Slashdot Mirror
New Wyoming Bill Penalizes Utilities Using Renewable Energy (csmonitor.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a Christian Science Monitor report on "a bill that would essentially ban large-scale renewable energy" in Wyoming.
The new Wyoming bill would forbid utilities from using solar or wind sources for their electricity by 2019, according to Inside Climate News... The bill would require utilities to use "eligible resources" to meet 95 percent of Wyoming's electricity needs in 2018, and all of its electricity needs in 2019. Those "eligible resources" are defined solely as coal, hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and individual net metering... Utility-scale wind and solar farms are not included in the bill's list of "eligible resources," making it illegal for Wyoming utilities to use them in any way if the legislation passes. The bill calls for a fine of $10 per megawatt-hour of electricity from a renewable source to be slapped on Wyoming utilities that provide power from unapproved sources to in-state customers.
The bill also prohibits utilities from raising rates to cover the cost of those penalties, though utilities wouldn't be penalized if they exported that energy to other states. But one local activist described it as 'talking-point' legislation, and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing.
The bill also prohibits utilities from raising rates to cover the cost of those penalties, though utilities wouldn't be penalized if they exported that energy to other states. But one local activist described it as 'talking-point' legislation, and even the bill's sponsor gives it only a 50% chance of passing.
Surely, there is interstate commerce going on here, which would take the issue out of the hands of local politicians?
Also, it's anti-employment, anti-business. Renewable energy employs more people than coal. The only people to benefit are a small number of miners and a tiny special interest group (coal mine owners).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's not "Countless". Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually - a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats. So if it's really migratory birds you're so worried about, you'd better ditch your cellphone. And/or kill your cat.
Also, the newer, larger turbines kill far fewer birds.
The big reason for this is that they are higher off the ground, where winds are stronger and more reliable. Most local birds fly low, and most migrating birds fly even higher than than the big turbines.
The "bird" objection to wind turbines has always been stupid and disingenuous (the people making it don't really give a crap about the birds), but it has become even stupider as turbines improve.
Not sure how this would be legal. You can't dictate that a company can't sell a legal product. So how would a wind only operate? Sounds like Republicans for Excessive and Unnecessary Regulation. Doncha love a party that sticks to its ideals instead of pandering to big business interests?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/cats-wild-birds-mammals-study/1873871/
Wow, you're not kidding. At least from the numbers I'm looking for states in order of coal production they produce more coal than the next 4 states combined (West Virginia: 112.2 (11%) Kentucky: 77.3 (8%) Pennsylvania: 60.9 (6%) Illinois: 58.0 (6%)). They produce around 40% of the nations coal. Still its pretty idiotic, it would be like a city where lead based paint/piping/fuel additives was produced putting a law in place requiring people use those products despite the danger. A better response would be to retool for the future, not blindly cling to the past. Wyoming has some pretty good wind generation potential, they also have more than a little hydroelectric potential.
Sure, lets end those subsidies... then end all the oil and gas subsidies, then go reclaim the past 110 years of subsidies we gave to oil companies. The author isn't speaking his mind... he's too fucking stupid to have a mind, and he's put on a pedestal for being a fucking idiot by other fucking idiots like you.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Gas turbine power plants are not exactly friendly to birds. I've walked across parking lots in the morning that looked like the dumpster at the rotisserie chicken place had been knocked over.
sPh
(insects are drawn to the warmth radiating from the exhaust stack wall. Birds dive after the insects, and if they dive through the exhaust, toasted bird)
Coal is killing the planet, wind and solar are not. Your dad probably complained about when asbestos and lead paint were being phased out, too.
Nuclear power is currently cheaper than solar thermal with storage. Cite:
https://www.lazard.com/media/2...
The cost of PV solar is cheaper than nuclear only when built up at utility scale in high insolation areas. Not much help for a lot of the population. Running wires to places that have sun to places with people would get the power to where it is needed but this adds to the cost.
Claiming that solar is cheap when people need it most is just outright provably false. Go look at demand curves for once and you will see what I mean. Demand peaks at dusk, when there isn't enough sun left to matter. At noon power demand tends to dip a little actually, probably due to people stopping work for lunch.
Also, no civil power reactor is used to make weapons. The people building these things are bound by law to make sure that such a use is impossible. The last dual use reactor blew its lid in the 1980s, and that is only one of many reasons why all similar reactors have been dismantled long ago.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We will examine whether the article is, beyond reasonable doubt, Fake News, to wit disinformation based either wholly on invented "facts" or upon facts which knowingly and deliberately have been constructed out of context so as to mislead or deceive the reasonable reader.
If anyone bothered to read the actual bill...
... they would find that it requires that by 2018 "each electric utility shall procure a minimum of ninety five percent (95%) of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating resources." and that by 2019, "r 2019, each electric utility shall procure a minimum of one hundred percent (100%) of its sales of electricity in Wyoming from eligible generating resources." Eligible generating resources are defined to include (with limitation) : "Coal; Hydroelectric; Natural g
as; Net metering system, as defined by W.S. 37-16-101(a)(viii); Nuclear; [and]Oil.."
TFA claims by the headline that the Bill "forbids utilities from using renewables" which is incorrect both because hydroelectric power is properly classed as a "renewable" and because the inclusion of 'Net metering systems' does permit at least limited use of solar (and perhaps even wind) power. The text of the article below, however, makes clear that the actual claim being made is that utilities are prohibited from selling energy generated in utility-scale wind and solar farms in the state and face a $10/KWh fine should they do so.
The bill would require utilities to use "eligible resources" to meet 95 percent of Wyoming's electricity needs in 2018, and all of its electricity needs in 2019.
[I] ndividual net metering ... includes home solar or wind installations in which the owner feeds excess electricity back into the grid, and is paid a predetermined, fixed fee for the power. But these small-scale sources of renewable energy are meant for private use. They just happen to produce extra power that can be utilized by the grid.
Utility-scale wind and solar farms are not included in the bill's list of "eligible resources," making it illegal for Wyoming utilities to use them in any way if the legislation passes. [Emphasis added]
These claims accurately describe the content of the Bill
We find that the headline, taken by itself, was liable to mislead as concerns the limited use of personally generated renewable power returned to the grid. Though it is not necessary to consider the question here and despite this being a relatively minor factor, it remains possible that a charge of "clickbaityness" might be sustained against the subeditor responsible for the headline. It remains, we must note, far from what might justifiable attract the appellation of "fake news."
OTOH the journalist's text below provides a fair and accurate description of the effect of the Bill under discussion.
We find the accusation of "fake news" cannot be maintained against the article in question and would dismiss the action.