The economic value of renewable energy
A recent editorial (“Green subsidies,” July 24) arguing against federal incentives for renewable energy is based on myths and misunderstandings about wind and solar power. The fact is that renewable energy works alongside nuclear power in lowering our nation’s carbon footprint while keeping the lights on and costs low for consumers.
In reality, the low price of natural gas is the primary contributor to nuclear’s woes. Cheap fossil fuels have a 500-times larger impact than wind or solar on setting the prices received by nuclear plants, according to the nation’s largest electricity market monitor. As New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter notes, but the editorial omitted, “The economics of nuclear energy are mostly to blame. It just cannot compete with cheap natural gas.”
Recent analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory confirms that each megawatt-hour of zero-emission wind energy, the amount produced by a typical turbine in a little over an hour, provides $75 in benefits for human health and the environment by reducing air pollution. This benefit alone is more than three times the cost of the $23/MWh federal production tax credit.
That study also found that wind provides an additional benefit to consumers by reducing the price of electricity and fossil fuels, resulting in consumer savings of between $13/MWh and $49/MWh. That’s not including renewable energy’s additional economic value from reducing water consumption.
In any case, nearly the entire value of the wind tax credit is passed through directly to American consumers in the form of lower prices for the long-term power purchase agreements utilities sign with wind projects.
Moving forward, how Nevada and our nation determine the right mix of clean, reliable, low-cost electricity is important. We must keep the facts straight in order to come to the right conclusions. Diversifying our nation’s energy mix, including wind power and solar power, is the best way to produce the low-cost, reliable and clean energy mix our country needs today and tomorrow.
Sarah Propst
Santa Fe, N.M.
The writer is executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance.
Taxpaying suckers
In a recent letter, Richard L. Strickland derided letter writer Doug Farmer for his concern about the mistreatment and malnourishment of children in the Clark County School District. At taxpayer expense, children are being fed breakfast and lunch when in school, and during the summer when school is out.
Well, all the facts bear out that Mr. Farmer is correct. Parents of these children do have iPhones that cost hundreds of dollars, plus the monthly costs to operate them and their apps. And of course, their children demand these phones too. Yes, these parents spend hundreds of dollars on totally unnecessary things, with disregard for their children’s needs.
Why not? The suckers paying taxes will pick up the tab.
I agree that a parent needs a phone. I have a small clamshell cell phone for $10 a month. I’m connected. No problem.
When I went to school, I carried a bag lunch to eat in elementary school. In high school, I either carried a bag lunch or ate in the cafeteria, where I paid for lunch.
I have a simple solution. First, absolutely no taxpayer money pays for food. Instead, parents pay for the food. They give their child the small amount of money necessary to eat. The child pays the cafeteria attendant and gets his/her food.
These people need to take responsibility for their children. There is a huge segment of our population without children. Feeding the children of others is not their responsibility … period.
Dan Renga
Las Vegas
