Regulatory: Considering energy regulations—Wind and solar power
Wind and solar power constitute 3.6 percent of the U.S. electricity supply.
February 29, 2012 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Wind and solar power constitute 3.6 percent of the U.S. electricity supply. Both fuels enjoy enormous political support. If they could be developed in an economically competitive form, these fuels would provide dream solutions to two intractable policy problems: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing the country with a renewable energy source, independent of foreign suppliers. However, the costs of wind and solar power currently far exceed those of conventional fuels, such as natural gas. They are viable energy choices only when heavily subsidized by governments, due to problems presented by their physical characteristics that engineers have been unable to transcend.
Wind and solar share three characteristics that make them relatively unattractive fuel choices if judged by cost alone:
1. They have a relatively unconcentrated energy content compared to fossil fuels. They therefore require substantial capital outlays for the land and equipment necessary for commercial-scale production.
2. Wind and solar power are subject to substantial limitations on siting, which necessitate substantial investments in electric transmission capacity. The most attractive locations for wind farms are in the Great Plains, and for solar in the desert Southwest. These areas are remote from the urban clusters where demand is concentrated. Offshore wind facilities can be located closer to East Coast cities and present fewer obstacles to construction of large turbines. However, the costs of offshore wind farms are significantly greater and the operating environment more challenging, due to waves, tides and the corrosive effect of salt water.
3. Wind and solar power are available only intermittently—when the wind is blowing or the sun shining. For example, the required wind flow to produce electricity efficiently occurs only one-third of the time. Moreover, the availability of electricity from renewable sources is not correlated with the demand cycle. Winds tend to blow harder at night and during the spring and fall, but demand peaks in summer during the day. As a result of these intermittency problems, wind and solar generating facilities must be backed up by power plants fired by conventional fuels that can generate electricity on short notice, as changes in natural conditions make renewable power unavailable. The necessity of backup facilities greatly increases the effective costs of wind and solar and their high prices could become significant if renewables grew to constitute a substantial part of national generating capacity.
To encourage growth of these renewables, wind and solar power have benefitted from direct and indirect subsidies at both the federal and state levels. Federal support for these fuels includes both tax credits and direct financial payments, including $7 billion in funds provided by the 2009 stimulus law. Critically, a majority of the states have imposed on electricity suppliers mandatory minimum requirements for purchase of renewable energy. Without these subsidies and mandates, wind and solar would not be competitive sources of electric power. Similar outcomes have occurred in Europe (notably Germany and Spain), where the commitment to wind power has been stronger and more consistent. In sum, despite substantial efforts, wind and solar remain higher cost alternatives, and large-scale reliance on these renewable energy sources might spark consumer opposition as the cost consequences became apparent.
Much as the dream of renewable fueled automobiles is stymied by limits on battery technology, the future of wind and solar as baseload sources of electricity depends upon surmounting known technological constraints. Under these circumstances, the proper policy for government is to fund the basic research to address these issues and support construction of demonstration facilities, but not to select winners and losers among competing firms that seek to market new technologies commercially.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250