Those who advocate for Minnesota's "Green New Deal" are not the adults in the room. How can one credibly claim that global warming is an "existential crisis," yet refuse to utilize the most reliable, affordable, and scaleable sources of carbon-dioxide free electricity available? I submit that they cannot. But do we need to make a Green New Deal at all? The following article argues that we do not....
Continue reading
If Governor Walz really believes that climate change is an existential threat, why would he refuse to legalize the most reliable, affordable, and permanent source of electricity that does not emit carbon dioxide emissions? The fact that is not even willing to advocate for repealing Minnesota's ban on new nuclear power plants that has been in effect since 1994 means Governor Walz is not the adult in the room, no matter how me may try to position himself as the realist on environmental issues. ...
Continue reading
Line 3 opponents often argue the Governor should deep-six the oil pipeline replacement project because it would lock in oil use for the foreseeable future when we should, in reality be transitioning away from oil in favor of electric cars. But these arguments are pure wishful thinking with no basis in reality....
Continue reading
The following article originally appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press: Gov. Tim Walz recently announced his plan to make Minnesota’s electricity 100 percent carbon-free by 2050, and while the governor claims his plan will reduce energy costs for Minnesota families due to improvements in energy efficiency, I could not disagree more with his assessment. Therefore, I am willing to bet the governor a month’s salary that his claim is incorrect and that electricity costs will skyrocket under his plan. Increasing quantities of renewable energy result in increasing electricity prices because they are more expensive than conventional sources of electricity, like coal....
Continue reading
This article is the fourth installment explaining the findings of our new study entitled Doubling Down on Failure, How a 50 percent by 2030 Renewable Energy Standard Would Cost Minnesota $80.2 Billion. This installment explains how the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions under the Renewable, Short-Term Nuclear, and Long-Term Nuclear would exceed the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) established by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) scenario, is the only scenario that passes this cost-benefit analysis. This post is pretty in the weeds, so the main takeaway is that the costs of reducing our carbon dioxide emissions...
Continue reading
This article is the third installment explaining the findings of our new study entitled Doubling Down on Failure, How a 50 percent by 2030 Renewable Energy Standard Would Cost Minnesota $80.2 Billion. This installment explains how carbon dioxide emissions would be affected in each of the four scenarios we examine, Renewable, Short-Term Nuclear, Long-Term Nuclear, and Affordable Clean Energy (ACE). While the Renewable, Short-Term Nuclear, and Long-Term Nuclear scenarios would impose significant yearly financial burdens on Minnesota households, they all would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Emissions would eventually rise under the ACE plan as existing wind turbines reach the end of their useful lives. The graph...
Continue reading
This article is the second installment explaining the findings of our new study entitled Doubling Down on Failure, How a 50 percent by 2030 Renewable Energy Standard Would Cost Minnesota $80.2 Billion. Today, I’ll break down four main components that drive the cost of our energy system that we explored in our study. As you can see below, generation accounted for 59 percent of the total cost of electricity in the Renewable Scenario, utility profits constituted 22 percent, property taxes accounted for 11 percent, and transmission accounted for 8 percent of the total cost of electricity....
Continue reading
Renewable energy advocates often talk about wind and solar as "clean" energy resources, and talk about "dirty" fossil fuels, but how accurate is their assessment that renewables are actually clean? Not very. We've talked about the fact that wind solar, and batteries require massive amounts of copper, nickel, rare earth metals, lead, cadmium, and cobalt. Many times, these materials are mined in countries where there are few, if any, protections for the environment or workers. The Clear Energy Alliance has produced a very good video debunking the claims that fossil fuels are inherently dirty, and video shines a much-needed light on the...
Continue reading
Gov. Walz’s 100 percent carbon free energy proposal is a government-mandated wealth transfer from Minnesota families to the monopoly utilities that helped write the legislation. This is crony capitalism at its worst....
Continue reading
Renewable-energy advocates often cite increasing demand for steel, copper, nickel, and cobalt as a reason why Minnesotans on the Iron Range should support more renewable-energy mandates. There is no doubt that doubling the renewable-energy mandate would increase Minnesota's demand for these metals, but we won't be able to afford to mine them here....
Continue reading