Getting out of energy mess requires renewables

To the editor:

Reporting statistics on power prices out of context ("Going green not cheap for NV Energy," July 15, Review-Journal) provides a misleading view on the cost of renewable energy. Comparing the per kilowatt cost of new and clean electricity sources, in this case solar and other renewables, to current average wholesale prices is incorrect. Existing wholesale costs are based on the cost of power plants built 10, 20 and 30 years ago (with capital costs fully "paid off") and includes today's low market price of coal or natural gas -- both of which when burned emit pollutants including costly carbon emissions.

Natural gas projects must bear fuel costs that can escalate rapidly -- prices were triple today's prices just a couple of years ago during high demand periods. Moreover, to build a new "clean" coal or nuclear power plant today would result in electricity costs of 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, costs which are much higher than the 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for the solar generated electricity from SolarReserve's Crescent Dunes project proposed near Tonopah. The burning of coal, natural gas, and other fuels for electricity generation in the United States creates more than 2.5 billion tons of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions each and every year.

SolarReserve's project not only captures the world's most abundant energy source, but its innovative technology can store the energy for use by NV Energy during high demand periods. This critical aspect of SolarReserve's technology sets it apart from other forms of renewable energy and creates a more valuable source of electricity. In addition, the project will create more than 4,000 direct and indirect jobs and will put Nevada at the forefront of solar energy technology -- a technology developed in the United States and which will be manufactured in the United States.

Nevada, like California, Colorado and other states, is moving in the right direction by expanding the use of electricity from renewable sources. Unfortunately, decades of short-term business and policy decisions have led us into our current energy mess: heavy dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, climate change and pollution issues, and tremendous concerns about energy security. Solar energy, and particularly solar energy with thermal storage like that provided by SolarReserve, can help meet our energy challenges while at the same time stimulating the economy by creating solid jobs in the United States.

Kevin Smith

Santa Monica, Calif.

The writer is chief executive officer of SolarReserve, LLC.

Green good

To the editor:

In your article "Going green not cheap for NV Energy," the Review-Journal continues its ill-conceived plans to dismantle the state's renewable energy standard -- one of Nevada's current bragging rights. You continue to stick your heads in the sand when it comes to reporting on the positive benefits of a clean energy economy in Nevada.

Additionally, your reporting on a comprehensive clean energy policy is biased at best, proving to be a disservice to your readers. Our state's renewable energy standard is a forward investment in Nevada's future and one that should be applauded, not ridiculed. Nevadans know that our economic stability, job creation and national security are contingent on developing our unlimited renewable energy resources.

A short-term drop in energy demand today is not a real cut in energy costs. Overtime, fossil fuel prices will continue to rise.

Review-Journal editor Thomas Mitchell understands this as well as anyone, hedging his own energy consumption against the ever-increasing costs of conventional fossil-fueled power by installing solar panels on his roof (column, June 27). I'd love to have the good gentleman post his monthly power bill costs so that his readers can see the "true cost of going green."

Here's the choice: Invest now and boost employment, lower real energy costs, expand our tax base, and diversify Nevada's economy or keep the status quo and continue to depend on out-of-state fuels to power our lives at the expense of our health and economic independence.

Scott Rutledge

Las Vegas

Take a shot

To the editor:

I found the July 16 "Local police on edge" commentary by Geoff Schumacher to have a ridiculous premise: the police justifiably shot Erik Scott because they're on edge, which is caused by Las Vegas being a dangerous city.

I think the police who are on edge -- especially the more edgy ones such as Officer David Gilbert, who shot Raymond James Duensing over a traffic violation, and Officer Bryan Yant, who's shot three people (two fatally) -- should find a different line of work. Confronting dangerous people is part of the job, and you typically do this without killing them.

Police are trained to handle these situations, to react and respond in ways that are very different that what may come naturally to most untrained people. If you didn't do any research on the city in which you were going to serve, and don't fully understand the dangers of the job, leave now.

Police are paid and trained to respond, get involved in, and handle difficult situations. That could be one reason they're paid more than teachers, or other highly trained and educated people in government's service. Imagine if a firefighter decided fires were too dangerous. Fires make them edgy. That they will now respond to fires only if it doesn't require running into a burning building to save lives and only spraying the fire with the hose from a safe distance.

I think it's time to look at opening the Use of Force Review Board and the Coroner's Inquest to really understand what's behind all of these edgy officers and why they are shooting so many people.

Troy Allison

Las Vegas