|
 E-mail Story Print Friendly
Biz GM Sued Over Impala Fix |
Monday, February 08, 2010
Letters to Outlook
Shining a light on solar's true cost
In the Journal Op-Ed page of Jan. 22, Rhone Resch and Pam Eaton say that "New Mexico is quickly becoming a leader in converting its world-class solar resources into profitable, clean electricity." They make many predictions of a rosy nature and mention that "on Sept. 1, (I assume 2009) BP Solar and EnergyNovo of Elephant Butte announced plans to partner in developing a 160-acre, 22-megawatt, photovoltaic solar plant in Sierra County" (for a cost of $130 million). Dividing the generating capacity by the cost shows that the plant will cost about $5.90/watt to build.
A few days later, in the Business Outlook of Jan. 25, 2010, the lead story by Michael Hartranft says PNM expects to build another photovoltaic solar plant (somewhere) that will provide 80 megawatts for $265 million. Doing the same calculation shows that PNM's plant will cost about $3.31/watt to build. Seems to me that the plant in Sierra County might be able to learn something from PNM — like saving about 40 percent (about $50 million) on their PV solar plant!
The other question I have has more to do with the comments attributed to David King of the state PRC. King says "I'm 100 percent for renewable energy, but it's got to be cost effective..." — whatever that means.
Does it mean that we include the federal subsidy of money borrowed from the Chinese at 5 percent which will need to be repaid many times over by our children and grandchildren? Does it mean that we include the cost to the state for even more subsidies when New Mexico is upside down on its current budget? Does it mean that no matter what the cost, the ratepayers get hit with the extra cost and taxes during the worst "recession" or "depression" in 70 years?
I urge the solar planners to tell us the true cost of these facilities, both to construct and operate, including all the taxpayer subsidies. I also urge them to help us understand the delivered energy efficiency of these facilities (e.g., dollars per kilowatt-hour at the consumer's meter) so that we know where we stand.
Of course it would be really helpful if we had this information before construction starts.
Gary Ferguson, PE, (retired)
El Prado, N.M.
New take on insurance
I have thought long and hard about this and read some of the books one finds only at the UNM library (in Albuquerque, at least).
I propose retroactive (health) insurance: People don't have to get insured but once Fred receives necessary (I know this is a slippery word, but it can't be discarded; a panel of the sort of people we respect would certify which procedures were) care and doesn't pay for it, the provider(s) apply to the government for reimbursement and the government gets to collect insurance premiums from Fred for the rest of his life, premiums that collect for payments Fred had foregone since he was last insured (or 18, whichever is sooner), which would include the interest accrued, and a penalty.
The debt would be unrenounceable (as student debts have become) and would be collectable on Fred's estate but not from his heirs.
If Fred gets a job that offers health insurance, that would constitute a discount on his premiums to the government; if he comes up with enough cash he can buy his way out.
The public both doesn't want to force anyone to pay and doesn't want the sick and injured lying neglected on the sidewalks in front of hospitals. The recipient of unreimbursed care has become a debtor, a person with obligations: We feel differently about that.
Russell Bell
Albuquerque
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
