Tea Party dim bulbs go after renewable energy standard in Kansas

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As we’ve noted several times here at Grist, conservatives are going after state renewable energy standards (RES’s) across the country. They’ve prevented a few new ones from passing, but I don’t think they’ve succeeded in persuading any state to roll back an RES already in effect. Yet.

Now they’re going after the RES in Kansas. Passed in 2009, it instructs utilities to get 10 percent of their power generation capacity from renewables from 2011 to 2015, 15 percent from 2016 to 2019, and 20 percent by 2020.

The RES was passed as part of a compromise bill meant to settle the intense controversy over the planned expansion of the enormous Holcomb coal-fired power plant. (That’s the one Kathleen Sebelius wasbattling as governor, before Obama plucked her away to make her secretary of health and human services.) Thing is, the legislature’s go-ahead for the coal plant expansion didn’t really stick — it has since been mired in legal challenges, dead in the water.

Republicans, piqued they aren’t getting their coal plant, want to delay the renewable-energy targets or scrap the RES entirely. This story about it from Tim Carpenter at the Topeka Capital-Journal contains some delightful flashes of deadpan humor. Consider this bit:

Rep. Dennis Hedke, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Environmental Policy, said lack of progress on the coal plant prompted lawmakers to consider dumping the RPS or delaying targets two or four years. Some House and Senate members want to extract the state from meddling in oil, gas, nuclear, wind and solar businesses, he said.

“We want to do everything we can to allow market forces to dictate any infrastructure build out. We don’t want to mandate. We are an all-of-the-above state,” said Hedke, a geophysicist consultant for the oil and gas industry.

That last clause! A flick of wrist that throws the preceding paragraphs off balance. Well played.

Or this bit:

[Kimberly Svaty of the Wind Coalition] said compliance with the RPS, according to the Kansas Corporation Commission, raised electricity rates by no more than 1.7 percent.

Rep. Charlotte O’Hara, an Overland Park Republican, said she had anecdotal evidence from her husband the RPS was responsible for increases in energy costs for Kansans.

“Our renewable standards are a failure,” O’Hara said. “Repeal the RPS and be free from these crippling energy mandates.”

This made me laugh out loud. Such a perfect capsule summary of how Republicans treat unwelcome facts these days: “The state agency overseeing electrical rates says the RES hasn’t increased them much? Well my husband knows a guy who said it has! So it’s crippling! A failure!” And so unpleasant information is swept away effortlessly by tribal affiliations.

This is good too:

Sen. Rob Olson, R-Olathe, said he was uneasy with the state committing itself so heavily to wind-driven turbines because they weren’t as reliable as coal, natural gas or nuclear fuels.

“It’s a fact. Wind doesn’t blow all the time. That’s my biggest problem with wind,” Olson said.

Why is it that every single dimwit clean-energy opponent seems to think he discovered this particular property of wind and sun? They all deliver it as though it’s going to blow your mind. “It’s a fact!”

What of the dozens of states and countries around the world that get more power from renewable energy than Kansas does? Has the variability of wind simply not occurred to them? I can just picture a grid operator in Germany … “OK, guys, I’m switching over to 100 percent wind … wait, hang on … you know what … I just had a thought … no! nooooooo!!!” [blackout]

Thing is, if there’s anywhere wind does blow almost all the time, it’s Kansas — it’s got over 950 GW of wind power potential, with only about 1.2 GW of wind power installed. (No state other than Texas has a greater wind resource.) Republican Gov. Sam Brownback fought fiercely to protect the federal wind energy tax credit and boasts that $3 billion was invested in Kansas wind just in 2012, raising it to third in the nation in wind-power production (behind Texas and California). The Dept. of Energy analyzed [PDF] the effects of wind power on the Kansas economy, and they are considerable:

Dept. of EnergyI wonder if Gov. Brownback will weigh on on this fight. He can’t be happy to see a bunch of Tea Party dopes undo one of his state’s big economic success stories. This could become the latest chapter in the story of how clean energy became a wedge issue that divides the GOP.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/tea-party-dim-bulbs-go-after-renewable-energy-standard-in-kansas/

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

when one remembers these coal plants are part of a co-op (like holcomb) which provides electricity to rural areas (at a significtaly higher cost per kw) then that "1.7 percent" (if one is foolish enough to believe those estimates) becomes a much higher number than what many are paying even right now. we're already paying up to 18 cents/kwh - let's add more for the greenies?

Edited February 13, 2013 by charles!

[^_^ 5,021]

when one remembers these coal plants are part of a co-op (like holcomb) which provides electricity to rural areas (at a significtaly higher cost per kw) then that "1.7 percent" (if one is foolish enough to believe those estimates) becomes a much higher number than what many are paying even right now. we're already paying up to 18 cents/kwh - let's add more for the greenies?

just admit it, charles, you hate the planet and want us all to drink dirty water

[one...two...tree 2,762]

when one remembers these coal plants are part of a co-op (like holcomb) which provides electricity to rural areas (at a significtaly higher cost per kw) then that "1.7 percent" (if one is foolish enough to believe those estimates) becomes a much higher number than what many are paying even right now. we're already paying up to 18 cents/kwh - let's add more for the greenies?

Your Republican governor supports wind power, but how about you voluntarily give up Kansas state's billion dollar, federal farm subsidy since you don't want any money invested in renewable energy for your state?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Kansas Farm Subsidies:

• $15.4 billion in subsidies 1995-2011.
• $9.07 billion in commodity subsidies.
• $2.96 billion in crop insurance subsidies.
• $2.27 billion in conservation subsidies.
• $1.13 billion in disaster subsidies.
• Kansas ranking: 6 of 50 States
• 32 percent of farms in Kansas did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.
• Ten percent collected 70 percent of all subsidies.
• Amounting to $8.67 billion over 17 years.
• Top 10%: $27,615 average per year between 1995 and 2011.
• Bottom 80%: $721 average per year between 1995 and 2011.

http://farm.ewg.org/....php?fips=20000

[^_^ 5,021]

So driving up the cost of energy isn't enough, you libs also want to drive up the cost of food?

I see the socialists having decided concentration camps are no longer a good way to go about it have now decided to kill us all slowly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[quote name=' timestamp='1360795145' post='5978406]

So driving up the cost of energy isn't enough, you libs also want to drive up the cost of food?

I see the socialists having decided concentration camps are no longer a good way to go about it have now decided to kill us all slowly.

If you want, I can look up how much federal money from the DOD that Kansas receives which supplements many Kansas residents. All of this isn't free. Complaining about the supposed added cost of cleaner energy standards while directly benefiting from other subsidies is like going to a fast food restaurant and being upset they don't offer diet cola.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1360795145' post='5978406]

So driving up the cost of energy isn't enough, you libs also want to drive up the cost of food?

I see the socialists having decided concentration camps are no longer a good way to go about it have now decided to kill us all slowly.

Let's see:

1) Take away all the guns.

2) Take away the individual right to assemble and petition the government for grievances, unless you get 100,000 signatures in 45 days, after which an Obama staff member will publish a non-answer on the whitehouse.gov website.

3) Drive up the cost of food, and issue everyone food stamps.

The obvious evil plot is obvious. Did I forget something?

Edited February 14, 2013 by The Patriot

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

Kansas Farm Subsidies:

• $15.4 billion in subsidies 1995-2011.
• $9.07 billion in commodity subsidies.
• $2.96 billion in crop insurance subsidies.
• $2.27 billion in conservation subsidies.
• $1.13 billion in disaster subsidies.
• Kansas ranking: 6 of 50 States
• 32 percent of farms in Kansas did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.
• Ten percent collected 70 percent of all subsidies.
• Amounting to $8.67 billion over 17 years.
• Top 10%: $27,615 average per year between 1995 and 2011.
• Bottom 80%: $721 average per year between 1995 and 2011.

http://farm.ewg.org/....php?fips=20000

hijacking your own topic?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

hijacking your own topic?

Thread ban him!

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

Your Republican governor supports wind power, but how about you voluntarily give up Kansas state's billion dollar, federal farm subsidy since you don't want any money invested in renewable energy for your state?

and just how is that supposed to happen?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and just how is that supposed to happen?

You made the argument that investing in renewable energy is only about appeasing environmentalist and fail to see the long term benefits of it. You lack the vision that your Republican governor has for your state. He's trying to help you, but you're just saying, 'gubmint keep your hands off my medicare!'

[Ban Hammer 13,570]

You made the argument that investing in renewable energy is only about appeasing environmentalist and fail to see the long term benefits of it. You lack the vision that your Republican governor has for your state. He's trying to help you, but you're just saying, 'gubmint keep your hands off my medicare!'

so you don't really have an answer to my question.