I'm hosed off about a letter to the editor in today's Arizona Republic: they'd never print my response because it would be too long and I'm far too tempted to use expletives.
So I'll print it here, even though the letter writer is more likely to read RedState than Daily Kos.
Here's the LTE:
Arizona Public Service's proposed 280-megawatt, 3-square-mile, solar-power plant in Gila Bend will produce a little over 3 watts of electrical power per square foot of real estate and only when the sun shines. This proposed plant will meet APS' one-year demand growth only, and at a construction cost of $1 billion, this plant represents an exremely poor investment in money and real estate. —J. Hegyes, Sun Lakes
Details below the fold—and beyond this sentence right here, not a single mention of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton!
Mr. Hegyes is referring to the Solana power plant that, if it happens, will be online in 2011 and be the biggest honkin' solar power plant darn near anywhere.
The plant might not happen at all if the feds don't extend the solar-power tax credit which expires at the end of this year. (AZ Representative Gabrielle Giffords is on the committee to get this back to the floor for a vote and she describes it like "raining oil from the sky" so there's a decent shot at it happening).
To address Mr. Hegyes' claims one at a time, that the Solana plant would be an extremely poor investment in 1) real estate and 2) money:
1.) He's obviously never been to Gila Bend. There's nothing there but sun, and lots of it. Real estate is NOT at a premium there. The average home price in AZ is $167,791: in Gila Bend it's $71,410. There's no lush desert or pretty mountains to look at, though I suppose one could argue about the meaning of "lush" and "pretty." No scenic Saguaro cacti or incredibly rare horny toads. It's a mystery why barely 2,000 people live there. 24% of them are living below poverty level; median family income is "0,000. Since this plant will create 1,500 jobs (according to Gov. Janet Napolitano in the first article cited above), the potential for Gila Bend to enjoy a smidgen of prosperity for a change is hardly a poor investment in real estate. What else would Mr. Hegyes suggest we do with that land? Nobody's done anything else with it since AZ became a state. And Arizona has LOTS more land like that. Hot, barren, and ready to produce many megawatts of solar energy for the United States. At risk: possibly hundreds of Round-tailed Ground Squirrels, some rattlesnakes who eat the squirrels, and Mr. Hegyes' sense of good investment.
- Lots of people are blanching at the price tag. Fair enough. Price per kilowatt hour is certainly higher than coal. BUT PLEASE CONSIDER, MR. HEGYES: Solar thermal is going to be competitive with photovoltaics and wind because it's a more stable source of electricity: it can continue to produce after dark and is not dependent on gusts, etc. And also consider this: coal is a finite resource that has tremendous downsides not reported in that low kilowatt-hour price. First, mountaintop removal has the significant downer of actually removing mountaintops—with all their spiffy trees and animals and, you know, ecosystems. People who work in the industry have nagging problems with little things like breathing. Somehow, their medical costs don't get calculated in that equation. And burning coal—even using "clean coal technology"—has a significant carbon footprint that kind of sucks a lot. Compare that with solar: the deserts we're talking about using are not the juicy gorgeous ones, but the truly barren patches that don't support much more than creosote bushes and those squirrels. People won't die working in them as long as you give them lots of water and a nice hat. And no greenhouse gases.
And look at this: according the gov'ment, the US used 760,108 megawatts last year. Okay, so divide that by 280 (the output of a Solana plant only, larger facilities are possible and introduce economies of scale) and you'd need 2,715 such plants to meet demand. At the price tag suggested—$1 billion, which would go down if we did this on a massive scale—we'd need $2.7 trillion to free ourselves from coal—and probably a significant chunk of oil, too, once those Chevy Volt electric cars become common. And so I "ax" ya, Mr. Hegyes: which would be a better investment of our money, if you're interested in returns? Spending $2.7 trillion on a war in Iraq where our awesome boys and girls go to die for gas that's $3.29 a gallon in my neighborhood and pissing off the whole world in the process, or spending $2.7 trillion to make the US energy independent & environmentally responsible, create beaucoup jobs, and take a massive bite out of our carbon footprint? Wouldn't you agree that as far as investments go, any clean energy is a better idea than continuing to pollute the planet and rape the Appalachians for coal?
When you focus only on a balance sheet, Mr. Hegyes, your priorities are out of balance. It's the fatal flaw of all Republicans, though: your short-term greed blinds you to the long-term costs of your avarice.
Gotta go meditate now. I'm too high up on my horse, but I felt like taking that ride for awhile. Peace and ground squirrels.