So­lar baloney

One of Hil­lary’s wack­ier ideas is to build a half a mil­lion so­lar pan­els

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By Stephen Moore

One of Hil­lary Clin­ton’s wack­ier ideas is to build half a mil­lion so­lar pan­els — at tax­payer expense. It would be one of the largest cor­po­rate wel­fare give­aways in Amer­i­can his­tory. The In­sti­tute for En­ergy Re­search (IER) es­ti­mates that the cost of the plan will reach $205 bil­lion. That’s a lot of money to throw at Elon Musk and all of Hil­lary’s high-pow­ered green en­ergy friends.

By the way, there are only 320 mil­lion peo­ple in the coun­try so her plan would mean more so­lar pan­els than peo­ple. If Hil­lary has her way, the en­tire land­scape in Amer­ica will be blighted by wind­mills and so­lar pan­els. How is this green?

The eco­nom­ics here are even worse. Back in the 1970s Wash­ing­ton made a big bet on green en­ergy with syn­thetic fu­els and re­new­able fu­els. The pro­grams crashed and were all mer­ci­fully killed off dur­ing the Rea­gan years. Bil­lions of dol­lars went down the drain. Ge­orge W. Bush made a big bet on switch grass and wood chips to pro­duce en­ergy. Pres­i­dent Obama has spent more than $100 bil­lion on wind and so­lar sub­si­dies. In­stead of en­ergy in­de­pen­dence, we got bankrupt­cies like Solyn­dra.

A les­son of the the last sev­eral decades is that the govern­ment has a hor­ri­ble record of in­ter­ven­ing in en­ergy mar­kets. Mr. Obama was run­ning around the coun­try in his first term warn­ing that Amer­ica was run­ning out of oil. He wasn’t pay­ing at­ten­tion to the shale oil and gas revo­lu­tion and the ad­vent of clean coal tech­nol­ogy that overnight dou­bled our fos­sil fuel re­sources. At the very time that nat­u­ral gas prices were fall­ing to $2 per cu­bic mil­lion feet, the govern­ment was try­ing to force feed the na­tion on wind and so­lar power which costs three to five times more per kilo­watt hour of elec­tric­ity. Oops. All of this is sup­posed to save the planet from green­house gases and cat­a­strophic plan­e­tary warm­ing, but then why not use our cheap, clean and su­per abun­dant nat­u­ral gas? Mr. Obama’s own De­part­ment of En­ergy (DOE) notes that nat­u­ral gas has been the main fac­tor con­tribut­ing to the big re­duc­tion in U.S. car­bon emis­sions. Nat­u­ral gas has ar­guably done more to re­duce pol­lu­tion than vir­tu­ally all the green en­ergy pro­grams in his­tory. Yet the left is against nat­u­ral gas pro­duc­tion. Nu­clear power would also be an ob­vi­ous and eas­ily achiev­able form of clean and re­li­able elec­tric power but the greens hate nukes too. They want to go with the en­ergy sources that are least re­li­able and in need of the most tax­payer as­sis­tance.

The DOE has also ad­mit­ted that the dol­lar sub­sidy per kilo­watt of elec­tric­ity gen­er­ated is at least 10 times higher than

They want to go with the en­ergy sources that are least re­li­able and in need of the most tax­payer as­sis­tance.

from coal or nat­u­ral gas. So­lar is a very ex­pen­sive way to pro­duce elec­tric­ity — as is wind power.

The fi­nal irony of the Clin­ton plan is that as the IER points out, the so­lar in­dus­try is “com­pletely dom­i­nated by the Chi­nese. So $200 bil­lion of Amer­i­can tax dol­lars will be used to sub­si­dize ex­traor­di­nar­ily ex­pen­sive so­lar power pan­els that are mostly made in China and we will stop pro­duc­ing the clean­est fuel of all, nat­u­ral gas, which is made in Amer­ica. We could be ship­ping Amer­ica’a oil and gas around the world, but we can’t be­cause Hil­lary Clin­ton’s State De­part­ment wouldn’t al­low the pipe­lines to be built.

And to think Hil­lary Clin­ton is ac­cus­ing Don­ald Trump of be­ing crazy.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.