l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Meddling Renewable Energy Standards Distort Energy Markets, Raise Prices
By Joe Nichols | August 10, 2015 | 3:06 PM EDT
Environmental groups scorn state leaders who dare question the sanctity of
renewable energy mandates, commonly known as “renewables portfolio
standards” or RPS. Such scorn is misplaced and state leaders should
continue to reconsider the wisdom and value of these mandates.
RPS laws typically require electric utilities to purchase specific
quantities of electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and
solar farms. These requirements have made electricity more expensive,
discouraged innovation, and imposed a variety of unintended, harmful
consequences. Renewable portfolio standards are on the books in thirty
states and six more have energy-source “goals” rather than mandatory
standards. Many of these states—including Ohio, Kansas, West Virginia,
Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Hampshire—are now actively
assessing the true costs and re-thinking the value of these standards and
requirements.
Taxpayers and state policymakers should applaud, not oppose, this
reassessment.
First, renewable portfolio standards distort the energy market and
ultimately make electricity more expensive and less reliable for energy
producers and consumers. RPS laws create or prop-up a false market for
renewable energy companies that cannot compete on their own. They provide
incentives for these companies to build new solar panels and wind turbines,
even though these energy sources are more expensive and less efficient than
the competition. The Institute for Energy Research found, for example, that
power from new wind farms is more than twice as expense as power from
existing coal plants, and three times as expensive as power from nuclear
plants.
Utilities pass these higher costs on to commercial and non-commercial
consumers, businesses and households, families and fixed-income retirees.
By making electricity more expensive for businesses, RPS requirements have
led to layoffs in the energy-intensive manufacturing sector, and the
Institute for Political Economy at Utah State University found that over a
10-year period states with RPS mandates experience a 4 percent drop in
personal income (adjusted for inflation) and a 10 percent increase in
unemployment when compared with non-RPS states.
RPS advocates like to claim that “green energy” mandates create new “
green jobs,” but those jobs are offset to some extent by the jobs and wages
lost due to the artificially high energy costs imposed by those “green”
mandates. Instead of generating true job growth, renewable energy mandates
merely shift jobs from the broader economy to the politically favored
renewable energy sector.
It is not surprising that in trying economic times state leaders have begun
to question policies that effectively stymie job production and hurt
employee wages.
Second, by distorting the energy market with green energy quotas, renewables
portfolio standards have perversely discouraged rather than sparked green
energy innovation and technology. RPS mandates help guarantee profits for
renewable energy companies using current technologies, designs and products.
Propped-up by tax-subsidies and consumers forced to buy their high-priced
energy, these companies have little incentive to develop innovative products
or new cost-effective technologies. Instead, they have every incentive to
lobby governments for more corporate handouts and more competition-crushing
regulatory mandates.
Corporate welfare of any kind that limits competition, costs taxpayer
dollars, and creates disincentives for innovation deserves a thorough
reexamination.
Third, green energy advocates seldom acknowledge that RPS mandates involve
unintended consequences and tradeoffs that often offset some of green energy
’s supposed benefits. For example, by raising electricity prices, RPS
requirements have a highly regressive impact on the poor and low-income
families. Families in the lowest income quintile spend nearly 10 percent of
their household income on electricity, whereas the electric bill is only 1.
4 percent of the highest quintile family budget. Ohio’s mandate, for
instance, already adds approximately $55 to the average family’s yearly
electric bill, making it even harder for lower-income families to make ends
meet and leaving them with less disposable funds to spend on life’s basic
necessities.
This regressive effect, of course, is in addition to the damage that these
mandates inflict on the labor market and workforce. As the Institute for
Political Economy discovered, states with RPS mandates suffer a 10 percent
increase in unemployment. Rising unemployment rates are a significant
concern for state and local governments. Sustained unemployment quickly
leads to a rise in poverty levels, increased welfare costs, and even higher
healthcare bills. Studies historically demonstrate a strong correlation
between poverty and an array of health issues. Recently, researchers at
Johns Hopkins even found that poverty was one of the stronger predictors of
asthmatic attacks—an ailment that green energy supporters ironically argue
that RPS mandates will alleviate.
Carnegie Mellon University researchers found yet another unintended
consequence of government interference in the electric power sector:
renewable energy quotas make conventional energy less efficient and
therefore less environmentally friendly. By forcing utilities to purchase
energy from inherently unreliable wind and solar farms, RPS mandates force
conventional power plants to “cycle-up” and “cycle-down” their energy
output at an inconsistent rate in order to account for the unreliable influx
of renewable energy. Just as cars are more fuel-efficient when driven at
constant speeds, so are conventional generators more efficient when run at
constant production levels. Carnegie Mellon researchers found that this
inconsistency in production rates reduces the expected environmental
benefits of renewable energy resources by 20 percent to 50 percent.
Given these concerns, costs, and consequences, states are right to question
the wisdom (or folly) of renewable portfolio standards. New technology and
prior regulations steadily reduced pollutant emissions well before meddling
RPS mandates distorted the energy markets. As states continue to regain
their economic footing and families work to get back on their feet, state
leaders should reconsider the value of the RPS and green energy quotas that
raise prices, reduce jobs, stifle competition, and harm the very environment
that the mandates seem intended to protect.
http://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/historical_ohio_electric_power_sector_emissions.jpg?itok=k36v2j8e | x****u
发帖数: 12955 | 2 according to the article, the ONLY substantiated "damage" created by using
green energy is the less efficient conventional generation capacity, which "
reduces expected benefit from green energy by 20%-50%".
Otherwise, everything else are just opinions with no real data to support
any of the conclusions. | l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 3 扯, 原来单位能源涨价对你来说不算damage?
"
【在 x****u 的大作中提到】
: according to the article, the ONLY substantiated "damage" created by using
: green energy is the less efficient conventional generation capacity, which "
: reduces expected benefit from green energy by 20%-50%".
: Otherwise, everything else are just opinions with no real data to support
: any of the conclusions.
| m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 4 涨价这就是damage?
每年新车因为质量上升，都是涨价，也是damage?
房价每年涨价对于经济是damage?
是不是damage你研究过
上面二个涨价都是对于经济有刺激作用，是真反馈
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: 扯, 原来单位能源涨价对你来说不算damage?
:
: "
| a*******1
发帖数: 1554 | 5 为了更美好的未来，现在涨点价又算得了什么呢。。。
所以说右派太自私，为了省那一点点电费，不惜破坏环境不给子孙后代留活路。
除非找出证据说传统能源比清洁能源更环保更清洁，如果仅仅是花多一点钱，是很难有
说服力的。就好象传统空调会破坏臭氧层，用新技术的就不会，虽然贵点，但也是值得
的。
建议政府加大补贴清洁能源，增加清洁能源的竞争力；并加大对传统能源征税，削弱他
们的竞争力。其实本质上对消费者的负担没有增加多少，本质上是把传统能源的钱转移
到清洁能源，迫使企业改革。
本来企业自由竞争就是在一定的法制、规则下进行的，政府和议院有权改变这些规则，
本质上还是自由竞争，毕竟已有的这些法律规则还是政府和议院制定的。 | a**e
发帖数: 8800 | 6 别的不好说，毕竟大规模的风能电厂对大气环流的影响不好评估。
但是硅基太阳能电池的污染一点不小啊，不过是一般人看不到而已。
【在 a*******1 的大作中提到】
: 为了更美好的未来，现在涨点价又算得了什么呢。。。
: 所以说右派太自私，为了省那一点点电费，不惜破坏环境不给子孙后代留活路。
: 除非找出证据说传统能源比清洁能源更环保更清洁，如果仅仅是花多一点钱，是很难有
: 说服力的。就好象传统空调会破坏臭氧层，用新技术的就不会，虽然贵点，但也是值得
: 的。
: 建议政府加大补贴清洁能源，增加清洁能源的竞争力；并加大对传统能源征税，削弱他
: 们的竞争力。其实本质上对消费者的负担没有增加多少，本质上是把传统能源的钱转移
: 到清洁能源，迫使企业改革。
: 本来企业自由竞争就是在一定的法制、规则下进行的，政府和议院有权改变这些规则，
: 本质上还是自由竞争，毕竟已有的这些法律规则还是政府和议院制定的。
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 7 切, 你傻比啊, 同样一度电, 还有质量上升的问题?
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: 涨价这就是damage?
: 每年新车因为质量上升，都是涨价，也是damage?
: 房价每年涨价对于经济是damage?
: 是不是damage你研究过
: 上面二个涨价都是对于经济有刺激作用，是真反馈
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 8 风机还杀了很多鸟类呢, 左逼不是要保护动物嘛? 这个时候怎么不说了?
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 别的不好说，毕竟大规模的风能电厂对大气环流的影响不好评估。
: 但是硅基太阳能电池的污染一点不小啊，不过是一般人看不到而已。
| s********g
发帖数: 334 | 9
随便找一下, 就知道生产 solar panel 的过程对环境的影响. 这就是为啥现在生产厂
家都到中国去了: 把污染留在中国, 把绿色送到美国.
http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/what-environmental-impact-p
The main component of most PV modules is silicon, which isn't intrinsically
harmful, but parts of the manufacturing process do involve toxic chemicals
and these need to be carefully controlled and regulated to prevent
environmental damage.
Making monocrystalline panels tends to result in more waste, as they are
made from slices of silicon ingots - leaving offcuts, etc. However, this
waste can be used to make polycrystalline or multicrystalline PV modules,
constructed of 'mashed up' silicon. Thin film silicon reduces the volume of
material needed by spraying a thin layer of silicon on to a surface, so has
the potential to reduce impacts and waste.
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: 风机还杀了很多鸟类呢, 左逼不是要保护动物嘛? 这个时候怎么不说了?
| c****i
发帖数: 7933 | 10 扯蛋，你估计是个文科傻妞，根本不知道生产这些东西给中国带来的环境污染。
我现在坚定的不回收任何东西，一切都进landfill，不然就是对不起中国的父老乡亲。
【在 a*******1 的大作中提到】
: 为了更美好的未来，现在涨点价又算得了什么呢。。。
: 所以说右派太自私，为了省那一点点电费，不惜破坏环境不给子孙后代留活路。
: 除非找出证据说传统能源比清洁能源更环保更清洁，如果仅仅是花多一点钱，是很难有
: 说服力的。就好象传统空调会破坏臭氧层，用新技术的就不会，虽然贵点，但也是值得
: 的。
: 建议政府加大补贴清洁能源，增加清洁能源的竞争力；并加大对传统能源征税，削弱他
: 们的竞争力。其实本质上对消费者的负担没有增加多少，本质上是把传统能源的钱转移
: 到清洁能源，迫使企业改革。
: 本来企业自由竞争就是在一定的法制、规则下进行的，政府和议院有权改变这些规则，
: 本质上还是自由竞争，毕竟已有的这些法律规则还是政府和议院制定的。
|
|
