AFP, Leftist Tourette’s syndrome & renewable energy

Rob Schofield, Robin the Boy Wonder to Blinkin’ Chris’s Bat-Girl, injects the word ‘Koch’  into his rants so often one might think he is afflicted with Tourette’s Syndrome:

rs1
What’s he babbling about, you ask? Well, um, THIS:

rs2
AFP is merely citing NC DENR’s March 2015 “Energy Report” and its claims about renewable energy.  Needless to say, Rob did not care for that:

rs3

 

Well, we only had to turn to page three of the DENR report to find what AFP was talking about:

Session Law 2014-4, (Senate Bill 786) directed the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to study several issues related to long range energy with a focus on achieving maximum effective management and use of present and future sources of energy in North Carolina. In particular, DENR was required to evaluate the impact of renewable energy, including the implementation of Session law 2007-397. As detailed in this report, the impact of Session Law 2007- 397, commonly referred to as the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS), has been mixed. The REPS incentivized the use of specific energy sources, including renewable energy sources, as well as energy efficiency. This study has revealed that implementation of the REPS has resulted in dramatic increases in some energy sources but with mixed environmental results.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSafp

Since 2007, the state of knowledge regarding the environmental impacts of renewable energy has advanced. Intermittent power sources and biomass are of particular interest: Solar and Wind Solar and wind power, widely referred to as zero carbon energy sources, are not entirely carbon free because of their intermittent nature. Without advancements in storage capacity, solar and wind power cannot entirely supplant traditional baseload power. Studies have suggested that reliance on intermittent power sources may have an adverse environmental impact as baseload fossil fired units chase the electricity load in a transient manner. Biomass There is general agreement that biomass has greater emissions of traditional pollutants on a per megawatt basis. Recent studies have also brought into question the greenhouse gas neutrality of biomass.

FUTURE FEDERAL REGULATIONS

The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to displace coal as a baseload fuel (e.g.: regulations pursuant to Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act). As current and future federal regulations are considered, their potential impact on North Carolina’s energy policy may be profound. The importance of the federal rule cannot be overstated and may require North Carolina to consider zero carbon sources of energy such as nuclear fission. 

DOMESTIC ENERGY SHIFT

The implementation of the REPS in 2007 coincided with dramatically increased natural gas generation as a result of enhanced oil and gas production. This increase in domestic oil/gas generation has resulted from a historic drop in natural gas prices. How this fundamental shift impacts the goals of a REPS should be considered.

GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATION

North Carolina remains the only state in the Southeast to have enacted a REPS. As a result of this geographic isolation, long term energy prices may adversely impact economic growth and challenge recent improvements in employment in North Carolina.

 

Wow.  A state agency making the claims that: (1) renewable energy won’t save money, or (2) the environment!   That HAS to have liberal heads exploding from Carrboro to Asheville. blink

Oh, and Rob — that last section, entitled “Geographic Limitation” appears to substantiate what AFP said.

As a footnote — the legislation proposing the REPS was pushed by a rookie legislator named Thom Tillis, and protected by then-speaker Tillis from a 2013 attempt by Rep. Mike Hager to kill it off.

It’s always so * charming*  to see guys like Rob and Chris — who live off of handouts from a rich leftist — attacking two brothers who built successful businesses and now want to prevent their country from collapsing into a socialist sinkhole.   How about the merits of this report — produced by people actually in the environmental field? 

 

10 comments for “AFP, Leftist Tourette’s syndrome & renewable energy

  1. AL Gore
    July 23, 2015 at 1:20 am

    How did the two progressive Republican consultants that we in the hard core environmental movement have bought, Dee Stewart and Paul Shumaker miss this? They are supposed to control propaganda and not let facts like this get out. Things like this might upset the apple cart on what we have worked so hard for in the legislature to get the progressive Republicans to support President Obama’s green energy project.

  2. JBP
    July 23, 2015 at 8:28 am

    You neglect to point out, as does the report I assume, that non-renewables don’t save money either!

    • Doug
      July 23, 2015 at 9:50 am

      Sure, but they do not cost a great deal more! Fossil fuels/nuclear/natural gas are the baseline as they are traditional sources of energy. They do “save money” when compared to the over-priced “renewables”.

      • JBP
        July 23, 2015 at 9:59 am

        “In 2013, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that consumer subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to US$548 billion, while subsidies for renewable energy amounted to US$121 billion.”
        https://www.iisd.org/gsi/impact-fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewable-energy

        • john steed
          July 23, 2015 at 12:07 pm

          Most, if not all, of those ”subsidies” of fossil fuels are just ordianary business deductions and allowances that ANY business gets. They are not the corporate welfare or mandates that the crony capitalists of the green energy boondoggle get.

          • JBP
            July 23, 2015 at 1:46 pm

            Those non-renewable subsidies DO NOT include the infrastructure the U.S. has put in place for the waning fossil fuel industry. Nor does it take into account the thousands of American Service men and women who have died for our oil interests overseas, or the broken lives (physical & mental)those conflicts impose on our service members. It does NOT consider the millions of lives (taken and damaged) of non-Americans in these conflicts. How’s that for a cost subsidy?

          • john steed
            July 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm

            The one renewable that makes economic sense, since it is cost effective to produce and is reliable, is hydro, but funny thing, they are neither demanding nor getting government mandates and corporate welfare. Government prefers to subsidize the expensive and unreliable like wind and solar.

    • john steed
      July 23, 2015 at 10:20 am

      Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable. They cost the taxpayers gobs of corporate welfare to subsidize the crony capitalists like Tom Steyer, George Soros, and other lefties who are in this biz, plus they cost utility ratepayers higher bills when utilities are forced to buy certain amounts of the more expensive wind and solar power. If you want to find out how financially oppresive this can get for a ratepayer, ask a German.

      Too many of our GOP legislators are in the hip pocket of this corrupt biz.

  3. Convervative Babe
    July 23, 2015 at 8:57 am

    Maybe we should alert the NC Legislature that there will be a tulip shortage soon.

  4. AndyW.
    July 23, 2015 at 10:50 am

    This REPS garbage is a total waste of the Progs’ time and my money. Until there is adequate storage (FAR beyond current capacities) and the Solar/Wind systems are MUCH more efficient, they will NOT play a role in economical energy supply for current demand- much less future demand. As I understand, Duke Energy pays something like $0.24/kWh for solar suppliers, and charges about $0.08/kWh for residential customers. Now THERE’S a winning business model… but ONLY if you’re a Democrat.

Comments are closed.