What does a reliable electric grid even mean?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission defines grid reliability as:

“The provision of an adequate, secure, and stable flow of electricity as consumers may need it. In other words, when you flip the light switch, the lights turn on. The grid remains functional even during unanticipated but common system disturbances.”

Essentially, there needs to be a sufficient and secure amount of dispatchable power plants supplying electricity to consumers. Dispatchability is an energy source’s ability to be “dispatched” to the grid’s consumers whenever they need it. Intermittent energy sources, like wind and solar, are not dispatchable, as they are not continuously available for consumers when they need it.

Missouri’s retiring coal plants are consistent and dispatchable, and to maintain grid reliability, they should simply be replaced with similar plants—such as nuclear or natural gas.

But what about battery storage for intermittent sources?

The presence of energy storage does not make wind and solar any less intermittent. They are still intermittent, but it’s possible battery storage could help alleviate this problem.

Globally, battery storage is rapidly rising, and costs are decreasing. These trends should bolster the effectiveness of renewables—but the sheer amount of energy the United States uses is daunting. The Mackinac Center notes that the United States is set to add 191.6 gigawatt hours of battery backup systems between 2022 and 2026. This is a ton of storage. However, in 2021, the United States used 4,116,000 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2021 alone. Per calculations from the energy analysis group Doomberg, that nets out to 24 additional minutes of battery backup storage added over that five-year period.

Additionally, the International Energy Agency noted the difficulty of providing the materials for a mass battery and renewable expansion at scale. Compared to total mineral demand in 2020, it projects a need for six times as many total minerals for a “net-zero by 2050” scenario.

What’s a policy that could help boost grid reliability?

Last session, House Bill (HB) 1753 passed through the Missouri House but failed to make it to the floor in the Senate. This bill outlined that, prior to the closure of an existing power plant, there must be:

• A new “replacement” power plant secured and placed on the electric grid (which can be in another state) with an equal or greater amount of “reliable electric generation”

• “Adequate” transmission lines in place and ready to operate immediately or shortly after a plant is taken offline (depending on the interconnectedness of the plant being shut down).

The retirements of functioning power plants should not be done in haste. HB 1753 would have helped pump the brakes on an energy transition that seems to be barreling out of control. Even if you believe that renewables should be the primary energy source, there should be a highly dispatchable and reliable source backing them up.

Commissioner Mark Christie of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) noted:

I think the United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability. . . .The core of the problem is actually very simple. We are retiring dispatchable generating resources at a pace and in an amount that is far too fast and far too great, and it is threatening our ability to keep the lights on. The problem is not the addition of wind and solar and other renewable resources. The problem is the subtraction of dispatchable resources such as coal and gas. . . . A nameplate megawatt of wind or solar is simply not equal in terms of capacity value to a nameplate megawatt of coal or gas or nuclear.

Renewable construction is good—it can bring development and diversity to the generation portfolio—but dispatchability needs to be emphasized, and an intermittent source should not be our backbone. We do not need to make the transition away from coal more convoluted than it is. HB 1753 would have protected energy reliability for Missourians. This policy should be given stronger consideration in the 2025 legislative session.

The post One Way Missouri Could Keep Its Energy Grid Reliable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rush Island is not the first coal plant to be shuttered, and it will not be the last. At the end of 2022, the 827-megawatt Meramec Power Plant was shut down, and according to Ameren, it plans to phase coal out completely by 2045.

Below is a summary of Ameren’s 2023 Integrated Resource Plan:

Note: “Other Zero Carbon” is expected to include a combination of renewables, energy storage, nuclear energy, and new technologies.

The continued shuttering of reliable coal plants presents concerns for energy reliability and affordability.

Is there reason to be concerned with affordability?

North Carolina is another state on the path of shutting down all coal plants and inserting renewables largely in their place. In response to these state plans, the John Locke Foundation and Center of the American Experiment released an in-depth analysis of the state’s proposed paths forward. The analysis finds that North Carolina’s proposed plan would cost more than a more nuclear-focused one. This is largely attributed to the “build and rebuild” treadmill that wind and solar assets need due to their short lifespan (roughly 20 years), whereas nuclear plans have a lifespan of 80 years (and maybe more).

Utilities, like Ameren, are allowed to charge enough for electricity to cover the cost of providing the service to everyone in their territory, plus a government-approved profit, often set at 5–-10 percent, on their capital investments. As long as the expenses are approved by the regulator in their state, utilities make a profit on every dollar they spend on new builds such as wind turbines, solar panels, natural gas plants, or even renovating corporate offices. The more money utilities spend, the more money they make.

A Missouri-specific study of Ameren’s energy plans could be beneficial to future policy research. Nevertheless, there is some reason to be skeptical of the affordability of such a massive energy transition and continued research will be needed as technology changes.

What concerns are there with reliability?

Some sources of energy are more reliable than others, and there are numerous ways to measure this: accredited capacity, unforced capacity (UCAP), or capacity value. All three measure the general reliability value to the grid. The figure below displays capacity values for the two main regional energy organizations in Missouri—Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP):

Solar and wind, which are projected to replace much of the energy that retiring coal plants have produced, are intermittent and do not provide consistent streams of electricity, nor are they available at all times of day (although battery storage is improving). As shown in the table above, MISO rates the reliability of solar and wind far lower than coal and other replacement options. Relying so heavily on them may be dangerous.

There is also the task of building out a vast amount of advanced transmission infrastructure. The New York Times reports: “Already, a lack of transmission capacity means that thousands of proposed wind and solar projects are facing multiyear delays and rising costs to connect to the grid.” We should not bank on the ability to break this trend.

Will Ameren be able to replace 66% of its current generation while also meeting the needs of rapidly rising electricity demand? There is reason for concern. In my next post, I will discuss one policy that could help maintain and strengthen the reliability of our grid.

*Note: This post was updated on October 23 to more accurately reflect the circumstances of Rush Island’s closure.

The post Ameren to Shut Down Rush Island appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In light of Ameren’s recent declaration that all coal plants will be decommissioned by 2045, this bill seems to add a level of accountability and protection, and could help prevent officials from undertaking actions that would compromise the energy needs of Missourians.

To make an energy grid truly reliable; we need both sufficient capacity and dispatchability.

Prior to examining SB 757, let me explain what these terms actually mean. I will examine the provisions of the bill in my next post.

First, what is nameplate capacity?

In simple terms, nameplate capacity is the amount of energy a power plant can produce if it is operating at 100 percent power all the time. So, if a coal plant is “rated” at a nameplate capacity of 1,000 megawatts (mw), that means 1,000 mw is the maximum the plant could produce—but that is not what it actually generates.

If the nameplate capacity isn’t what the plant generates, how much electricity do plants actually generate?

That answer depends on the type of energy source, the weather, the time of year, and the strategies used to generate energy. I wrote an earlier piece on all the types of energy sources in the United States that you can read here.

Another key variable that determines how much electricity is actually generated is something called “capacity factor.”

Capacity factor, in simple terms, is the percentage of time that a power plant is operating at maximum power (its nameplate capacity).

The capacity factor is not the same among different energy sources. For example, nuclear power plants operated at maximum power 92.7% of the time in 2021—meaning nuclear power had a capacity factor of 92.7%. Coal plants had a capacity factor of 49.3% in 2021, natural gas was 54.4%, wind was 34.6%, and solar photovoltaic (solar panels) was at 24.6%.

Let’s say five different types of plants have a nameplate capacity of 1,000 mw (enough to power around 565,000 homes). Here’s how the capacity factor would affect rates of electricity generation:

Now that we better understand capacity, what is dispatchability?

Dispatchability is essentially an energy source’s ability to be “dispatched” to the grid’s consumers whenever they need it. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, meaning that when we “use” energy, that energy has to be coming from somewhere.

There are a few main “baseload resources” that have ample dispatchability: nuclear, coal, hydroelectric, and natural gas. On the other hand, intermittent resources such as solar and wind have times of day and certain weather conditions where they lack production, meaning they have less dispatchability.

How does dispatchability come into play in decommissioning power plants?

The reason we produce energy is to power things society needs and wants—and we are living in a world where we want and need electricity 24/7. In an internet-driven society, we want to stream movies at night, meet on Zoom for work meetings, play video games, mine bitcoins, or potentially even have a “metaverse.” The growing number of data centers that power these activities devour large swaths of energy, and they have to be operating constantly. If electric vehicles become more popular, we will have millions and millions of individuals using an immense amount of energy overnight to charge them.

This is where some of the dilemma lies. The energy demand market is trending towards 24/7 energy, while many proposed replacement plants are intermittent and don’t produce energy at night, when it is cloudy, or when there is no wind.

Here is a table taken from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which shows the dispatchability of solar and wind and where loss of load occurs. The numbers 1–24 on the x-axis represent the hours of the day, and the y-axis represents the months of the year.

The top “loss of load” graph shows the times where both renewables struggle to be dispatchable when paired together. Some states like California have experienced this dispatchability problem and have tried to mitigate it with the vast expansion of battery infrastructure. This is a fine enough idea and does help with improving reliability. However, there is no realistic path to mass expansion for the needed battery infrastructure to maintain reliability if renewables continue to be scaled. The battery technology also still has problems that need to be ironed out. We should not bet our energy future on battery technology given all the existing issues.

That bet would be too risky, as it could potentially lead to utilities or the government dictating when individuals and businesses may use electricity— such electricity rationing.

In order to achieve dispatchability and maintain reliability, the replacements for coal cannot just be renewables—we need nuclear and other baseload energy sources. Even if you believe that renewables should be the primary energy source, there should be a highly dispatchable and reliable source backing them up.

Now that we understand the two legs that grid reliability needs to stand on, we can turn back to SB 757 in my next blog post.

The post Show-Me Energy: Decommissioning Power Plants Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The United States is known for its diversity: from our landscapes, to our immigrants, and to the different states across the nation—the United States truly has a wide range of interests, individuals, and industries. Our energy sources are no different, and as shown below, we use a diverse assortment of energy sources to power our nation.

Created with mapchart.net; Source: Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

In order to better understand energy policy for Missouri, it is important to know some background about each energy source.

Natural Gas

According to 2022 preliminary data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas generated 39.8 percent of electricity in the United States—the largest generator in our country. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, meaning it is formed from decomposing plants and animals. Companies use seismic surveys to determine where to drill for natural gas, similar to the process used for oil. The captured natural gas is then processed, and a chemical called Mercaptan is added. Mercaptan adds the smell that makes natural gas smell like rotten eggs so leaks can be detected. This now smelly natural gas is then used for combustion turbines or steam turbines to generate electricity. In recent times, combined-cycle natural gas plants have greatly increased efficiency by using both processes together. Natural gas is burned to power combustion turbines, and the heat byproduct from the combustion turbine (think of how a car engine releases heat) is used to heat water, create steam, and turn a steam turbine.

Coal

At 19.5 percent of electricity generation, coal is the second-largest energy source in the United States. Once used primarily to power locomotives and heat homes, coal is now mostly used to generate electricity by heating water to turn steam turbines. Coal, like natural gas, emerged as an electricity generator in the 1950s and grew quickly in the 1970s and 80s. However, coal emits much higher emissions than natural gas, and thus its usage is shrinking in modern times as natural gas continues to capture more market share.

Hydroelectric

Speaking of old energy sources, hydroelectric (or hydropower) is one of the oldest forms of electricity generation—with 1880 marking its first year of industrial use. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a big proponent of hydropower, which uses moving water to spin turbines. By 1940, it generated 40 percent of our nation’s electricity. However, in 2022, it only generated 6.3 percent. American hydropower has largely fallen out of favor due to safety and environmental regulations, legal obligations to Native American tribes, and the economic costs associated with them. For example, two hydroelectric dams on the Elwha River came under attack due to environmental and legal concerns over the salmon population. The owners would have been forced to add expensive fish ladders, and continued legal pressure from the tribes persisted until they decided the dam was not worth the cost.

Nuclear Energy

Making up 18.2 percent of electricity generation, nuclear is the largest clean energy source in the United States. The first commercial reactor was built in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1958, and the nuclear industry grew rapidly in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. With nuclear fission, uranium atoms are split, which causes a chain-reaction and generates an immense amount of heat—which boils water and creates steam that turns a turbine. As time has passed, stringent regulations have slowed down the construction of nuclear power plants; the average age of a reactor for the remaining 93 reactors in the United States is 42 years old. Currently, the industry is regaining momentum as it transitions from large plants built during the Cold War to safer and cheaper small-modular reactors.

Wind

Wind energy makes up 10.2 percent of electricity generation. The mechanics of wind energy are relatively straightforward. The cycle of wind is used to turn turbines which generate electricity without creating greenhouse gas. In the olden days, windmills were used to cut wood, pump water, and grind grain—but now wind turbines are used to generate electricity. Financial incentives and requirements to use renewable energy in the 1990s spurred the development of wind power, with similar incentives continuing today. These wind turbines can also be located offshore in the ocean—such as ones taller than the Statue of Liberty in Rhode Island.

Solar

Enough energy from the sun hits the planet every hour to power the entire world for a year. Comprising 3.4 percent of our electricity generation, solar energy is a relatively small source of energy in the United States. Solar energy can be harnessed in two ways—through solar thermal or solar photovoltaic. Solar thermal technology is like the hot metal slide on the playground that would make you pay for foolishly venturing down it during recess. The sun heats up metal, which heats water—creating steam and turning a turbine. Solar photovoltaic is what most people think of when they think of solar energy—panels made up of a great number of cells turned towards the sun and capturing light energy to charge up like a battery. America’s largest solar photovoltaic farm is the Solar Star Farm in California.

Petroleum

Oil is typically used in transportation, but it can also be used in electricity generation—although it makes up only a tiny 0.9 percent of generation in the United States. The process to create electricity from petroleum is similar to the process for natural gas, as it can be used in steam, combustion engines, or in a combined-cycle power plant.

Biomass

Biomass is a fancy term for burning wood or using biofuels created with corn, soybeans, etc., to turn turbines. Although it is a large U.S. export commodity, our nation only relies on biomass energy for 1.3 percent of electricity generation. Developments are in the works for converting municipal solid waste (paper, shirts, furniture), animal manure, and human sewage into electricity sources.

Geothermal

Accounting for only 0.4 percent of electricity generation, geothermal is the smallest energy source in our nation. Since the earth has an inner core, outer core, mantle, and crust (where we live), heat from pressure and magma in the outer core and mantle produce heat that we can harness for electricity. Wells are drilled into the earth’s surface (some going 2 miles deep) and the heat is used to boil water and turn a steam turbine.

Now that we have a foundation on all of America’s top energy sources, we can further explore how energy is produced and transmitted and consider what would be the best energy policies for our nation and Missouri.

The post Show-Me Energy: Today’s Energy Sources appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• A Level Playing Field for Small Businesses
• Public Schools and COVID
• Preparing for Medicaid Expansion
• Regulation of Food-delivery Services
• Power-density: Implications for Green Energy

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Show-Me Institute’s September 2020 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While such goals are often introduced as environmental necessities, a new report from the Manhattan Institute calls for a reality check on the environmental impact of such green energy goals. The report highlights “the inescapable reality that every product and service begins with, and is sustained by, extracting minerals from the earth.”

But what does this have to do with green energy? While wind and sunlight are renewable, wind turbines and solar panels are not. Further, energy-storing batteries require large amounts of non-recyclable materials. In fact, all three are quite resource intensive and producing them can have serious environmental consequences.

The report notes that, compared to a natural gas plant, wind and solar power plants require 10–15 times as much steel, concrete, and glass to generate the same amount of energy. Manufacturing a single 1,000-pound electric vehicle battery requires mining, moving, and processing 500,000 pounds of materials.

These machines wear out, too. Wind turbines and solar panels last between 20 and 30 years, and electric vehicle batteries last around seven.

Those concerned about large amounts of unrecyclable waste should be equally concerned about the afterlife of these machines. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, current solar growth policies will result in roughly 51–67 million tons per year of unrecyclable waste by 2050. While not a perfect comparison, this is nearly twice the current annual level of unrecyclable plastic waste. If wind energy grows as the International Energy Agency predicts, turbines will contribute another 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastic waste by 2050. Lastly, the Manhattan Institute report calculates that more than 10 million tons of batteries per year will become unrecyclable waste by 2030 under current projections.

None of green energy’s environmental drawbacks change the fact that fossil fuels negatively impact the environment as well. However, every energy source has environmental impacts, and currently there is no magic bullet for truly “clean” energy production. As Missourians are asked to support green energy programs at the state and federal level, they should recognize the tradeoffs involved. While green energy’s environmental impacts may be out of sight, they should not be out of mind.

The post Green Energy’s Environmental Impacts: Out of Sight, Out of Mind appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• License Reciprocity
• Telemedicine
• Regulations during the COVID Pandemic
• Keeping Students Safe
• Challenges for Green Energy

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Show-Me Institute’s June 2020 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The power producer Invenergy canceled plans for a wind farm after the city of Monett expressed concerns over the turbines’ effects on its regional airport.

But what do wind turbines have to do with airplanes? Wind turbines can create turbulence several miles away from their site, generating hazards for general aviation airplanes and airports. Additionally, the turbulence created from wind turbines can pose problems for radar scanning and airplane communication systems, while the sheer height of some turbines can obstruct flights if they are located close to an airport.

Local naturalists also expressed concern that turbines would jeopardize eagles and an endangered bat species. The conflict between green energy and wildlife conservation has raged for years. Wind energy plants have come under serious scrutiny for killing hundreds of thousands of birds (including protected birds of prey) and bats annually. Many wind energy companies consider precise wildlife casualty details to be a trade secret and have sued to block their public release.

This tug-of-war is emblematic of a struggle developing nationwide between energy planners and local communities. Some communities welcome wind energy development, while others like Buchanan County have banned it entirely. In the Northeastern United States, many developers are building wind energy projects in the state of New York, where the governor created a rule that allows the governor’s office to override local opposition to wind energy project locations. Many communities have declared themselves “sanctuary towns” in opposition and plan to refuse such projects.

As I wrote earlier, land use is an important part of energy production and cannot be overlooked. Green energy is not free energy, as each energy source has its own set of tradeoffs.

The post Local Wind Farm Project Highlights Electricity Generation Tradeoffs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The general public has largely been shielded from the challenges green energy faces, with much of the debate being left to behind-the-scenes energy analysts. By bringing these matters to the forefront, Moore’s documentary reminds us that while green energy has its place, it also has its limits.

For those wanting a closer look, I address these matters in more detail in a recent op-ed for Real Clear Energy.

The post More on Moore’s “Planet of the Humans” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A study released earlier this year from the Brookings Institute drew attention to an often-overlooked aspect of electricity generation—land use.

The determining factor for the amount of land an energy source needs for its operations is power density. Power density measures the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of energy. Each energy source has its own power density. Fossil fuels are quite power-dense by nature, whereas wind and solar power are less dense by several orders of magnitude. In fact, wind and solar energy can require up to 100 times more space than a natural gas plant to generate an equivalent amount of electricity.

The power densities of several forms of electricity generation can be seen below. The higher the median power density (red dot) is, the less space it takes to generate electricity.

These results have important implications for Missouri. Land use for energy purposes was a contentious topic this past legislative session, with overt and covert attempts to block the developers of a wind energy transmission line from using eminent domain to acquire land.

Land is scarce and has competing uses. Currently, however, Missouri’s Renewable Energy Standard mandates an increasing amount of electricity be generated by the least power-dense sources. The Standard requires 15 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by next year, and an initiative petition circulating proposes to increase that number to 50 percent by 2040. Meeting these mandates would require either a significant buildout or utilities buying power from out of state.

The scholars who created the above graph note that “increasing the U.S. renewable energy portfolio will increase land-use, presenting challenges for other sectors such as agriculture.” This concern is especially relevant for Missouri, as agriculture, forestry, and related industries are among Missouri’s top industries and constitute 10 percent of the state’s employment. Missouri is one of the top states in the country for farm operations, soybean production, and beef cattle production, with farmland constituting two-thirds of state land area.

Missourians should be wary of green energy mandates that require massive land use. Shouldn’t land use  be driven by fair competition and markets, not government mandates?

The post Is This Town Big Enough for the Two of Us? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One of the major limitations of green energy such as wind and solar is its reliance on the weather, which causes intermittent droughts in production. To compensate for intermittency, wind and solar plants must be backed up by reliable power plants, typically powered by fossil fuels. Providing green power when the weather does not cooperate requires massive amounts of surplus generation and battery storage. And, as the film notes, existing batteries can currently store just 0.1 percent of worldwide energy usage.

To even attempt such a green energy buildout requires massive amounts of land. The film shows how a football field-sized solar array can only power ten homes per year in a Michigan town, with the developer saying it would take a 15 square mile field just to power that one town.

Further, green energy is not as “green” as it appears. As the film notes, materials for wind turbines and solar panels must be mined, processed, and transported—a process dependent on fossil fuels. And since solar panels last only roughly 10 to 20 years (and wind turbines slightly longer), this process must be repeated frequently.

Wind and solar plants are often dependent on fossil fuels even when up and running. In addition to requiring backup power, the film highlights how the Ivanpah solar thermal power facility in California—the largest in the world of its kind—used enough fossil fuels during construction and operations that it may as well have been a natural gas plant.

The challenges highlighted above call into question the wisdom of relying too heavily on wind and solar power. An initiative petition circulating in Missouri would do just this by constitutionally requiring up to half of Missouri’s electricity come from green energy. Missouri would face additional challenges in reaching that requirement due to our very limited existing green energy infrastructure. Under 4 percent of Missouri’s electricity comes from wind and solar power, and a planned ratepayer-backed $1 billion wind expansion will increase that to only 6 percent.

While there is a place for green energy, Missourians must be cognizant of its limits.

The post Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans” Highlights Limits of Green Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This raises the question: Can there be too much renewable energy? Despite the abundance of wind and sunlight, is there a point where the costs outweigh the benefits (including the cost of harnessing these supposedly free fuel sources)? I address these questions in a recent op-ed posted at Real Clear Energy.

The post Renewable Energy: Too Much of a Good Thing? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As a revealing example of the magnitude of the changes that would be required to put the so-called “Green New Deal” into effect, let’s look at the little village of Kingdom City, Missouri, population 124. Endorsed by several presidential candidates, the Green New Deal would ban all use of fossil fuels over the next decade.

The big business in Kingdom City is servicing heavy trucks passing through Missouri going East and West on Interstate 70 and North and South on U.S. 54. Three filling stations in Kingdom City handle more than 450 18-wheelers on an average day.

What would it take for the Kingdom City filling stations to do the same work using electric power rather than diesel fuel?

That is an answerable question, using mathematics to convert from one form of energy usage to another. We know that a “Green” 18-wheeler must supply essentially the same average power to move a load of cargo over the same distance as a diesel-powered vehicle. Based on diesel fuel usage and engine efficiency, we estimate the required average power at 160 kW (a little over 200 horsepower).

To recharge a single truck after eight hours on the road in 20 minutes would require a charging station capacity of 3.88 megawatts. For three truck stops, each with 10 electric “pumps,” you must multiply this number by 30 to get the needed capacity. That comes to 116 megawatts, which is the equivalent of 58 2-megwatt windmills costing $3 to $4 million each.

In other words, to use electricity to refuel heavy trucks passing through Kingdom City would require a starting investment on the order of $200 million in new wind-generated electric capacity. This calculation does not include further substantial change-over costs, including the installation of additional transmission lines and the construction of recharging stations. For simplicity sake, we have also ignored the significant reduction in fuel economy caused by the approximately 10 tons of extra weight of the Tesla-like batteries that a “Green” 18-wheeler would carry.

The Kingdom City example underscores the prohibitively high cost of trying to implement even a tiny part of the all-encompassing Green New Deal. Take the $200 million starting investment in this little village and multiply it by the thousands of other locations across the United States. You quickly arrive at a figure in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

But would there be any positive impact on the environment?

Now, you must consider that three-quarters of Missouri’s electrical generating capacity comes from burning coal and another 5 percent from natural gas. We also get another 10 percent from nuclear energy, but the Green New Dealers are not calling for more nuclear power. So where, over the next decade, could we find the additional generating capacity that would power electric cars and trucks?

It could only come from increased burning of fossil fuels.

The post What It Would Take to Bring Green Energy to Kingdom City, Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Many have regarded ethanol to be the proverbial “fuel of the future,” claiming that it reduces the cost of gasoline at the pump while also emitting less pollution. Although ethanol can replace gasoline in some ways, it is less beneficial than many expect.

The Department of Energy began releasing data in 1997 determining that some of the benefits derived from ethanol don’t outweigh the costs, as researchers had previously believed. Ethanol may emit less pollution when burned in place of gasoline, but the Environmental Protection Agency reports that it releases carcinogens at far higher levels than they predicted when it’s created.

Despite the abundance of new testimonies and information, however, both the federal and state government continue to support ethanol ardently, as our country’s energy messiah.

Pointing to often-circulated claims of environmental friendliness and cost-effectiveness, Rep. John Shimkus from Illinois recently introduced new legislation that would impose further government mandates for the production of ethanol. Amid another distressing year for Detroit, this governmental decree would require that 50 percent of all new automobiles be capable of running on ethanol and other non-petroleum fuels by 2014. That number would stiffly rise to 95 percent just three years later.

So, do the advantages of ethanol outweigh the costs? The answer, simply, is no. Aside from its counterproductive environmental effects and proven efficiency loss for each mile to the gallon, ethanol is a precarious investment for the government to force on us for several reasons:

• First, it has been shown that increases in ethanol production are correlated with an increase in food prices. These effects can be felt not only statewide, but also nationally and internationally.
• Second, and as a direct result of government mandates, a cloud of pseudo–market demand now hangs heavily above the heartland. Simply put, the current supply/demand ratio did not arise naturally from the decisions of producers and consumers, interacting voluntarily in the market. Instead, the ethanol industry is artificially bolstered by government sanctions.
• Finally, both this mandate and others like it point to the essence of how government controls harm the economy. There are too many hands in the cookie jar, and, as a result, everyone’s hand gets stuck; the cookie crumbles. Automakers should not be burdened with absurd requirements such as this from legislators who seek to alter the free market for the sole benefit of their constituents, and at the expense of everyone else.

Don’t get me wrong, I support the development of renewable energies and green solutions. Markets reward efficiency. However, as both a Missouri resident and an owner of my father’s businesses, I find that legislation like our own E-10 mandate and the proposal advanced by Rep. Shimkus in Illinois are harmful — especially in the long run.

Neither supply nor demand would exist at anywhere near current levels without both federal and state mandates, both of which have propelled ethanol into the forefront of the American auto and oil industries. As it stands, the eagerly pushed supply of ethanol more than satisfies current market demand. And that, folks, is just basic economic principle.

The post New Ethanol Mandates From Washington appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

My administration looks forward to working with the General Assembly to determine where those sources of renewable energy must be located in order to carry out the will of the people and promote a renewable energy economy in Missouri.

Sounds good, huh? Greener energy is a good thing for Missouri, right? Unfortunately, this is a problematic way to get to that goal. I strongly support the development of renewable energy, but I do not want the state to subsidize it!

The free market and basic economic forces, not government programs, will determine the development of alternative fuels. When the government enacts policies that impose higher mandates for alternative energy, such as the 2008 Missouri Renewable Energy Initiative referenced in the letter, it imposes high hidden costs and defeats its ostensible goal of helping the environment.

Just as government officials don’t know the socially optimal mix of any set of products and services, they do not have special predictive power, nor do they have access to perfect information. Politicians can’t identify new technologies and business opportunities as well as the unrestricted market can, because they are too far removed from the science of energy technologies to know the optimal state of the market. Plus, government is slow to react to changes in the economic environment because it is bogged down in bureaucracy.

Furthermore, when lawmakers in Jeff City roll out proposals for encouraging the development of alternative energies, Missourians would be wise to question whose interests their elected officials actually have in mind. Policymakers often bend the truth to promote their own political agenda, under the guise of helping the environment. Corn ethanol, which we discuss frequently on Show-Me Daily, is a classic example. Al Gore touted the corn ethanol industry with the ostensible goal of helping the environment. Last November, he changed his position on ethanol, admitting that he had previously supported ethanol as a means of pandering to Iowa voters. Gore had the interests of his political career—not the environment—in mind.

The post Let the Free Market Turn Missouri Green! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The recurring theme in President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was “winning the future.” It’s a good theme — focusing attention on the need for U.S. workers and businesses to face the challenge of competing in world markets. We are no longer living in a world — as the president pointed out — where “your competition” in seeking a job is “pretty much limited to your neighbors.” Unfortunately, the president stood his “winning the future” theme on its head through a misplaced belief in the ability of government to do a better job of picking winners and losers than the free-enterprise system is able to do on its own.

Obama cited high-speed rail as one of the primary would-be winners, saying (emphasis added): “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of all Americans access to high-speed rail. This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying.”

Show-Me Institute scholars have conducted detailed cost-benefit studies of high-speed rail and found that it would be an egregious waste of money. It is not just that 200-mph bullet trains and the infrastructure needed to support them are extraordinarily expensive. There is also the fact that it may not be practical to run even 110-mph passenger trains on the same tracks as freight trains.

Other would-be winners identified by Obama included:

• Construction: “Over the last two years, we’ve begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. And tonight I’m proposing that we redouble those efforts.”
• Wireless technology: “Within the next five years, we’ll make it possible for businesses to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage for 98 percent of all Americans.”
• Clean energy (emphasis added): “Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.”

Let us leave aside the staggering pick-a-number-out-of-the-sky presumption of that last statement, which suggests that in two-plus decades our nation will reduce coal from more than 50 percent of total electricity generation to no more than 20 percent. It seems that the president is prepared to use a two-edged sword to make that happen: First, hitting up taxpayers in order to lavish billions of dollars in subsidies on wind, solar, and other producers of politically favored forms of alternate energy. Second, forcing utilities to buy at inflated prices from the same subsidized producers, which — by federal fiat — would be guaranteed the lion’s share of the power industry’s demand for energy. That, in turn, would force the utilities to jack up their rates on homeowners and businesses.

There is an overwhelming body of scholarly evidence, to which the Show-Me Institute has contributed, supporting the conclusion that whenever government intervenes in the marketplace in order to try to pick winners and losers, they almost always wind up picking losers and compounding failure. If, as the president suggests, there is a bright future for high-speed rail, high-speed wireless, or wind and solar energy, there is no reason to suppose that private companies would not support such enterprises, lured by the prospect of future growth and earnings.

Finally, Obama talks of giving Americans access to high-speed rail and other projects built at taxpayers’ expense. In doing so, he neglects to consider the deadening effect upon the economy as a whole that has come from ramping up public expenditures. Now or in the future, that can only mean higher taxes on individuals and businesses.

During the past two years, the federal government spending has increased from slightly more than 20 percent of GDP to nearly 25 percent. That is 4 percent of GDP that almost certainly would have been put to better use in the private sector. It is one reason that may be cited for the painfully slow pace of the economic recovery.

On Nov. 2, voters in Missouri and most other states indicated a strong desire for smaller and less intrusive government. Our president does not yet seem to have gotten the message.

Andrew Wilson is a senior editor and writer for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy. He contributes frequently to the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, and other national publications. This commentary also appeared in the American Spectator.

The post Stop Trying to Pick Winners and Losers in the Economy, Mr. President appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of course, if you want clean and remewable baseload power generation for Missouri, there is really only one way to go. …

The post Hydropower on the Mississippi appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What these activists are saying is that with a clean energy bill, we will get the same amount of energy, but it will take 36,000 more workers to create it, which means much higher energy costs. An economy is more efficient when it employs fewer resources (e.g., energy, labor, and steel) to make the same amount of a good or service, but the economic argument these activists are trying to advance is that we can get rich by doing less with more.

There are environmental arguments for supporting clean energy, and some of those may have merit. If you want to advance those arguments, there is a productive discussion to be had, but this jobs argument is completely specious and should be buried once and for all.

The post The Jobs Fallacy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to the Post article, the initiative’s sponsors released a study finding that, over time, as the percentage of power Missouri gained from renewable energy grew, the more money we would eventually save:

over a period of 20 years, an average utility bill of $80 a month would see a peak increase of 53 cents a month during the first four years the standard was in place. Over the course of 20 years, that home-owner would see a peak savings of $1.65.

This depends, of course, on all other factors remaining stable — such as amount of energy used, and the overall price rate. The Missouri Clean Energy Initiative has issued a brochure containing some useful facts.

Cheap energy sounds great, but 20 years is a long way away. I want to know what my options are now, and how much they would cost me. And what better tool to use in my research than Dr. Emmett Brown’s time machine?

As we all know, the DeLorean time machine’s flux capacitor requires 1.21 gigawatts of power to function. This is the same as saying 1,210,000 kilowatts of power. Now, while the average home in St. Louis city only uses between 1,000 and 4,000 kWh (kilowatts per hour), I feel as though the DeLorean time machine is an example we all know, love, and respect.

Now, if Doc Brown were to fire up the DeLorean today (in late September), he would be charged a rate of 7.92 cents per kWh. When you do all the crazy math (which I have), you find out it would cost Doc $95,839.50 to use the DeLorean one time during the summer months. Great Scott! When you add in the 12-percent proposed rate increase, his total reaches $107,340.24. Maybe stealing a sports almanac from the future isn’t such a bad idea anymore.

If Doc was to be patient, and use the DeLorean during the winter (October–May), he would be charged a rate of 5.62 cents for the first 750 kWh, and then 3.78 cents for each additional kWh. This comes to $45,759.05 — or $51,250.14 after the rate increase.

One would think a person as smart as Doc Brown would consider alternate, renewable energy options. Luckily for him, Ameren offers Pure Power options. As a resident, Doc would have the option of paying an additional 1.5 cent per kWh, or he could buy blocks of 1,000 kWh for $15 apiece. If Doc chose the “100% P.U.R.E.” energy block option, he would have to buy 1,210 blocks, paying only $18,150. This would cost much less, and he would have the satisfaction of knowing he’d gone green while time traveling.

The post Ameren, Renewable Energy, and Time Travel appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After spending a summer working for the city of St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, it is no surprise that a petition could be rejected in the final moments of its processing. Petitions are mostly signed on the street by people in a hurry, so legibility is not their first concern. My handwriting isn’t glorious, of course, but wow — some people’s signatures would have pharmacists scratching their heads. Plus, there is always the percentage of jokers out there who think it’s hilarious to put down fake information. Frankly, I think the odds are very slim that anyone named “McLovin” are in favor of any petition being placed on a ballot.

The Clean Energy Initiative was not the only petition blocked by the Secretary of State for lack of valid signatures. Two petitions dealing with eminent domain abuse were also dropped. To gain a place on the ballot, a petition must have at least as many signatures as 5 percent of the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, from at least six of the nine congressional districts in Missouri.

This news comes in the same week that Ameren proposed a 12-percent increase in its rates. With today’s energy costs, Missourians need to be aware of any options they have when it comes to their energy sources, and have the opportunity to voice their opinions.

When expressing those opinions, Missourians should make sure to write neatly.

The post Close Call for Missouri’s Renewable Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.