Home » solar » Page 14

Madam Secretary: Don’t Just Spout Pro-Nuclear Talking Points

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: One of my favorite TV shows, CBS’ Madam Secretary, used an entire episode about an energy summit they are attending to spout pro-nuclear talking points.

Ironically, the discussion starts because one character is arguing strongly that natural gas needs to be included in a “Future of Energy” pavilion and that nuclear has too big a space.

Meanwhile, solar and wind – the two sources that actually are the future of energy – are shunted off into an “annex.”

Seriously, my jaw dropped as I watched the episode. The show’s writers are usually so careful to portray the state of the world accurately – how could they get the energy state of play so spectacularly wrong?

SolarWakeup’s View: If you know anything about me, know this: I grew up wanting to be a member of the State Department. I wanted desperately to be a diplomat. I did Model United Nations for seven years in high school and college. I wanted to be a diplomat.

Alas and alack, it wasn’t to be (so now you’re stuck reading me here at SolarWakeup). But it does explain why I love the CBS’ Madam Secretary so much – and why I’m so hurt and dismayed when I discovered the latest episode might as well have been written by nuclear energy lobbyists.

[wds id=”3″]

The plot isn’t so much about energy as it is about climate change, but one of the important subplots is an energy trade show the State Department will be attending to sell other countries on purchasing their renewable energy equipment from the United States. An initial look at the model pavilion is appalling enough – nuclear has by far the largest section of the display, and solar and wind are, I kid you not, shunted off into what they call an “annex.”

An annex, for Pete’s sake. An annex for an industry that employs more people than the coal and oil industries combined.

But that’s not even the worst of it. Then a character for whom I have the greatest respect argues that nuclear is clean, produces no more waste than the size of a football field and that nuclear power has never killed anyone when it’s melted down (see Three Mile Island and Davis Besse). These argument are repeated throughout the show without a hint of doubt about nuclear as an energy alternative.

Here are just three arguments I would have made had I been in the room with the Secretary, and these are just off the top of my head:

It may be “clean,” but nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build and maintain. By the time new plants are built, who knows what revolutionary breakthroughs we’ll have made in truly clean energies like solar and wind? Do we really want to invest in technologies that will be obsolete by the time the plants are built?

It may be a small amount of waste, but it’s RADIOACTIVE. Raise your hand if you want to live next to a nuclear energy waste disposal unit? Mind if we put one next to your tony Georgetown duplex, Madam Secretary? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Plus, if you’re building more plants, that means more waste. It won’t stay football-field sized for long.

“It hasn’t killed anyone yet” should never be an argument to invest in a potentially dangerous energy source. After all, there’s always a first time, isn’t there?

You know, what I’m realizing is that while it’s easy to dismiss these dangerous arguments as inside baseball that no one cares about, it’s also really easy for them to get into the mainstream, unevaluated and unchallenged. So when shows like Madam Secretary take on complex issues like this and get it wrong, it’s on us to push back.

More:

Madam Secretary (CBS)

Madam Secretary (Wikipedia)

SolarWakeup Live!: CEO Of Connexus Energy, A Co-Op That’s Saving Money With Solar And Storage

By Yann Brandt, Managing Editor

What Happened: In this episode of SolarWakeup Live!, taped live at the Midwest Solar Expo, I speak with the CEO of Connexus Energy, Greg Ridderbusch. Connexus Energy is one of the largest utility cooperatives in the Country and serves over 150,000 members in Minnesota.

Connexus is building a 10MW solar farm which will be integrated with an AC coupled energy storage system. This project was done under a PPA and energy storage agreement which work to save money to the members.

The conversations shows the power of solar for utilities around the country and we end the conversation talking about beer brewed with solar honey.

Join us on June 21st in Chicago for SolarWakeup Live! to talk about all things happening in Illinois. Stay tuned for tickets and more info.

More:

South Carolina Tries, Tries Again To Reach Solar Compromise

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: After utilities snuck in the back door and stabbed a bill that would have eliminated a nonsensical net metering cap to death, solar advocates are trying one last Hail Mary in an attempt to save solar jobs in the Palmetto State.

As you know (if you read SolarWakeup, anyway), South Carolina’s House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor a bill that would have eliminated the state’s insanely low 2% net metering cap.

Then the utilities did the aforementioned stabbing, lobbying for (and getting) the bill to be changed into a “tax increase,” which would have required a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate. It did not get the votes, and it seemed like net metering – and to a large extent, the solar industry – in the state was dead.

But on Wednesday night, Amendment 9 was attached to the House Budget bill and passed. Amendment 9 wouldn’t eliminate the cap, but would raise it from 2% to 4%.

SolarWakeup’s View: There is one last South Carolina solar compromise working its way through the state’s House of Representatives. It’s a final chance to save the solar industry in this session.

If you’re a regular reader of SolarWakeup (and if you’re not, you should be), you know the chicanery surrounding the state’s attempts to eliminate its insanely low 2% cap on net metering. The bill overwhelmingly passed the House but was scuttled in the Senate, thanks to the last-minute machinations of the state’s powerful utilities.

But if at first you don’t succeed, sneak a South Carolina solar compromise into the budget bill and hope it survives the House-Senate conference committee (at least I think that’s how that goes).

[wds id=”3″]

That’s the strategy the House is currently trying, putting something called Amendment 9 into the budget bill that is now going to conference committee. It’s not as good as the bill last month – it won’t eliminate the net metering cap entirely – but it will double the cap from 2% to 4%, keeping the state’s burgeoning solar industry alive for at least another year.

“Last night’s vote is an important and welcome step forward for energy freedom in South Carolinam” said Thad Culley, Regional Director at Vote Solar. “Recent months revealed both the enormous support from residents, businesses, and organizations across the political spectrum for clean energy options, lower utility bills and 3,000 solar jobs in South Carolina, and the lengths that utility monopolies will go to undermine all three.

“We thank House leaders and Rep. Ballentine for working across the aisle to pass a commonsense measure to keep solar shining in South Carolina,” he added. “We now look to lawmakers in the budget conference committee to take all solar measures across the finish line and ensure that solar can remain a bright spot in South Carolina’s economy.”

It’s not perfect, but at least it’s something. Now get on the phones and let legislators know you want the South Carolina solar compromise kept in the final bill.

More:

Net Metering Gets a Lifeline in South Carolina

Utility Monopolies Screw SC Solar After Sneaky Shift On Bill

South Carolina Sends Solar Soaring With Cap Removal

Connecticut Catastrophe, Part 2: Solar Consumers Are NOT Utilities

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

What Happened: Yesterday, I promised you more information on why pending legislation in Connecticut that would eliminate net metering would be a disaster for the solar industry.

Yesterday, we dealt with the idea of “simultaneous consumption” argument (a compensation scheme so complicated you need an accounting degree to figure it out). Today, we’ll deal with the idea that solar consumerss are utilities.

The worst part of it is, the legislative session ends next Wednesday, so there’s little time to scuttle this monstrosity (fire up your phones and get dialing is what I am saying).

The level of awful in the Connecticut solar bill that is careening drunkenly toward passage as the session comes to an end is breathtaking in scope and stupidity.

SolarWakeup’s View: Yeah, the genius just keeps coming from what I’ve decided to dub the “Connecticut catastrophe,” which in case you aren’t aware is Senate Bill (SB) 9, a bill hellbent on destroying the solar industry in the state once and for all.

For today’s lesson in bad solar ideas, let’s discuss the…SPECIAL idea that because solar consumers are generating electricity, they should be considered regulated utilities.

Yep. That’s a thing supposedly “serious legislators” are discussing.

[wds id=”3″]

At issue here is something called the “average cost” calculation, which is how utilities set their rates. SB 9 wants to make the Connecticut catastrophe worse by lumping all solar generators – including residential installations – in with other massive electricity producers like utilities. The problem, of course, is that this puts an unreasonable burden on solar consumers to keep up with the reporting procedures and other regulatory hoops through which utilities must jump (I should say must RIGHTLY jump, given that their profit is guaranteed by the state).

Subjecting solar consumers to the same regulations as the utilities destroys the entire underlying rationale for homeowners to install solar arrays. As The Alliance for Solar Choice writes,

Pursuing an “average cost” approach instead of the standard value-based approach will undervalue solar energy, reduce consumer choice and jeopardize the viability of residential solar businesses. This may cause some residential solar businesses to shut down, particularly smaller, local solar companies with costs that are above-average.

This backwards approach could particularly impact low-income and middle class residents who rely upon no-money-down financing options to go solar. Most solar customers in Connecticut are below the median income level thanks to these financing options, which the new tariff could threaten.

Had enough yet? Wait until you see what this Connecticut catastrophe does to the community solar side of the business.

I can’t urge you strongly enough to get on the phones and tell Connecticut legislators not to destroy the state’s solar industry by passing this bill. No, seriously. Do it now. You only have six days left to stop this Connecticut catastrophe from moving forward.

More:

How To Screw Up Solar With One Horrid Bill (Connecticut Edition)

Here’s this asinine bill:

SB 9