Here is the link to the L.A. Times article from the other day which you may have seen.
Taxpayers, ratepayers will fund California solar plants
I believe I blogged about this the other day so I won’t go into any more detail here except to say that there are over 300 comments up at the Times site so far.
As expected, there has been pushback from a trade group in the form of the article link below this:
View: California Newspaper Gets the Facts Wrong on Renewable Energy
In case you don’t have time to read the whole article, I am taking the liberty of
reposting my comment to their article here:
September 27, 2012
Here is the Times link:
So the author of this piece thinks that the Times reporters were unfair and probably biased? Well go read the article yourselves and see what you think.
To this article's writers' credit, he did point out that the prices contracted for in the power purchase agreements are secret, just as the Times reporters did. However he failed to mention the PUC member who showed how Abengoa Solar's project was going to cost ratepayers an additional 1.25 billion dollars over 25 years and that
made the cost of power generated about $200 per megawatt, an outrageous amount to be paid! Now the renewable csp advocates can say what they want, but I can assure you that the average person will take this data and extrapolate a higher figure heading their own way, because to their way of thinking, the projects are all the same- virtually free government land, virtually free money, and total secrecy on prices to be paid for the energy, and a long proven history of ratepayers being left on the hook for decades paying for it all. Does anybody here remember WHOOPS bonds? Some might very well argue that all the same conditions are in place with this new green energy landrush, with all the money and promises being bandied about, and the same old secrecy in place for certain important matters,that we are setting the tables for another Whoops scandal to take place.
I think this article at the Times is more than fair. They are attempting to take a tiny pin and let a little air out of this dirigible that is trying to take off, one that every day looks more and more like a trainwreck waiting to happen- with destruction occurring all around to one of California's ecological treasures, all supposed to provide safe, green energy. What the Times article is pointing out that it has been misspelled, it should be called GREED energy, all getting rich but the users.”
-------------------END OF QUOTED TEXT-----------------
All I am trying to say is that like any good debater, the writer at the renewable energy trade group site is trying to make his or her argument look good by pointing out some facts and conveniently not mentioning others. A practice used by any good writer or blogger.
Let me say though without any hesitation that the Times should not issue a retraction, apology, or change even a character or punctuation mark in its’ expose of the sordid truth about
greedygreen energy development out in the
California deserts. Sometimes the truth hurts, some folks all the way into their wallets, and the truth needs to be said here, at long last.
The fact that a mainstream media organization is saying it; a supposedly liberal newspaper, that is willing to go against the conventional wisdom as spouted by the other msm and websites, makes it that much more satisfying to
see in print and to read.
My main concern though with it is that it may be too little, and offered too late, to really help out much in the struggle to stop the desert industrialization.
But their hearts seem to be in the right place and that means a lot, at least to this blogger.