The Renewable Movement
The Renewable Movement
The Helena Independent Record reports that Montana is on the verge of joining more than a dozen other states that require that a certain percentage of energy to come from renewable sources. Specifically, a bill that recently passed the state senate “would require that 5 percent of the state’s electricity be produced from renewable sources in 2008, 10 percent by 2010, and 15 percent by 2015.”
I’m pretty excited about this personally – when I lived in Washington, D.C. I used a service to have my residential energy be partially generated by wind. And now, if this bill passes, I’ll be able to do the same here in Helena.
But this legislation is good not just because I like it – its serves three very distinct purposes. First and foremost, its good for foreign and environmental policy. As the newspaper notes, the bill “is a rational response in a country that remains addicted to energy sources that are expensive, polluting, and, in the case of oil, dependent on foreign sources.”
Secondly, it is good for rural economic development, because it would create a new market for wind and solar farms (usually in vast open spaces) and for agricultural products like ethanol. And make no mistake about it – Montana has a lot of wind and corn for ethanol (the state, for instance, is estimated to have the fifth best wind-power resource in the country).
And finally, it promises to bring down electricity rates for consumers. As the newspaper notes, “a study of states with significant wind power turbines in place shows that they consistently lower residential power bills.” Additionally, reducing demand for other traditional sources of energy should lower the prices for those materials.
The bill, of course, is opposed by the energy companies, because they don’t like mandates, no matter how practical they are. But it sure looks good for everyone else.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
These mandates may sound like a good idea, but they won’t work. Until renewable energy is economicly feasible on a large scale, what’s the point? All it does is raise prices for consumers.
March 13th, 2005 at 8:50 pmThe problem with Sue’s thinking here is that several alternative energy producing methods are in fact quite economical in any scale one would envision. The issue is not scale, the issue is regaining control of corporate charters to that these companies no longer conspire to limit access to them. If you want to stop increases in utility prices create necessary boycotts and other direct economic actions against the usurers and greedy players.
This bill comes at a particularly appropriate moment out here in the West as most of the region is experiencing droughts. Loss of predictable runoff to facilitate hydro power generation will demonstrate those alternative technologies that are feasible at all scales.
March 13th, 2005 at 9:09 pmDoes wind power make any sense when it is subsidized by grants from the Feds or States. that makes it non-renewable.
March 13th, 2005 at 10:27 pmSue: If we invest money in renewable energy, it will become economically feasible. It is kind of a chicken and the egg situation.
Greg: Farming is subsidized in America and most other modern countries. Does that mean we should give up on the idea of growing our own food?
March 13th, 2005 at 11:45 pmI also live in MT and believe this bill is a positive step towards the future. It’s about renewable, environmentally sound energy in all forms, not just wind power.
There are a number of people here who live “off the grid” by using renewable energy. In some cases, they are selling their excess back to the traditional providers.
At least we are making the effort which is more than you can say about the folks in DC.
March 14th, 2005 at 8:34 amHere in CA we have several wind farms that work w/o grants or subsidies. They work really well. The local power companies use them in their network every day. The only down side is the blades kill a good number of birds every year. I would guess they could put a small housing around each unit, like a home fan but they don’t.
So, Greg & Sue, you may start eating your words right now. Your stated reasons against sustainable energy don’t hold any weight here. I’d like to see a “Gee, I’m sorry!” but I don’t really expect one.
March 14th, 2005 at 10:35 amI live in DC and am very excited about this wind power option! Thanks for mentioning it. I’ll look into it!
March 14th, 2005 at 12:59 pmI don’t want to cause any confusion. When I said “the folks in DC”, I was talking about the politicians. If they would spend as much time on renewable energy as they do on steroids, same sex marriage, and catering to the legacy power companies, maybe something would get accomplished on this issue.
March 14th, 2005 at 5:02 pmGood for Montana. Here in my area of Minnesota they offered this option also. Even though I live on less that $700 a month I signed up for it. In the long run it will save on my energy bills as fossil fuels are going to keep rising as they are depleted.
I am also concerned about the birds with wind energy and had thought of the housing around the fan.
Living next to Lake Superior I am also interested in wave power. They are using that in both Scotland and Norway with great success. One of the most important aspects of renewable energy is that it is usually a local energy. No energy cartel and foreign suppliers to worry about. It appears as if this change in energy use is going to have to be a grassroots movement since the federal government is doing nothing much in the effort. Power to the People!
March 14th, 2005 at 9:33 pm