Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterALTERNATIVE ENERGY:
Three years later, challenge renewed
As some see progress on renewables, Clinton gives pep talk
Steve Marcus
Former President Clinton says at the National Clean Energy Summit at Cox Pavilion on Monday that Nevada has the “natural capacity” to become the nation’s leader in renewable energy by taking advantage of its geothermal resources and building wind turbines and solar plants.
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- Reid summit in green spotlight (8-16-2008)
- But turbines would scare off the deer, elk... (8-16-2008)
- Flashpoint: National Clean Energy Summit (8-13-2008)
- Renewable energy will shape future of state, world (8-3-2008)
Beyond the Sun
Three years ago, Bill Clinton issued his first challenge to Nevada business leaders to make the state a mecca for renewable energy companies, and they can point to some evidence they took him seriously.
Since 2005, two of the world’s largest solar plants have opened in Southern Nevada. A Detroit-style manufacturing facility for solar plant components opened near the Strip. This year, the state’s largest utility company touted Nevada’s place at No. 1 in solar and geothermal power sold per capita, announced several projects that will harness the power of steam, sun and wind over the next half-decade and will, for the first time, comply with a state law requiring it to purchase a percentage of its power from renewable resource providers.
But up for debate even among industry boosters is whether adequate progress has been made toward the bold vision Clinton outlined.
Monday night, when Clinton again addressed a Las Vegas audience regarding the power of a green energy economy, he reemphasized that Nevada is uniquely positioned to become energy self-sufficient by taking advantage of its geothermal resources and by building wind turbines and large solar plants in the state’s ample “blank space.”
“There should be one state that proves you can do it — and it should be you and it could be you,” he said, peering over his reading glasses at the several hundred people in UNLV’s Cox Pavilion.
“If you could do it, no one else would doubt that it can be done,” Clinton said. “You have the natural capacity to do it ...
“Maybe what you ought to come out of this conference with is a proposal to have the national government and investors all over America ... say, ‘Help make us the first completely self-sufficient, clean energy state in the U.S.’ I promise, if you did it, it would rock the world.”
He added that three years ago when he challenged Nevada to take that road, his call was met with skepticism — and though attitudes have changed, realities haven’t.
“We have got to convince people this can be done, and it would be good economics. I am hopeful,” he said. “Now (that) we’re all singing from the same hymnal, we just have to figure out how to turn our good intentions into concrete changes.”
When asked last week whether Nevada has risen to Clinton’s challenge, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a key sponsor of the summit, said it hasn’t. But he blamed the lack of progress on outside forces.
“No, we haven’t, because we haven’t had the support by President Bush and his Republican colleagues,” Reid said.
He blamed Republicans for stalling renewal of tax credits for renewable energy developers, which are to lapse at year-end. If those incentives, which are considered necessary to keep the nascent solar industry on track, aren’t approved by the end of the year, Reid said, they would have to wait for a new Congress and a new president.
“And that is a shame, because people are being laid off now with the renewable energy projects in the pipeline,” he said.
Steve Rypka, a Las Vegas green living consultant who advises homeowners installing residential solar arrays, agreed that Nevada has missed the mark on Clinton’s predictions so far.
“We desperately need visionary leadership to fill in the gap,” Rypka said, adding that both state- and federal-level initiatives are needed. He faulted partisan bickering for stalling renewal of the solar tax credits and said the industry is already feeling the pain.
“It’s already happening. It’s having a tremendously negative effect on the industry,” he said. “There are a lot of potential deals in place that could catapult the U.S. and Nevada into a leadership role with renewable energy. We’re on the cusp ... But we’re seeing a slowdown.”
And he said the upcoming presidential election could mean the difference for the industry.
But Somer Hollingsworth, executive director of the Nevada Development Authority, said he believes the state is living up to Clinton’s expectations.
The NDA sponsored Clinton’s speech three years ago. At the time, Hollingsworth said, the agency had come under some criticism for starting a program to attract renewable energy companies to Southern Nevada.
He said the NDA has helped some solar companies locate here and is in talks with companies planning to bring 500 to 600 megawatts of solar power — enough for about 400,000 homes — as well as manufacturing to Southern Nevada, and that the companies are moving forward with their projects despite the looming lapse of tax credits for renewable energy production.
“I think we have done extremely well,” Hollingsworth said. “If Nevada is rated
No. 1 per capita in solar watts, I think we’ve really done quite well.”
Sierra Pacific Resources President and Chief Executive Michael Yackira said Monday that “while we already have been recognized ... as a national leader in solar energy, we believe there is much more to be accomplished in Nevada.
“All of this potential is certainly feasible and our state — particularly with the solar resources in Southern Nevada — without doubt has the potential to be the solar mecca envisioned by President Clinton.”
Discussion: 35 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Joe Perry: Steven Tyler has quit Aerosmith
- Metro officer’s fatal shooting of teen ruled justified
- New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU
- Live Main Event blog: Cada takes control, beats Saout
- Judge dismisses suits blaming Las Vegas Sands for stock drop
- Freddie Roach talks tough; Manny Pacquiao backs it up
- Commercial development in Las Vegas grinding to a halt, analyst says
- Vegas area adds three resorts to elite AAA list
- Adult model alleges Las Vegas company isn’t sharing profits
- Strip sign-lighting ceremony set for Monday
Blogs
The Kats Report
Life in the Limelight: Wayne Newton
Politics: Ralston's Flash
An entire campaign in one mail piece for Harry Reid (2 Comments)
Miech Again
On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style (13 Comments)
The Kats Report
Vocal strain prompts Wayne Brady to call off 'Making It Up' until 2010
The Greene Room
New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU (16 Comments)
Elsewhere
Fontainebleau suit takes aim at Soffer empire (8 Comments)
Mono puts date for Lesnar title defense in question
Calendar »
- 8 Sun
- 9 Mon
- 10 Tue
- 11 Wed
- 12 Thu
-
Everclear at the Hard Rock Cafe on the Strip
Hard Rock Cafe on Strip | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
UNLV Rebels vs. Colorado State at Sam Boyd Stadium
Sam Boyd Stadium | 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Eric Burdon and The Animals at Ovation
Ovation | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Anjelah Nicole Johnson at The House of Blues
House of Blues | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
2009 PBR World Finals at The Thomas and Mack Center
The Thomas & Mack Center
-
Roy Clark at The South Point Showroom
South Point Showroom
-
Dennis Blair at the V Theater
V Theatre inside Miracle Mile Shops
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
I would like the Sun to do an article on how much each of these speakers at the Summit were paid and who paid them. Then I would like to know how UNLV is going to spend the $738,000 Federal Grant they got for funding Solar Energy. As we have all seen in past articles, UNLV has a reputation of spending a large portion of these Federal Grants on outrageously high salaries. What percentage are they going to spend on salaries, travel, office furniture, outside contractors, ect? What out of state agencies are they going to pay to get the solar energy information from?
The propaganda IS the thing. The propaganda is relatively cheap to produce. The propagandists need to be paid and pampered, though. The propagandists need stuff in order to propagandize.
Bill is one of the highest paid propagandists of all, maybe - except for Algore.
How sad it must be to be a one-trick pony, NV.
Change the station already.
The new Solar One plant southeast of Henderson is a solar thermal plant that has a energy storage system.
Despite the Federal dollars given to the plant, the plant is generating energy at 240% times the current price of energy.
This is the cheap plant too. If they build out in the desert west or northwest of Las Vegas then you need to add on the billions in cost of building expensive high power lines.
Are you ready to have your power bill go up by 240% plus some more?
Be ready, for Pelosi, Obama and Ried and all Democrats will slam this down our throats and be mad if we are not happy about it.
Nothing to say once AGAIN? Why do you even come here? You don't even try to have an effect on the subject of the moment, just the "neener, neener, neener" kind of lib-whine most libs have here.
YOU "change the station", Ms. I. Se Nada!
CAN YOU raise your game, or are you just another lib-whiner?
I bet the latter!
Told you, NV. When you MAKE a point I will respond in kind.
You haven't, so I won't. You're quite boring, you know. All blah blah blah right wing nonsense.
I wonder what you'd be like if you had an original thought ... LOL.
Original thoughts seem a hard concept for you, "P"??
Keep trying to contribute though.
LOL.
Bill Clinton charges about $40,000 to speak at an event.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2007/...
From 2001 - 2005, Clinton earned 31 MILLION dollars on 192 speeches. That is an average of about $161,200 PER!!
http://freed.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/...
Last year or so, Clinton earned 50 MILLION.
40K = NOT on average!
Sorry that was John Stossel, Clinton charges about $100,000.
That was about how much my sisters organization paid to bring him to speak about public education.
Funny how you didn't mention that only about 20% of Clinton's speeches were FOR PROFIT, with the remainder of the speech-fees being DONATED. From the same source you provided (and dated the same year you'll note):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Tsk tsk. Selective outrage, NV? Did you go ballistic over George H.W.'s speech fees? They were in the millions in the two years after he left office. Or how about Red-Ink Reagan? Did that bother you at all?
And both were quite wealthy to begin with.
Or (as I suspect) does it only bother you when the money is made by someone with a "D" after his/her name?
http://npri.org/publications/the-high-co...
An interesting article regarding T. Boone Pickens plan.
I'd now have to ask people favoring federal alternative energy programs whether its worth it for America to have clean energy now rather than working to save 1 billion of the worlds most impoverished today?
An interesting trade-off I'd say.
Well, I'd like a "balancing act", if you will, to the NPRI article. I'm not at all comfortable with the opinions of the NPRI considering their board of directors - to say nothing of the verbiage in the first two paragraphs alone of that opinion piece.
(I was quite surprised it took four paragraphs to see the word "socialists" and then another four paragraphs for the word "Leftists". No agenda here, eh?)
But I read it. And he offers no supporting documentation at all for his opinions. Where did the "1 billion" figure come from? Where did he get his figures for the cost of new nuclear power plants? That may be TODAY'S cost, but what about TOMORROW'S cost? No mention of that. And just how would we send the energy produced by the new nuclear plants to those "1 billion"?
Nice propaganda piece, but it's a bit short on facts (or at least, sourced facts).
Actually a quick google search of nuclear power plants shows estimated costs of 3-5 billion in today's dollars for old plants. It may cost the same or it may be cheaper.
BTW, patricia you should stick to attacking points made and not people. Leave the NPRI board of directors out unless you want the same attacks leveled against you and your points of view. Those sort of attacks are pointless for that reason.
The Boone Pickens plan is centered on natural gas.
He has a ton of money in natrual gas.
Even his wind mills are about natural gas.
His wind mill plan is greatly flawed.
Wind mills are not 24/7 generators of power. For each megawatt of wind power, one will need one stand-by megawatt coming from coal, natural gas or nuclear power. If the wind does not blow then the power has to come from somewhere.
The current technology for storing energy is very expensive. I guess he is hoping that he will get lucky in developing quickly new cheaper technology.
Wind farms in the middle of remote areas will require very expensive high power transmission line network. I do not see where he gets the money to pay for that.
Also, there are limited areas of good wind capacity. There is not a high power grid that ties the west coast over the Rockies to the east coast. Doing that will require hundreds of billions.
I have a feeling he is just trying to make money.
His plan is all about natural gas.
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures...
Here is an anti-nuclear power group that claims nuke power is $3-5 billion. Again a quick google search. I'm sure you'd have no problem with them.
Interestingly enough they reach the same conclusion 400 power plants could replace our energy needs, but say that $1.2 trillion is too much to spend.
Interestingly enough they claim increasing MPG would have a greater positive effect on the enviornment while I saw a presentation by a professor from Arkansas or Alabama (can't remember which) which showed that increasing fleet miles will have only a slight impact on improving the enviornment (even though you couldnt see the difference on his graph).
He did say that 400 nuclear power plants, unlike these people, would have a significant impact on slowing global warming down (using Gores most dire projections for climate change).
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/l...
Here is an article which says the plan is $1.2 trillion. It is from the LA Times, the LA Times is a left leaning paper, I'm sure you'll have no problem with them either.
I'll also send it over to NPRI so they can link to it.
Not really attacking them, KDR; just showing that one has to research where the information is coming from else one won't understand the slant.
It would be the same thing if I link, e.g., an environmentalist group's web site.
My main issue with NPRI is the source of their facts; none was presented. OK, I see the $3-5 billion per plant in TODAY'S dollars (which I did note), but how much more will that cost five years down the road? Ten years? Or does it assume all 240-400 plants will be built at exactly the same time today?
Where did he get that "1 billion" figure? No mention of that.
And yes, I WOULD have a problem with NEIS; same thing on the opposite end. I want to see the SAME CONCLUSION from the Left AND the Right (which you've very kindly provided; thank you.)
Doesn't ANYONE see shades of gray any more? Or is it ALL about the right-left BS?
Jeez.
Follow the Energy Summit live; watch it on Las Vegas ONE, Cox Cable Channel 19.
"Funny how you didn't mention that only about 20% of Clinton's speeches were FOR PROFIT, with the remainder of the speech-fees being DONATED. From the same source you provided (and dated the same year you'll note):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
Irrelevant, as Clinton "charges" what he "charges" for an average speech. Thanks for conceding THE point.
xxxxxxxx
"Tsk tsk. Selective outrage, NV? Did you go ballistic over George H.W.'s speech fees? They were in the millions in the two years after he left office. Or how about Red-Ink Reagan? Did that bother you at all?"
Again, irrelevant to the discussion. I didn't go "ballistic" over anything here, especially with such small, fading resistance from you, "P". Even spinning your wheels is effort. Thanks for playing, though!
xxxxxxxx
"Or (as I suspect) does it only bother you when the money is made by someone with a "D" after his/her name?"
Again, third irrelevancy in one post? Where did I state it "bothered" me? Name the quote of MINE! I just said Bill IS one of the highest paid propagandists. Thanks for agreeing with me, finally!
Birds are already being chopped up by the blades of wind turbines. Birds eat bugs. Fewer birds, more bugs. Bugs cause illnesses. More bugs, more illnesses--think of malaria and yellow fever. In the frantic rush to the new energy bonanza, T.J. Pickens, Bill Clinton and Harry Reid are not doing their homework. They are all old enough to benefit by the immediate profits in contracting for development and equipment without having to live with the consequences that will ensue from insufficient preparation. Studying bird migration patterns and behavior is, for them, just an intellectual nuisance. Of course, there are always those whose academic integrity can be bought to present an acceptable "science" of bird migration, and the scientifically ignorant public will buy it.
"That is an average of about $161,200 PER!!"
So that isn't outrage we're looking at here, NV? It's just, what, surprise? Well, are you "surprised" by GHWB's TWO-PLUS MILLION in just under TWO YEARS for his speeches?
And GHWB isn't a "propagandist"? LOL.
None of what I wrote is irrelevant, unless of course it's to you who was called on your right wing BS.
Oh. Nevermind ;)
If T. Boone Pickens is looking for natural gas, he might check out the Clinton bashers on this board.
""That is an average of about $161,200 PER!!"
Yep, that is the reported average of a Clintonesque tome based on published reports. Don't waste my time telling me how I feel (comment below) = I'll tell YOU how I feel.
xxxxxxxx
"So that isn't outrage we're looking at here, NV? It's just, what, surprise? Well, are you "surprised" by GHWB's TWO-PLUS MILLION in just under TWO YEARS for his speeches?"
You waste bandwidth telling others how THEY feel or what THEY mean or how THEY phrase themselves = without much meat in the argument. Typical liberal, no wonder they get trounced here. GHWB made peanuts compared to the moonie-like slavishment heaped upon the weak, incompetent failure Clinton.
xxxxxxxxx
"And GHWB isn't a "propagandist"? LOL."
Compared to Clinton, no! LOL.
xxxxxxxx
"None of what I wrote is irrelevant, unless of course it's to you who was called on your right wing BS."
MOST of your contributions here fit under irrelevant. It was explained to you WHY it was irrelevant. You miss the point, again.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Oh. Nevermind ;)"
Besides "Oh, Dear", dearie, I believe THAT is the most insightful comment you have made here. "Nevermind" describes exactly the uber-lib in today's political landscape.
It takes you five (5) paragraphs to respond to an "irrelevant" post, but *I*'m the one wasting bandwidth?
You just get funnier and funnier by the minute, NV :)
Thanks for rolling over.
If I can trash liberal politics - and you find it funny = all the better.
Must be that lib-moonie thing.
No, 'bot; I find YOU funny.
And it would be the GHWB-moonie thing. Look it up, oh wise one ;)
It would be great if we could use this excellent resource provided by the Sun as a forum for intelligent commentary and sharing of information.
The endless bickering between a few people here is very distracting and quite meaningless. There will always be others with differing opinions. I suggest we embrace our diversity and honor each other as fellow human beings.
I don't know what the "Suggest removal" link is on each message, but some of the posts here have tempted me to try it out.
There are some very intelligent, well-intentioned people who frequent these pages. It would be in our best interests to maintain civility and promote an intelligent exchange of ideas. Can't we communicate without the partisan jabs, insults and "holier than thou" attitudes?
Let's set an example of how people can live in peace. Please.
Would love to do that, Socrates; and you make excellent points.
But it's about time someone put a stop to the endless stream of "talking points" that have little, if any, basis in fact. It's time the conversation about "Clinton" stopped ... after all, he's been out of office a few years now. It's about time these 'bots (because that's all they are) are called to the carpet to provide some FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up their "opinions". It's about time people stopped relying on "opinions" as FACTS.
Unfortunately, the only way to deal with them is through derision. Many of us have tried civility; we were met with name-calling and "holier-than-thou" attitudes.
We will never be able to "live in peace" with them as long as their nonsense is allowed to stand unchallenged.
"But it's about time someone put a stop to the endless stream of "talking points" that have little, if any, basis in fact. It's time the conversation about "Clinton" stopped ... after all, he's been out of office a few years now. It's about time these 'bots (because that's all they are) are called to the carpet to provide some FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up their "opinions". It's about time people stopped relying on "opinions" as FACTS."
It is about time for you to add to the conversation instead of whining and pouting your way around here.
xxxxxxx
"Unfortunately, the only way to deal with them is through derision. Many of us have tried civility; we were met with name-calling and "holier-than-thou" attitudes."
Derision and demonization IS the front line of liberal political attack due to their naturally corrosive policies and enslavement aims for we all. MUST be all that peer-pressure one must roll over for to be a liberal!
Because your political views can not be defended by you here, "derision" (namecalling, whining, pouting and such) is ALL you offer. The same, given your lack of gravitas, is offered in return.
xxxxxxxx
"We will never be able to "live in peace" with them as long as their nonsense is allowed to stand unchallenged."
THAT's the thing! You do not challenge, just passive-aggressive your way around here, Ms. I Se Nada!
Whining, moaning responses of uber-liberal impotence represents NO challenge at all. I throw liberals under the bus here, especially the ones who have no argument to make.
Your contributions here mirror the weak, vacillating, floundering candidate running from the Liberal Socialist Democrat (LSD) party, Barack Obama.
NO logical or even common-sense defense of liberal politics here? Just lib-moonie-like slavishness to bebunked talking points from 2003? No peace.
"P", as long as your responses lead with the personal - as is your gig here = personal is all you'll get in return.
Funny thing, NV; I've never stated what my political views were/are, and there is a reason for that. I identify with NO political party; never have, never will.
Yet you think you have me all figured out. You couldn't be more wrong.
I'm truly done replying to your nonsense. You tell me I, at least through my posts, am irrelevant, yet you post a half-page screed in response to said irrelevance - repeatedly!
You've never contributed anything to these discussions. Your "sources" consist of nothing more than right-wing mouthpieces and opinion/editorials either published in right-wing mouthpieces or as part of someone's "blog". How do you suppose you would respond if someone you viewed as a "lib" offered up such as supporting documentation for what they posted? I daresay we already know the answer to that question.
Enough already.
"Funny thing, NV; I've never stated what my political views were/are, and there is a reason for that. I identify with NO political party; never have, never will."
Your attempts at contribution here display all that's needed to know about where you stand. Your word ARE your actions here.
Your actions / words here read like one of these liberals who hide behind registering "Independent", or perhaps as another liberal debunked smackmeister does here, register under "Non-Partisan"??
I wouldn't blame you really. "liberal" is simply too much baggage to carry.
xxxxxx
"I'm truly done replying to your nonsense. You tell me I, at least through my posts, am irrelevant, yet you post a half-page screed in response to said irrelevance - repeatedly!"
I am just placing a mirror up before you. And, that is what you see!
xxxxxxx
"You've never contributed anything to these discussions. Your "sources" consist of nothing more than right-wing mouthpieces and opinion/editorials either published in right-wing mouthpieces or as part of someone's "blog". How do you suppose you would respond if someone you viewed as a "lib" offered up such as supporting documentation for what they posted? I daresay we already know the answer to that question."
My sources are generally fact-based and relevant - a lot more than lib-rags of reference are around here. Libs offer much more weak gruel since I have joined this forum. It is the blowback on political issues that you seem to find hard to confront.
Leaving you with "derision" and passive-aggressive whining alone!
Demonization and "derision" / namecalling is much easier for the liberal to grind their corrosive politics down America's throat. Peer-pressure, you know!
xxxxxx
"Enough already."
You had enough long, long ago. This is just icing!
Well, I tried reason and logic. Perhaps a reminder of the Sun's Terms of Use (that we have all agreed to) is in order. Here are a few of the pertinent paragraphs:
SPECIFIC TERMS OF SERVICES RELATED TO READER COMMENTS
By posting on LasVegasSun.com stories, blogs, or any other part of this site, you:
* Agree not to upload, post, distribute, e-mail or otherwise publish or make available through this site any libelous, defamatory, obscene, harmful, vulgar, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise illegal material;
* Agree to be nice. Yes, it is OK to have an intelligent discussion where points are debated. The management and editors of LasVegasSun.com want and encourage that. As stated on nearly every page of this site where readers can post, our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language.
* Agree not to use this forum for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, or anyone else in this community.
======================================
Seems to me that there are some posts here, and in many other threads, that are seriously in violation of these terms. Does that resonate with anyone? I admit there have been a few posts I wish I could have taken back so I understand that it's easy to get caught up in the moment. I'm working on improving.
That's my request here. Let's improve this resource and help each other understand and learn from the differing opinions we all have. Can we agree to disagree on certain topics without getting personal about it?
Thanks for your consideration.