Politics

What's Wrong With Florida's Renewable Energy Policy?

By: Nancy Smith | Posted: October 29, 2011 3:55 AM
David Mica, Nick Gladding and Susan SchleithDavid Mica, Nick Gladding and Susan Schleith

Despite the upbeat tone of the just-ended first Florida Energy Summit in Orlando, many of the event's 550 participants admitted they hold out little hope of the state Legislature cobbling together strong renewable energy policy in 2012.

"It's clear from what we've observed here this week, the folks in the corridors of power aren't in any hurry to push renewable energy in Florida," said now-retired Miami attorney Dunston Heard. Heard served in the U.S. Navy as an oil and gas attorney for 12 years.

"Even Mary Bane (adviser to Gov. Rick Scott on energy policy), was dancing around renewable policy," he said.

"We're coming up to an election year. Legislators who want to be re-elected -- and they all do -- aren't going to risk backing something like this. Renewable energy costs a lot to develop, it's going to mean imposing new taxes and fees and it ain't going to happen."

Heard said this ought to be a good time to be running a small solar, biomass or wind energy company. But it's not. New-energy technology has ramped up considerably in the last decade, he said, but it will take significant investment to make any real difference. Investment no lawmaker would go to the wall for.

State Rep. Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland, who serves on the House State Affairs Committee, longed for a reconsideration of clean coal. He said the Public Service Commission's 2007 decision under Gov. Charlie Crist to reject new coal plants was a huge mistake. He claims it was just as absurd as the nation's decision 30 years ago to stop building new nuclear power plants.

"The decision to remove clean coal from the table wasn't the right one," McKeel said.

Participants showed how diverse their backgrounds and interests are when Sunshine State News asked them to identify the single largest stumbling block to creating sound renewable energy policy in Florida.

Here are a few of their answers:

Gregory Knowles, strategic energy analyst for the Defense Logistics Agency in the Middle East: "The biggest problem I see is moving from the defense logistics testing and decertification phase into the supply chain." It means, he says, a company can have a good product, it can be proved workable, but there's a logjam getting it put to use.

David R. Mica, executive director, Florida Petroleum Council, Tallahassee: "Stability is the real problem I see. For example, you can't promise people giant energy rebates unless you've got the money to pay for them."

Susan T. Schleith
, education coordinator, Florida Solar Energy Center, Cocoa: "We don't have the rebates and incentives other states have to encourage the expansion of renewable energy like solar."

Scott Osbourn
, environmental engineer for the consulting firm Golder Associates, Tampa: "Cost is the biggest stumbling block. Look at Orlando Utilities. The majority of their customers are low-end. They can't afford the bill they're getting now. If they did more with renewables, it would cost ratepayers even more."

Nicholas C. Gladding, attorney, Adams and Reese LLP, Sarasota: "Without a doubt the problem is lack of a renewable portfolio standard. It's a policy failure on the part of the Legislature."

(Below is the speech delivered by Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Adam Putnam, opening the Florida Energy Summit.)


Comments (14)

Groscoe
6:29PM NOV 2ND 2011
This country prospered by having cheap energy and the smokestacks of years ago now belch clean air......the progressives on the left will not be happy until our cost of energy is the highest in the world.....as they have been successful in making corp tax rates the highest.........no better way to bring a country down than to make it noncompetitive in the world......
Groscoe
2:43PM OCT 31ST 2011
This country was built on and demands cheap energy to thrive......

Wind and solar cannot survive without major subsidies....Is that any way to run the country's energy policy?

The people who are happy with the thought of $8 a gallon gas are communists posing as progressive democrats
LDouglas
7:41PM OCT 31ST 2011
"The people who are happy with the thought of $8 a gallon gas are communists posing as progressive democrats"

Lol, Who are those people? I'm sure there's probably a few living off the grid somewhere but not enough to be dictating our energy policy.

But hey, if that's true then what are the people who think we're not going to end up with $8 a gallon a gas regardless of how much we drill today- without continuing to work on reducing demand for it? Luddites posing as conservatives? ;-)
RepublicanConscience
8:31AM OCT 30TH 2011
Duh! What is wrong is that renewable energy is not viable. Let the free market decide of figure out how to make it viable and bring it to market. Dump any governmental effort, save the money and drill.
LDouglas
1:26PM OCT 30TH 2011
Letting the free market decide is a good idea. What the renewable energy sector gets from the government pales in comparison to what nuclear, gas, oil, and coal gets from the government.

End them all, end them now. That'll be a good first start in making the market tell the truth too- which I would think is instrumental in a free market.

But I wouldn't be in a rush to drill close to Florida's coasts. I'd consider the oil under our waters like a life insurance policy. We can always cash it out if we need to but in the meantime it'll keep growing in value. And if we die before cashing out, it'll be there for our heirs. If viable alternatives come along before then, it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world.

Besides, a free market doesn't say Florida can't hold out until the leases would fetch a premium. Nor does it dictate we can't sell them to the highest bidder- even if that means China, and China shipping it home, right?
JOEL GOODMAN
11:55AM OCT 29TH 2011
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS JUST SO MUCH B.S. WE HAVE ENOUGH NATURAL GAS (VERY CLEAN) PETROLEUM (PRETTY CLEAN) AND COAL (CLEAN) TO LAST ABOUT 1000 YEARS, ACCORDING TO OUR OWN U.S. GOVERNMENT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.. NOT THE WORK OF RIGHT WING RADICALS OR THE ENERGY COMPANIES, BUT YOUR VERY OWN U S GOVERNMENT AGENCY. TAKE ALGORE/SIERRA CLUB, ET AL AND TELL THEM TO GO TO THE NORTH POLE, WHERE THE ICE WILL NOT MELT EVER IN RECORDED HISTORY.
LDouglas
1:14PM OCT 29TH 2011
Lol Joel. If you were around when Edwin Drake was trying to pull up the first barrel of oil I can imagine you'd be one of the ones calling it Drake's Folly- and yet look where that determination led us. All the way to the moon and back and lives of prosperity and ease in between.

Otherwise, burning natural gas may be clean, but the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing to get it out of the ground are anything but.

And what I read about our "recoverable" coal reserves is 249 years at our current rate of consumption. Growth of a little over 1% over the next 25 years and it's down to 119 years. Exports to China in large amounts will have it gone even faster. And then what are we left with? Memories of purple mountain majesties above the deserted plains?

But I'm all for using every last drop of oil and gas. Just don't do it before we have viable alternatives so we don't leave the next generation holding the bag. And do it without wasting or polluting every last drop of water and air in the process. As T. Boone Pickens says, someday water is going to be more valuable than oil. (Well maybe he's an Al Gore/Sierra Club nut.)
Jim B.
5:38AM OCT 30TH 2011
Douglas, sorry but you are a little off on the chemical currently used for hydraulic fracturing. It is nothing more than a form of vegetable oil and in recent hearings the manufactures have actually been drinking the stuff to get their point across.
LDouglas
6:55AM OCT 30TH 2011
Jim,
Do you have any sources to support that statement?

Here are a few of mine.
"Presently, the natural gas industry does not have to disclose the chemicals used, but scientists have identified known carcinogens and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. The chemicals can most often leak in to the water system in several ways:"
http://8020vision.com/2011/04/17/congress-releases-report-on-toxic-chemi...

"Are the fluids used in fracking toxic?"
"Often, companies that perform fracking operations don't publicly reveal what compounds they use to facilitate the gas extraction process. (Halliburton may prove an exception to the rule; it has agreed to give the government data about the fracking chemicals it uses by January 2011.) When Farnham & Associates, an environmental engineering firm, tested a well near a hydraulic fracturing zone in Pennsylvania, it found a range of contaminants in the water, including ethylene glycol and toluene, both of which can be toxic to humans. They appear on a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection list of compounds known to be used in hydraulic fracturing, but Cabot Oil and Gas, the company that conducted the drilling, claimed it had not used the chemicals."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/the-hard-fac...


"Hydrofracking relies on a high-pressure blend of chemicals, sand and water, injected deep underground to break up gas-bearing shale rock formations. Trucks bring in million of gallons of water as well as heavy equipment to each well.
Used drilling water, which can contain benzene and other volatile aromatic hydrocarbons, surfactants and organic biocides, barium and other toxic metals, and radioactive compounds, is later trucked to a disposal site."
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Scientists-Drilling-threat-to-wa...

"According to Halliburton, 98.47 percent of the material used for fracking consists of water and sand, leaving just 1.53 percent for other materials. Some of the chemicals found in hydraulic fracturing fluid used by the company include: formaldehyde, ammonium chloride, acetic anhydride, methanol, hydrochloric acid and propargyl alcohol."
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/548915/Halliburto...

On the bright side if it isn't greenwashing....

"Halliburton looks to develop greener fracking" chemical"
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/6444607

Though it probably has to do with them knowing the Halliburton Loophole that has hydraulic fracturing exempt from the Clean Water Act may soon be tied up. as the EPA is developing rules for it.

Which is why I support the EPA. We can have our gas/oil and clean water too- as long we insist on it.

"When energy companies need to get rid of the millions of barrels of brine — the salty, chemical-laced wastewater that comes out of shale-gas wells — they bring most of it to places like this."
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/09/25/fracking-wastew...


But even if they now use a form of vegetable oil, there is still the problem of fracturing releasing more than a few toxic metals, including barium, chromium, zinc, arsenic, and uranium.
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/may/16-fracking-nation

Which may explain why the drinking water in many areas of Texas are contaminated with radiation.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/A-Matter-of-Risk--Radiation-Drinking-Wate...

And maybe even why the women who live in the 6 counties in Texas with the most natural gas wells have higher rates of breast cancer than the women in the rest of the state and country. (And if breast cancer rates are higher- prostate cancer undoubtly will be found higher there too.)
http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_Canc...
Jim B.
4:16PM OCT 30TH 2011
You do realize that we have been some sort of liquid when drilling for oil and gas for decades. However, here is one of many stories about using food products for new fracking liquids and about drinking it. Keep in mind that this product is new and many of the chemicals your sites discuss have been listed over a period of years if not decades and now the total number of chemicals is 78. Well they are not using 78 chemicals in fracking fluid especially if it is 99.5% water. My problem is not so much the fluid but the water and the erosion it causes. You know, for years and years no one said a word about fluids as they were drilling straight down. Now that they have turned the rigs on an angle it seems that everyone is suddenly concerned.

Oh and for the record, I spent most of my life in the center of natural gas fields. Have seen the drilling firsthand.

http://www.chieftain.com/business/local/exec-drinks-to-safety-of-frackin...
LDouglas
7:13PM OCT 30TH 2011
Promising. But testing food grade chemicals for fracking and having it be an industry standard are two different things. And with all the secrecy about the different chemical cocktails different companies use, unless Halliburton still has a lot of clout with the government, we could be a long way off before we could see regulation requiring the use of their food grade chemical mixture.

But I'll keep my fingers crossed- and lobby in favor of them should they work out...

BTW, do you know a Jim Z?
Jim B.
11:55AM OCT 29TH 2011
Wow seems like everyone is failing to mention the 400 pound gorilla in the room. SOLANTRA ring a bell? Over half a billion taxpayer dollars down the drain. How about the other four solar companies all of which failed? Companies that we gave almost $700 billion. Even with all the taxpayer money it is too expensive and that includes that ninety percent are now made in China.

Windmills? Seriously? Too windy can't use them. Not enough wind, shut them down. Then there is the cost and return on that cost.

One thing windmills are good for though. If you want bird stew then step right up. They seem to do an especially good job on eagles from what I hear.

Face it, when the private sector can build something affordable that works better than fossil fuel then they will build it without a handout. Until then, improve on what we have all around us.
LDouglas
1:13PM OCT 29TH 2011
"Over half a billion taxpayer dollars down the drain.

That's true. But we have a half billion dollars just in paying claims to Native Americans who got cancer from one uranium mining operation and whose survivors can't use their ground water. Which also equates to a loss of productivity as well as property values. And we have multi millions invested in Yucca Mountain. Among many other costs that aren't factored into the price of nuclear electricity but externalized to taxpayers.
Not to mention how making people sick from polluting the water or air goes against the Republican pro-life platform.

But going back to Solyndra- exactly, that's a good lesson. And why we should overturn President Obama's pledge of $36 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry. If it's smart to let the free market work for developing new sources of energy, it should be just as smart to let it work for proven sources of energy.
LDouglas
8:28AM OCT 29TH 2011
"State Rep. Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland, who serves on the House State Affairs Committee, longed for a reconsideration of clean coal."

"Clean coal" is very expensive. Not to mention that coal is a finite resource and will get even more expensive over time. You can't say that about solar.

In fact, some predict in just ten years solar will be cheaper than coal. (Regular coal as we know it- not "clean coal".)

Which also should be a consideration when pushing for nuclear. It could take ten years just to get a permit to build a nuclear plant. Not to mention the other problems with nuclear. (Mining uranium pollutes water, no one wants to store the waste in their back yard, how and where to build them to avoid damage from natural disasters- how to secure them from terrorists, how to decommission them.)