California’s Energy Nightmare Heads to Virginia by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D. | CFACT
“I
t can’t happen here” is one of the most dangerous sentences you can utter. The comforting conviction, for example, that some other state’s well-publicized blunders would never be adopted by your own elected representatives can turn out to be just another of life’s delusions. For Virginians, California’s rolling blackouts and sky-high electricity prices may seem like little more than the travails of distant strangers on the other side of the country. But this smugness is misplaced. California is closer than many Virginians realize. In the name of combatting climate change, the Golden State is moving rapidly away from carbon-based fossil fuels and mandating ever-increasing amounts of renewable energy. California’s renewable energy mandates—33 percent today, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045— are already having an effect, but it’s not the one its backers in Sacramento promised. Environmental writer Michael Schellenberger points out that California’s electricity rates have risen six times the national average since 2011. In August, during a seasonal hot spell, large swaths of the state were subjected to rolling blackouts, with officials warning that more are to be expected.
No one should have been surprised. and is scheduled to be in operation in 2026. Between 2014 and 2018, California reduced A smaller 12-MW pilot project is already its consumption of reliable, baseline elec- under construction 27 miles out to sea from tricity from natural gas-fired power plants Virginia Beach. by 21 percent while increasing its consumpDominion has taken out full-page, fulltion of renewable energy over the same color ads in The Washington Post proclaiming, period by 54 percent, according to the “As a leader in wind and solar, we take our California Energy Commission. The state responsibility to the planet very seriously.” was poorly prepared for its self-imposed The utility boasts that it “is developing the transition to green energy, prompting country’s largest offshore wind project— several observers to dub the blackouts which will which will produce enough “greenouts.” energy to power 660,000 homes by 2026” and notes it has “added more than 2.5 Virginia’s Risky Path million solar panels in Virginia since 2015.” Following the example set by California (in ways lawmakers in Richmond may not The Perils of Intermittency have appreciated), the Democrat-conBut as California amply demonstrates, trolled General Assembly last fall passed the transition to dependence on intermitthe Virginia Clean Energy Act which, among tent wind and solar is fraught with its own other things, calls on the state’s two largest perils, which affect both consumers and the electric utilities—Dominion Energy and environment. Appalachian Power—to provide electricity “Experience in Europe over the past solely from renewable sources (wind and decade demonstrates that the performance solar) by 2045 and 2050, respectively. The of offshore wind turbines degrades new law came on the heels of Gov. Ralph rapidly—on average, 4.5percent per year,” Northam’s (D) September 2019 executive notes the Manhattan Institute’s Jonathan A. order to develop at least 2,600 megawatts Lesser in a recent report, “Out to Sea: The (MW) of offshore wind power by 2026. Dismal Economics of Offshore Wind.” Virginia is a low-wind state; onshore Even though offshore wind blows more wind facilities there could never produce consistently than onshore wind, oceanmore than a negligible amount of electric- based turbines still operate at only 50 ity. Furthermore, any attempt to construct percent to 58 percent of their capacity, land-based, industrial-scale wind projects according to the Energy Information in rural Virginia would encounter the same Administration. This means that, at best, the resistance that has sprung up against such giant turbines perform over 40 percent facilities elsewhere: concerns about the below their capacity, requiring a backup health effects of the low-frequency noise source of electricity when the wind isn’t emanating from the spinning turbines, loss cooperating. of productive farmland, and anger over the The Manhattan Institute’s Lesser notes marring of scenic countr yside by that the rapid deterioration of offshore giant turbines. wind turbines means higher operating The only place where wind is available is costs and reduced economic lifetimes. “As off the state’s Atlantic Coast. Coastal Vir- more offshore wind is integrated onto the ginia Offshore Wind, which will be designed bulk power grid, the costs of addressing and operated by Richmond-based Domin- wind power’s inherent intermittency will ion Energy, is estimated to cost $300 million also increase, further increasing the costs borne by electricity consumers and requiring new gas-fired generating units to operate on standby or highly expensive battery storage systems,” he says.
HAY
FOR SALE
9,800 100 lb. 3-WIRE BALES —ALFALFA / 20% BERMUDA HEBER, ARIZONA — 40 miles South of Holbrook
CALL 602.315.3947 86
DECEMBER 2020
Environmental Degradation Offshore wind’s alleged environmental benefits also turn out to be illusory. The raw materials needed to manufacture wind turbines (installed on land or at sea) far exceed those needed to manufacture and install gas-fired combined-cycle turbines. Of those raw materials, none is more crucial than rare earths, almost all of which currently come from China, from mines
