“He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts … for support rather than illumination.”
We’ve all heard some version of Andrew Lang’s quote about the use of statistics or, for that matter, information of any kind. It can be used to enable or to enlighten. The drunk leans on a lamppost to keep from falling, not to find the best path forward.
Does Lang’s quote apply to solar energy?
Let’s be clear: solar energy is a good thing. However, it should not be subsidized. The taxpayer — or the ratepayer if the subsidies come from the local utility — should not be saddled with the financial obligation of making solar energy competitive in the marketplace.
Let’s also be clear about something else: There should be no taxpayer subsidies for the development and production of oil either (or natural gas or coal).
Collectively, we should demand a halt to subsidies for all forms of energy development and production. Why subsidize something people and companies will do without subsidy? And why will they do it? For profit! Make no mistake, profit is what motivates solar energy producers just as surely as it motivates oil producers.
There is nothing wrong with profit. In fact, making a profit should be encouraged, applauded even … provided profits are made without reliance upon taxpayer (or ratepayer) subsidies.
And let’s be clear about one more thing: A subsidy is money given. Legitimate expenses subtracted from revenues to determine income taxes owed are not subsidies.
So, does Lang’s quote apply to solar energy?
Consider the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert. The owners were able to build it because $1.6 billion of loans were guaranteed by the federal government (that’s you and me). The owners have now applied to the government (again, you and me) for a $539 million grant (as in contribution, donation, gift; they want us to give them $539 million) to help pay off the government-guaranteed loans.
Let’s recap: We risked our tax dollars so the owners could borrow the money to build Ivanpah. Now we are being asked to give money to help the owners pay for Ivanpah. And we are expected to purchase electricity produced by Ivanpah.
Surely, Ivanpah will be a profitable undertaking. Who gets the profits? Not the government (in other words, not you and me).
It seems we made a bad financial deal. But maybe there were other reasons to do the deal. Ivanpah may be an environmental marvel.
The project encompasses almost 4,000 acres in the Mojave Desert. As you would expect, there is limited plant life and limited water. What plants there are will be controlled with herbicides.
And somewhere between 14 million and 32 million gallons of groundwater will be used every year to keep clean the surfaces that track and reflect the sun. To minimize dust that might otherwise collect on those surfaces, the ground — ground presumably denuded by herbicides — will be treated with petroleum-based “soil binders.”
Each year, Ivanpah will contribute approximately 95,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide to atmospheric inventories of man-made CO2. And 28,000 birds will die each year, according to an expert from the Center for Biological Diversity.
It doesn’t sound like an environmental marvel.
Maybe, just maybe, the electricity will be cheaper? Aah … no such luck.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, solar-generated electricity costs about three times more than natural gas-generated electricity. Ivanpah’s electricity may cost even more because output is only half what was expected.
And why is output lagging? There’s not enough sunshine!
No wonder government subsidies were needed. It’s enough to drive one to drink. Where’s that lamppost?
— Trent Benedetti is a member of the board of directors of the Committee to Improve North County and a longtime local business owner. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.