and environmental impactfs. To this day, electric vehicles have a higher carbon footprint that traditional vehicles. Solar panels and wind turbines suffer from similar technical limitations. Its a fanciful, feel-good agenda without practicality.
The word “renewal” should be reserved for things like apartment leases or marriage vows.
According to the first three laws of thermodynamics (0th, 1st and 2nd), energy is not “renewable” as suggested by the literal meaning of that political term. All energy used is simply transferred from one state of existence to another. When used, energy must either be replaced in some manner or conserved to use later. Think, your furnace transfers energy into your home and your insulation conserves it.
On the other hand, if enviros are referring to the never-ending nature of solar and wind energy as “renewable” then they should call it “endless,” or perhaps “inexhaustible” instead. No energy is “renewable.” The problems with wind and solar are inconsistency, expense, and environmental impacts. Electric vehicles have a higher carbon footprint than gasoline vehicles. Solar panels and wind turbines suffer from similar technical limitations. Its a fanciful, feel-good agenda without feasibility.
The word “renewable” should be reserved for things like apartment leases or marriage vows.
How do I get on the list for Mr. Gimarc’s newsletter?
The entire global warming theory is a con.
Watana makes sense. Always has. And few salmon spawn above the proposed site.
Watana doesn’t make sense, the water and thus power, would be available at the wrong time of year.
You are familiar with the notion that all lakes up here don’t freeze solid at winter, right? That’s one of the reasons we have fish in them the following spring. Cheers –
The size of the proposed lake and the fact that frozen water won’t be available to continuously refill said lake as the water is drained to make power, in addition to the size of the proposed generators should help clue anyone into the fact that when the power is needed the most (during winter) it won’t be available.
The water, and thus power would be available at the wrong time of year.
Maybe you ought to contact Homer Electric, Chugach Electric or Golden Valley Electric and see how much electricity they depend upon from Bradley Lake and Cooper Lake hydro. Both lakes freeze over. Both are in Alaska.
We’ve been getting power from Bradley Lake for over 30 years, and apparently know how to do it. I think your concerns are overblown. Cheers –
So you aren’t familiar with the proposed Watana project and how it differs from Cooper Lake or Bradley Lake then? You should probably become familiar with it before extolling its virtues.
As you’ve noted, lakes freeze over in Alaska. Water that runs to lakes also freeze in Alaska, this happens at both Cooper Lake and Bradley Lake, as well as numerous other lakes around the state that are used for hydro power. When water freezes it does flow into lakes. Lakes that do not have running water flowing into them do not fill up. Hydro power is generated from flowing water. As power is generated from flowing water the level in a lake will drop if it is not replenished. Think of it as a fuel tank, as you use fuel you need to fill your tank up or you will eventually run out of fuel. If the lake is large enough it can store enough water to generate power from the flowing unfrozen water for a prolonged period of time, conversely if the lake isn’t large enough and cannot hold enough water it cannot generate power for a prolonged period of time. At the aforementioned lakes water flows into them during the spring and summer melt and into fall, then as happens every year the water turns to ice and stops filling these lakes, because of the size of the lakes and the size of the generators and how they are managed the lakes don’t run dry.
Watana, as proposed does not have a large enough lake to supply the generators when power is needed the most during the winter.
Must be nice to us AI chat programs to sound so knowledgeable Steve-O.
*Correction: must be nice to “use” not “us.”
Gunny,
My wife would call it being condescending, I’d call it informing an uninformed person.
I don’t know if being compared to an AI program is a good or bad thing, but that’s the first time I’ve seen it and I suppose that won’t be the last time.
“Proposed Site” is bisected by a major earthquake fault with the potential of a 9+ seismic event.
Well then, if that project were to be built on the proposed site, the globalists would love that because they’d just make a 9+ magnitude earthquake happen to destroy the plant and then say, “Oh! Too bad! Too bad! No electricity or water for you!”
LOL! “Unobtainium”! I love it!
For a follow-up column, it might be interesting to explore what an oil free, AKA: carbon free, economy does to the State of Alaska, which now gets its revenue as an energy exporting entity.
Might, however, be a very short article explaining how the highly taxed oil product Alaska exports would no longer support schools, government employees, programs, NGO’s, etc. The anticipated revenue from renewables being effectively zero. Certainly within a few decimals of zero?
Alaska would then become what one environmentalist envisioned: A handful of (rich) individuals connecting via sattelite/internet in a far vaster wilderness, devoid of anyone, one supposes, not on federal assistance.
No mining, no logging.
No hunting, (’cause solar charged snow machines aren’t and won’t be. A vision in which nonexistant electric 4-wheelers won’t leave tracks in the wild. And while electric boats are fine amidst urban reservoirs, they won’t get one up the Yukon, let alone the Melozitna.) Fishing with sail boats, anyone?
How could it play out? Will Oil prices continue to go higher and higher as environmental pressure increases? Then disappear all together some day in the near future?
Will a government that grew with oil ever shrink? Or will we continue to hear ridiculuous proposals for an income tax with the underlying assumption that the remaining government employees (fed, state, and local (including teachers), and the service industry supporting same) can generate tax revenues sufficient to pay for their own wages?
Which part of Alaska’s Statutes prohibit long range thinking. Must
Be somewhere.
Mr. Grimarc, thank you for a fine overview.
Alaska has some of the lowest oil taxes in the world, with our outdated code the Willow Project will cost the State $400 million in tax breaks on a field where 90% of royalties goes to the Feds. Using $300 million for transportation improvments in Anchorage will be much better for the economy than improving the Richardson Highway into a mining haul route. I could go on, we get what we deserve for the lying politicians we elect. As a 40 year resident and CEA ratepayer I support the renewable CEA goals.
Actually, you could do oil free with a combination of Watana / GenIV nuke for electricity, natural gas for heating, and CTLs for liquid fuel. GTLs off the Slope batched with crude thru TAPS would be another way to keep it full. Market for syn diesel is both sides of the Pacific Rim. The proposed combination would be about as clean energy as humanly possible. Would also keep things warm (heat engines in the cold country are usually good lifestyle choices. Cheers –
Anyone with half a brain knows that wind and solar
will only work in the summer and that would unreliable.
The real goal is that we have unreliable energy so that
business’ and industries will fail, thus the country will
collapse.
Next summer I’m getting a whole house generator.
I already did that, and last year, added wood stove.
Maybe we could “hide the decline” using “Mikes Nature trick”.
I am still waiting for any radical leftist from the Church of “Green Energy” to tell me exactly how fiberglass, highly refined silicon, copper, silver, plastic insulation, lubricating oil, and the fossil fuels needed to produced, install and maintain all these wind turbines and solar panels are “renewable”.
The fact, of course, is that none of those materials upon which the laughably misnamed “green energy” are based are in any way renewable. But like the simple-minded children that they are, the radical leftist statists can never see beyond the immediate and the superficial.
Does anyone care what an anonymous troll posts?
Well, we keep reading posts from one Frank Rast… assuming that is actually your name.
When that anonymous troll goes by the handle “Frank Rast”, most certainly they do not.
What is it about anonymity that you believe discredits the ideas and opinions expressed, “frank”? And to reemphasize an obvious (obvious to everyone but you), point, you are just as anonymous here as everyone else, as none of us has the ability to know the identity of any given poster, their handle here notwithstanding.
Really, “frank”, you idiocy is matched only by your tediousness.
And once again, we see the intellectual (as well as the moral) bankruptcy of the radical leftist extremist.
When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger, eh “frank”?
How lame, how laughable, how childish, how vacuous, how utterly pathetic, how absolutely radical leftist.
Hahahaha!!!
Absolutely no self awareness.
Indeed, Mr. “Antisemites Hiding Under Every Bed And In Every Closet” paranoia case, your self-awareness is completely lacking.
As a person “who is NOT a self-aggrieved Jew” I don’t see antisemites under every bed or in every closet, I don’t think most Jews see that, or even most “self-aggrieved Jews”. But I do see it when it is in plain sight, and boy is it in plain sight with you Jeff!
Maybe you should stop hiding in the closet Jeff, come out of the closet Jeff, stop hiding your true self Jeff.
Oh yeah, I forgot….
“And once again, we see the intellectual (as well as the moral) bankruptcy of the radical leftist extremist.
When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger,” eh “Jeff”?
Steve, your obsessive and idiotic attempts to slur all those who do not agree with your radical pro-Zionist political agenda, and with you kneejerk support for the state of Israel, as some form of putative “antisemitism” is both laughable and insulting. But you seemed determined to slog on with your paranoid compulsion nonetheless, so carry on.
Outstanding article. Reduce the use of fossil fuels is a noble goal. Swede’s figured it out. The mini nuclear plant proposed for use by the U.S. Air Force in Alaska is a step in the right direction.
Agreed. I just wish we had the tech for micro nuclear like NASA was working on.
It’s coming. Sizing it for the Railbelt is not a problem. Getting them small enough for the Bush and Southeast might be. Cheers –
Does the permitting for these wind and solar projects come with requirements to restore the land after the project(s) useful life has ended? Is there bonding on that?
If you ever been to Nome you will see what Alaska’s mining restoration requirements are.
“frank”, you neatly sidestepped North’s direct question, and his point.
Honestly, did your mother have any children who lived?
Ahh…the cult of environmentalism. Goes hand in hand with the mental disorder known as liberalism.
Just amazing that we all stand around arguing about this bullcrap green energy agenda that is going to eventually control and genocide us. Many other countries around the world are learning first-hand that these green energy pushes are a hoax and they are going back to energy that works. The US, including Alaska, just keeps pressing forward with the game even though we hear many around the world screaming that green energy does not work. OIL IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY and we should be using it until we start using tried-and-true methods of alternative energy, not including wind and solar.
Wholeheartedly agree!
Wholeheartedly agree!
*No AI was used in developing this reply!* Although, it really does seem to have found a footing elsewhere…
AI is producing a lot of intelligent sounding trolls and paid schills! I have watched someone learning to use it and see what type of answers it produces. Pretty interesting. I hope it is not the downfall of mankind. Only God Almighty is all-knowing.
Comments are closed.