COMMENTARY: Is negativity the answer to expanding use of renewables? Yes, according to the recent and misleading commentary from D. Dowd Muska of the Rio Grande Foundation. Does it seem serious in debunking wind energy? Yes, but statistics and information are misused at best.
On a simple level I understand that the Rio Grande Foundation does not like the American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) marketing. On the other hand, Rio Grande’s marketing can be self-serving and in various guises, worse. Instead of “What Big Wind doesn’t want you to know,” how about “what Rio Grande doesn’t want you to know?” Muska’s positions can be addressed, as the Rio Grande Foundation is narrowly focused.
Courtesy photo
Jerry Nachison
Big Wind is government supported? Muska doesn’t like government interference in the market when renewables are concerned. We agree, of course, that wind energy gets government support in various forms.
But his complex discussion of wind energy in context ignores the huge and unnecessary government subsidies to mostly profitable oil and gas companies. Even Peabody Coal made a profit in 2017. In 2017 gas, oil and coal reached nearly $15 billion in direct Federal subsidies. Figures on indirect subsidies vary, as they are still imprecise, but the IMF puts annual U.S. indirect-cost subsidies at about $5.3 trillion, e.g, military costs to protect shipping routes and now-documented damage because of pollution, health declines and climate change.
In regard to government mandating increases in renewable power levels over the coming years: So what? While subsidies are high, costs are declining. That’s known.
Muska states, “…the economic ‘benefits’ of wind power are largely illusory. It is certainly not cheap. As wind has grabbed a greater share of New Mexico’s electricity generation, homeowners have suffered.” It is true residential electricity rates rose by 34.4 percent between January 2008 and January 2018. He continues, calling it “…an increase far greater than inflation.”
This is a false use of statistics. Yes, rates rose 34.4 percent, with inflation at about 14 percent. However, wind is only 13 percent of total N.M. electricity production and costs are declining. From where should we attribute this cost increase? Most of it is from gas, oil and coal.
The job growth issue in renewables noted by Muska is not the question. Yes, fossil fuel industries employ millions. Wind jobs are low as a percent of total jobs, but note there are some 106,000 such jobs in the U.S., and that number is growing.
The real point is efficiency, growth and change within the electric generating industry. In New Mexico, electric generation from wind alone in 2017 was some 112 MegaWatts and the largest source of non-hydroelectric renewable energy, according to statistica.com. Renewables and biomass energy is over 18 percent in the United States (New Mexico too), and will surpass nuclear around 2020. Electric power generation is changing.
We can somewhat agree that transmission costs are still problematic. However, increases in research and development in electric power transmission in New Mexico and elsewhere by, e.g, Siemens, Vestas Wind Pattern Energy and even such as Exxon/Mobil are growing. Given the growing investments and costs savings that are developing, transmission costs will come down.
New Mexico is a large electricity generating state with production in excess of needs. As the U.S. Energy Information Administration states: all of New Mexico’s planned new electricity generating capacity will be renewable energy or natural gas. New Mexico will sell its excess electricity, mostly from renewables, profitably to other states. New projects will take advantage of the state’s location to tie into the three U.S. electrical grids.
Major changes in research and expansion of transmission of electric power are underway. Is this not a real incentive for private investors and companies to design and build cheaper transmission systems?
Muska concludes: “Unreliable, expensive and the result of ‘green’ coercion, wind power isn’t ‘the future’ — it’s a step backward from efficient and affordable electricity.”
He bases much of his work on that from “The Institute for Energy Research.” If you review its current major “studies,” it recommends killing wind and solar energy power generation completely. The Institute is funded mostly by the Koch Brothers.
Knowing this, we still see use of wind energy expanding in New Mexico, the United States and the world. In fact, wind energy growth in New Mexico is the fastest in the United States and expected to so continue for the next few years, according to the American Wind Energy Association. It’s just one form of renewable energy bringing change.
Muska’s commentary does not support change away from fossil fuels. Yet development and change in power generation is the future. Wind energy is part of that greater picture.
Jerry Nachison is a Las Cruces resident who is active in local politics and nonprofits. He’s a retired social/housing gerontologist. Agree with his opinion? Disagree? NMPolitics.net welcomes your views. Learn about submitting your own commentary here.