SUN EDITORIAL:

End the inertia on energy

Governor’s office has been slow to act to bring renewable energy projects to Nevada

Sunday, Oct. 18, 2009 | 2:08 a.m.

State lawmakers spent considerable time this year debating plans to develop the renewable energy industry in Nevada. New legislation created the position of energy commissioner and was supposed to help state officials move quickly to attract renewable energy companies.

Since the Legislature adjourned in June, though, inertia has plagued the state’s efforts to attract solar, wind and geothermal projects. As David McGrath Schwartz reported in Thursday’s Las Vegas Sun, lawmakers, lobbyists and industry officials have been critical of the Gibbons administration’s lack of action.

“We’ve lost a great deal of momentum,” said Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, a legislative leader in renewable energy.

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Reno, said the state is “behind.”

“We’ve had unfilled positions for a long time,” she said. “We have a lot of work to do in this state, a very big hill to climb.”

Gov. Jim Gibbons appointed Hatice Gecol, head of the state’s Energy Office, as energy commissioner last week. However, the administration’s choice of Gecol did not change critics’ minds, considering she was in charge of the office that was supposed to be ushering in new renewable energy development.

Lawmakers criticized her office for its handling of federal stimulus money meant for renewable energy projects and note that the state was the 41st in the nation to gain approval by the federal government of its energy plan.

Critics also point out that the administration has yet to write rules for tax incentives for renewable energy companies, which have been on the drawing table for months. Gecol said they should be done within six months, but that just seems to be more proof of the Gibbons administration’s lackadaisical approach. Townsend said the regulations shouldn’t take more than 90 days to complete.

These delays have been unacceptable. The governor should quit paying lip service to renewable energy and push for immediate action. Nevada should be a leader in renewable energy, but it has no chance if the governor’s office continues to drag its feet.

Discussion: 14 comments so far…

By alphamale11

10/18/09 at 2:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Should we be cynical and say the politicians are only waiting for the money to start rolling into their pac coffers? Nevada has thousands of square miles of open land that could be used for wind farms, the same with geothermal and solar panels that don't use water. Has the Peter Principal been invoked?
Companies have already applied to build a link between North and South Nevada for the purpose of linking into power generation. The concept too advanced for the powers that be? Can't tell from the 'deer in the headlites' look they get when a serious question comes up.
Lead, follow, or get the devil out of the way.
By Future

10/18/09 at 3:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

If renewable are so good for us and giving the billions being given away by the Federal government, companies will not make an economic decision based on the few bucks from a a Nevada tax incentives with lots of rules with them.

Harry Reid promised that he would get rid of all those pesty envirnomental rule so we can thousands of pristine desert square miles under under solar panels, use millions of gallons of precious water, and rout those bighted transmission lines. Where is Harry Reid on these issues

The Legislature passed a feel good but inept law.
By uddeboda

10/18/09 at 4:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Just fir the recird, a medium sized coal fired power plant of 500Mw uses on average 13000 tons of coal a day, that equals 237 million tons of coal that has to be mined, transported across country, perhaps even imported, and uses 2800000000 gallons of water a year, after which there is the coal sludge which is collected in retaining ponds, or tipped at landfill sites.
The cost to run a coal fired power station is emmense, whereas a wind turbine, once erected, uses no fuel, no water and produce no waste matter, they just keep on turning and turning and turning
By uddeboda

10/18/09 at 5:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

The figure I quoted for coal @ 237 mn tons, was for an estimated life span of the plant.
By Birdiedreamin

10/18/09 at 7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

is monkey boy i have no leadership skills whatsoever the least effective governor of all time...
ever...
in the history of america...
wow wee!!!
By Sunlizard

10/18/09 at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

We must remove this ugly landscape in Nevada NOW! Plow it up! Cover it with ugly mirrors and moning wind turbines! Why put reneweables on our roof when we can trash those ugly, wildlife filled deserts and mountain ranges? Afterall, if we don't destroy millions of acres of wildlife habitat here, we can't save the polar bear!

Why doesn't the Las Vegas Sun just post a photo of a bloody desert tortoise crushed by a big Earth moving machine. It will be a symbolic conservation statement for the polar bear!
By Sunlizard

10/18/09 at 8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Just fir the recird, a medium sized coal fired power plant of 500Mw uses on average 13000 tons of coal a day, that equals 237 million tons of coal that has to be mined, transported across country, perhaps even imported, and uses 2800000000 gallons of water a year, after which there is the coal sludge which is collected in retaining ponds, or tipped at landfill sites."

The solution is no better. A 500 megawatt concentrated solar thermal plant will use 1.6 billion gallons of water per year. This is the desert, Udd, not northern Europe. The csp plants will use a dangerous coctail of several hazardous chemicals including heat transfer fluids which are highly toxic chemicals that often explode and leak toxic waste into groundwater.

Renewable energy can be a serious environmental threat if it is done Harry Reid's way.

If you are going to suggest that we replace dirty coal with dirty renewables, you are not really solving environmental problems, you are simply replacing them.
By uddeboda

10/18/09 at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sunlizard,

Right then, scrap the solar thingies and only use wind turbines, might kill a few birds and the odd low flying jumbo jet, but nothing is 100% perfect.
By Sunlizard

10/18/09 at 10:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Udd, you are endorsing coal by promoting wind. Duke Energy will get such a tasty grant and tax write -off by building a windfarm in Nevada, that they will be able to afford their plans of expanding their 95 percent profiting on coal. Duke is a coal company that gets the reward by Obama of being able to burn more coal by building a dinky, innefficient wind farm. The politics you are supporting will not only kill birds, but increase the development of coal quite effectivly-and of course, continue to warm the planet-which you are pretty terrified of. I guess we can thank folks like you for insuring a stable carbon producing future!
By uddeboda

10/18/09 at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sunlizard,

Im sorry for you, if thats how things work in the USA, and thankfully I do not live there, if that is how the system works. The country where I live uses only 0.3% fossil fuels for energy production, it worked here getting rid of fossil fuels about 40 yrs ago, and there were no greedy capitalists trying to line their pockets. Fossil fuels are gone here and good riddance
By lv2gen

10/18/09 at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

co2 from coal, toxic chemicals leaking from solar panels, birds being killed by wind turbines (at least they wouldn't crap on your car any more), sheesh. Maybe a little conservation and engineering when constructing buildings would be part of the solution? Nah, too much trouble.
By captainamerica

10/18/09 at 6:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

The two new thin film solar projects, one near Primm and the other in Eldorado Valley, cost about 10% of all the thermal solar projects. The new thin film solar will be afforable for almost all homeowners also. 10 cents a watt wholesale for the thin film verses $2.80 a watt for wholesale panels right now. GO GO thin fin film.
By unclegary

10/19/09 at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

After a true extensive analysis there is no energy source more efficient than nuclear. The actual "power output" from wind and solar are at best 20 to 30%, few articles differentiate between capacity and sustainable output. It should be planned and used for "peak load consumption". Nuclear is greener than any other generating source and today operates at 90% capacity and above. Apply reprocessing and current spent nuclear fuel is reduced by 90+% leaving a possible 10% to require permanent storage. The public has been denied a rounded understanding of nuclear power by the media and politics for 40 years to their economic determent. Even at 6 billion for a nuclear plant it can profit selling power at 7 cents per KWH wholesale to utility companies. The true costs for wind and solar MUST include their COSTS for subsidies and/or tax incentives in order to reflect ACTUAL production costs.
By uddeboda

10/20/09 at 12:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

unclegary.

Power output from Wind will of course depend on the location of the turbines.
Here on the western coasts of N Europe, many turbines are attaining as much as 78%, due to the constant prevailing winds from the Atlantic, and of course once they have been built, they dont use any fuel, that has to been mined, and transported to for EX fossil fuel power stations, which use vast amounts of water, and a constant supply of coal sludge which on many occasions is just dumped at landfills, not forgetting their emissions.