Politics
What's Wrong With Florida's Renewable Energy Policy?
Around the State
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)
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
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? ;-)
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?
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.)
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...
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...
But I'll keep my fingers crossed- and lobby in favor of them should they work out...
BTW, do you know a Jim Z?
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.
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.
"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.)