The “Green Energy” campaign increases electricity prices

Imagine that you are faced with a choice: continue to use a reliable energy source or switch to one that produces 2% more and only runs for 10 hours at a time. Remember that you must have the lights and computer on, your smartphone charged, and the food in the fridge and freezer should be fresh. Not to mention keeping the shower water warm and your home at a comfortable temperature – and you certainly don’t have time to wash dishes and clothes every day.

So what energy source do you choose?

If you live in Wisconsin and green energy groups Power Wisconsin Forward and Clean Economy Coalition of Wisconsin have to choose, it will be the latter.

Columbia Energy Center, Wisconsin’s largest coal-fired power plant, produces nearly 10% of the state’s electricity. Thanks to $31 million in federal grants, the plant will be closed and replaced with a “green energy” storage dome whose output will be just 2% of the coal plant’s output. The energy dome only works for 10 hours before it needs to be turned off and recharged.

Craig Ervin, a welder from Eau Claire, is amazed by these changes. “These green energy projects are a stupid investment for the state of Wisconsin,” he states bluntly. “It’s not going to benefit anyone and it’s just going to be a huge waste of money.” And he’s right.

Green energy advocates are pressing the Wisconsin Public Utilities Commission to bar utilities from expanding natural gas plants to replace coal plants that are closing prematurely in Sheboygan and Oak Creek.

For those concerned about carbon dioxide emissions, switching from coal to natural gas is preferable because gas-fired power plants emit half as much carbon as coal for the same amount of energy produced.

But that’s not good enough for green energy groups. In the name of climate change, these advocates work to prevent the replacement of coal-fired power plants with natural gas.

Instead of natural gas, green energy supporters propose roof-mounted solar panels and large-scale wind and solar energy. If Ervin uses rooftop solar, he’ll have to spend a lot of time shoveling snow off the roof, because Eau Claire was covered in snow for 116 consecutive days last year.

Snow isn’t the only problem with solar energy. Variability in solar and wind energy production leads to grid instability and higher electricity costs.

Because solar and wind power generation are unpredictable and production drops sharply when a cloud rolls in or the wind suddenly stops, other energy sources must quickly ramp up production to prevent blackouts. This unpredictable cycle forces traditional hydrocarbon-fired power plants (coal, oil and natural gas) to operate below full capacity most of the time. Operating at reduced capacity means traditional power plants must charge higher prices to remain economically viable.

Green groups blame utilities for raising electricity prices, but that’s like blaming grocery stores for high food prices when they are just making up for the higher prices they had to pay suppliers because of inflation caused by government spending.

Electricity prices for Midwestern households have increased nearly 30% over the past four years.

The real reason for higher electricity prices is simple. States that require more than 35% renewable energy by 2035 face 47% higher energy costs than states that do not have such requirements, known as renewable energy portfolio standards.

Contrary to what ecologists claim, the use of renewable energy sources will have almost no impact on global temperature. While America has reduced carbon emissions by 18% over the last 15 years (largely by switching from coal to natural gas), China has increased its carbon emissions by 91% and now produces three times more than the US

According to U.S. government climate models, even if the United States immediately stopped burning all hydrocarbons, the impact on global temperatures by 2100 would be less than 0.2 degrees Celsius compared to current projections.

A genuine environmentalist should not unanimously oppose the emission of carbon dioxide, which is not toxic (and in fact is necessary) for people, plants and animals. Of harmful pollutants such as lead, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, America has reduced their emissions by 99%, 75%, and 94%, respectively, since 1980.

Green energy subsidies are wolves in sheep’s clothing; although they may appear to promote progress, they ignore local decision-making processes, increase costs and reduce energy reliability.

Wisconsin could use inexpensive fuels to produce electricity or allow a few green energy advocates to dictate the energy mix, resulting in higher costs and instability. Wisconsinites, like most Americans, certainly prefer lower costs and the knowledge that electricity will reliably power their computers, refrigerators and phones.