Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The daily Astorian. (Astoria, Or.) 1961-current | View Entire Issue (Aug. 10, 2018)
4A THE DAILY ASTORIAN • FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2018 editor@dailyastorian.com KARI BORGEN Publisher JIM VAN NOSTRAND Editor Founded in 1873 JEREMY FELDMAN Circulation Manager DEBRA BLOOM Business Manager JOHN D. BRUIJN Production Manager CARL EARL Systems Manager PRO-CON VS. AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian Oil derricks near the La Paloma Generating Sta- tion in McKittrick, Calif. Associated Press Wind turbines in the Columbia River Gorge. Should the U.S. bail out failing energy producers? PRO: They are America’s aces in the hole in a competitive energy world CON: Spending millions on bailouts will send consumer bills soaring T W AMPA, Fla. — The key to ample supplies of energy resources rests with which are sustainable and which are not. While oil and gas may be abundant now, that does not mean these fossil fuels will be all that available in the future. Wind energy, of course, does not carry all the environmental risks associated with oil and gas, and the presence of wind is pretty much Wayne eternal. Madsen If safety measures are strictly followed, car- bon-free nuclear energy is also a viable option — especially as the horrors of Chernobyl fade into the past. For years, the oil and natural gas indus- tries have benefited from generous federal government subsidies. Why should the wind and nuclear industries, now in need of similar subsidies, be any different? The simple answer is that they should receive the same degree of concern by Congress and the Trump administration as the politically well-connected oil, gas and coal industries. Renewable energy sectors like wind and nuclear employ some 500,000 people around the United States. If jobs are of interest to the White House and Congress, a high priority should be afforded to the half-million employees — located in every state — in the wind and nuclear industries as is extended to oil and gas workers in a dozen states that include Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Workers at hundreds of factories that produce wind turbines could lose their jobs if the wind energy sector collapses. Furthermore, the nuclear power industry currently provides one-fifth of America’s energy, hardly a trifling per- centage. Nuclear energy alone accounts for half of Illinois’s energy production. As far as safety is concerned, horizontal hydraulic fracturing for natural gas has been responsible for far more damage to the environment than either the wind or nuclear sectors. The worst-case situation for the U.S. nuclear industry, the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, did far less damage to Pennsylvania than the pollution of groundwater aquifers in the state caused by the fracking industry. Attempts to bail out Pennsylvania’s ASHINGTON — It may seem faltering nuclear energy sector met with that Americans don’t agree on fierce opposition from state capital frack- much these days, but just about ing lobbyists in Harrisburg, who have everyone agrees that government interven- managed to ensure that a nuclear energy tion in electricity markets is a bad idea. bailout package is dead-on-arrival. From The Wall Street Journal to the Against such lobbying efforts, a fed- Los Angeles Times, electric grid operators to economic analysts, eral assistance boost to wind and nuclear natural gas producers energy in Pennsylvania and other states to renewable energy is critical. advocates, Democrats to Federal tax credits have boosted the Republicans — it’s hard renewable energy sector to a degree not to find anyone who sup- seen with their fossil fuel counterparts. ports bailing out unprof- Considering the environmental dam- itable coal and nuclear age caused by fossil fuel exploitation, Todd plants at the expense of Snitchler wind and nuclear energy should receive consumers. the same degree of federal government But the Trump admin- support as that given to the lobbyist-in- istration is considering a proposal to do just that. tensive fossil fuel industry. First, some background. The United Also, the world’s supply of oil and States leads the world in natural gas natural gas is finite. Fossil fuels are production, and the resource’s ready simply not renewable. Mexico, a major availability and advantages as a fuel oil producer, saw its Cantarell field reach source have made it an appealing choice peak production in 2004. Saudi Arabia for electricity providers. and Kuwait have concluded that their So much so that it’s become the own oil reserves are in decline. leading source of power generation in Because of that, the governments of the United States, powering nearly one the Persian Gulf region have started to in three homes and delivering a win- diversify their economies. win situation for consumers and power generators. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab On the consumer side, clean natural Emirates are investing in nuclear. The gas-supplied power has first Arab nuclear lowered utility costs for reactor was completed homes and businesses The Daily Astorian is try- this past March in while driving carbon ing out some new things Abu Dhabi, the UAE’s emissions to 25-year capital. The Saudis also for its opinion page. Do lows. are developing a wind you like this topic-based, On the power pro- plant in northwest Saudi ducer side, natural gas pro-con feature? Arabia and plan to have has enhanced the reli- Let us know at editor@ renewables produce 9.5 ability and resilience of dailyastorian.com. America’s electric power gigawatts of energy by system. 2023. Bottom line: Natural When the Saudis gas has earned its share in power markets, begin to deal with running out of oil, and those markets are succeeding in why shouldn’t the United States take providing affordable, reliable electricity to heed of the problem? consumers. Reliance on substitute renewable It’s a clear case of “if it ain’t broke, energy sources like wind and nuclear don’t fix it.” Only unprofitable coal and is the only feasible alternative to fossil nuclear plants, struggling to compete with fuels. It makes sense for the federal ascendant natural gas, disagree. Rather government, working in partnership with than compete fair-and-square in the free market, nuclear and coal companies are the states and private industry, to focus seeking bailouts in several states and now its attention on boosting the renewable at the national level. energy sector, especially when it is fac- U.S. homes and businesses should ing financial decline. not have to pay to prop up specific fuel Wayne Madsen is a progressive com- sources, but a new study shows they could mentator whose writings have appeared in be on the hook for up to $17 billion per U.S. and European newspapers. year – whether in taxes or higher electric- ity rates — if bailouts move forward. U.S. manufacturers, who have enjoyed an economy-boosting renaissance thanks to affordable energy, are under no illu- sions about the impact. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considered and rejected bailouts earlier this year, a coalition of manufacturers — including the American Iron and Steel Institute, Electricity Consumers Resource Council and American Forest & Paper Association — argued that subsidizing “coal and nuclear generation and their jobs” would “increase the electricity costs by many millions of dollars for untold numbers of businesses and consumers ... putting at risk a far larger number of U.S. man- ufacturing jobs that face considerable pressure from foreign competition.” That’s a lot of cost, and at what benefit? Bailout supporters argue everything from grid reliability to national security as justification for subsidies. But power grid operators themselves have shot down those claims. PJM Interconnection, which manages power markets in 13 states, has stated: “This is not an issue of reliability ... Nothing we have seen to date indicates that an emergency would result from the generator retirements.” On top of cost increases, forcing oper- ators to make their fuel purchases based on government mandates, not on what’s best for consumers, would set a troubling precedent. As the Washington Post editorial board recently pointed out, if the Trump administration implements subsidies for coal and nuclear plants, “it would be hard to stop the next Democratic presi- dent from, say, using emergency powers to force the purchase of renewables at the expense of coal, oil and natural gas.” That’s one of many unintended con- sequences we risk when the government starts picking winners and losers in the market. America’s power system will continue to rely on multiple fuels — including natural gas, nuclear, coal, hydro, wind and solar — for decades. But it’s the competitive market, not government intervention, that is the best approach to ensure the optimal mix to keep delivering affordable, reliable power to American families and businesses. Todd Snitchler is group director of mar- ket development at the American Petroleum Institute and a leading expert on environ- mental regulations.
