Comments about ‘Avoid Spain's pitfalls in crafting clean-energy plans’

What are the odds that Mr. Vargas-Llosa, a conservative writer for an Exxon-funded libertarian think-tank, would find anything positive to say about public programs that reduce a nation's dependence on oil?

Electricity generated from wind and solar is three times more costly than that from coal. Increasing the cost of energy doesn't create jobs, it costs jobs.

If you're an engineer working in manufacturing, you already know this. If you're an English-lit major at one of our universities, you probably don't.

So, basically, if we want to avoid the pitfalls of Spain's wind and solar power system, we should not allow politics to get involved into the wind and solar power business.

What's wrong with oil? It powers cars, heats homes, creates jobs (lots of them), and has been the fuel of the US and world economies for 100 years.

I would hope we would want to produce more of it domestically.

Coal may be less costly than renewable energy, but that's only when comparing apples to oranges. Coal, and even oil, have been receiving large subsidies for decades. Of course renewables are more costly because no one is used to subsidizing something new. But if we want apples to apples, comparing renewable subsidies to coal subsidies is what we need to look at. Furthermore last I checked, the sun and wind keep on rising and blowing; coal continues to diminish. A limited natural resource is LIMITED in nature. I'd prefer not putting all my eggs in one basket; let's fill it with apples too and be prepared for the future.

I hope the more rabid leftists out there will read this and give it due consideration. This guy is NOT a right-wing-nut-job. I think he comes off quite liberal in his previous thoughts I've seen posted... and this is his assessment of how these programs have turned out in Spain.

These are the same programs they are pushing for mandating in the United States!

It's very possible these type of mandates would bankrupt the United States, cost families jobs, and all for the cause of seeing us bow before the international power brokers and the GW advocates who want to see the United States put in their proper place (meaning the garbage can).

To "Apples to Apples | 8:42 a.m. " but the subsidies that go to wind and solar are about $25/MWhr, and the subsidies to coal, natural gas, and even nuclear are around $2/MWhr or less.

How do you get power from wind and solar on a calm night?

If we want to cut pollution, have reliable power, and have a way of getting rid of CO2, why not go nuclear? It's waste heat can be used to convert CO2 into fuel. The radioactive fuel rods are completely re-useable. Plus, it takes up less space than the equivalent solar or wind power generation. You also have the benefit of being able to construct one in most any place you want.

Wind and solar will never be cose effective. For example, Al Gore states that there are as many people working in wind and solar power as in Coal power. Yet coal povides a lot more power than wind or solar. So, if wind and solar were to generate more power, they would never equal coal in terms of price because the labor is so much more for wind and solar.

Agreed!
And well said, thanks.

Anyone who has researched energy can tell you that a policy that does not include nuclear energy will be insufficient for our future.

Solar energy is a rich boy's toy. Wind cannot supply more than a fraction of what we need. Geothermal is strictly limited in location. Coal, oil, and natural gas have the CO2 stigma and air pollution problems to deal with. Nuclear power creates no air pollution and can produce electricity at the scale and in the locations needed.

The diversity idea sounds good until you think about it. If a power source could supply all we need, why not? There would be no down-side to having 500 nuclear power plants supplying all our electricity (and yes, we can solve the waste problem).

//It's very possible these type of mandates would bankrupt the United States....//



And we're currently spending $60 billion NON renewable dollars a year in Afghanistan.

Pull yourself together, and reset your priorities.

10:44 a.m

What good does it do to JUST focus on green energy and totally disregard our security?

What does our military spending have to do with Clean Energy? So why mix the two topics as if one is completely necesary and the othe isn't?

What good are Green Energy mandates (which this article points out are not economical and don't fix the GW problem) if to have them we must give up our security?

You know that we aren't just spending money in Afganistan to drain the budget, right? There's a reason we are there and Obama explained that reason in his speach last night, so it's NOT just a Bush/Neocon/Rightwing-nut thing.

Considering this guys past, this article holds about as much credibility as a medical study on the effects of smoking sponsored by Philip Morris.... Twisting facts until it supports YOUR view isn't credible at all. I lived in Spain, know it well, this article is laughable.

According to DOE, these were the federal energy subsidies per megawatt-hour in 2007:

Natural gas - $.25
Coal $.44
Hydro $.67
Biomass $.89
Geothermal $.92
Nuclear $1.59
Wind $23.37
Solar $24.34

This is a true "apples to apples" comparison.

being adicted to relatively cheap imported foreign oil, that is until the cheap oil becomes expensive, runs out or the supply is cut off.

Spain is sacrificing now but is investing in the future.

"Spain is sacrificing now but is investing in the future." Yeah right, and Finland is a nation of ecomonic whizzes.