Holy Cow! Mark Udall Supports Nuclear Power

In a stunning about face, Mark Udall finally faced reality when he said in response to the State of the Union:

"I believe we've got to take another look at nuclear power because of the carbon footprint it doesn't have," said Udall. "But we do it taking into account the challenges that nuclear power presents, cost-wise and environmentally."

Mark Udall has lied to the public before, and he is very likely lying again. His Sierra Club masters don't support nuclear power, and he hasn't in the past. Note the caveat:

"But we do it taking into account the challenges that nuclear power presents, cost-wise and environmentally."

At no point has Mark Udall suggested that the public should take the costs of other forms of renewable energy into account. It didn't ever matter if the lifetime wind or solar power production costs are several times as much as coal. Damn the costs!

He was willing to try to stuff a 20% renewable mandate by 2020 down the throat of the nation. He specifically excluded nuclear power from the allowable sources of renewable power.

These are words from Mark Udall. He has lied to the public before. We need to see deeds.

Bad Idea Near Death

It looks as though the Congress won't buy into Mark Udall's 20% or even 15% renewable energy mandate.

The Denver Post is up in arms about it, but we think that they are wrong. Just because Colorado might have an abundance of potential renewable energy sources doesn't mean that every state has them.

We wouldn't be all that happy if Congress passed a law that said that we had to get 15% of our fresh water from ocean desalinization. California, on the other hand, might be quite happy with such a law for obvious reasons.

We (including the Denver Post) need to respect other states and not try to make Colorado's energy shoe fit them if it won't fit.

Renewable Mandate Dead?

This past August, Mark Udall tried to stuff a 20% renewable mandate down the throats of every state in the union with an amendment to the "no new energy" bill. His amendment was modified to 15%, but even that appears to be too much:

Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.

The Democrats have a problem. They are already being tagged as a do-nothing congress, and the energy bill is being tagged as the "no new energy" bill. They have to get something through the congress, and a bill without the controversial renewable mandate would be much easier to swallow.

Mark Udall and his environmentalist allies are using the global warming scare / scam to force taxpayers and utilities rate payers to invest in uneconomic power sources that can't be sustained without mandates:

While the Renewable Electricity Standard would be a new federal program (31 states already have some kind of renewable mandate), the tax incentives for solar and wind would continue programs already in place. Losing these tax breaks would be devastating to the renewable energy industry, said solar lobbyist Scott Sklar of the Stella Group: "It will cause sales and investment to implode."

Energy Bill In Danger

The US Senate is refusing to rubber stamp Mark Udall's personal hobby horse, a 20% renewable mandate by 2020. Actually, the House couldn't stomach the requirement and cut it to 15% in committee.

Now, a Utah paper is reporting that even the 15% mandate is in jeopardy.

In August, the House passed energy measures that included the requirement that investor-owned utilities get at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources and energy efficiency by 2020. Udall said the proposal failed in the Senate after heavy lobbying by utilities in the South.

"The Southern states think they don't have enough wind and sun and geothermal to meet the renewable energy standard," Udall said, "but many, many experts believe that's not the case."

Mark Udall needs to spend some time in the south. They don't get the kinds of windstorms that are common on the great plains. They have no geothermal features. While the sun does shine, solar power is the most expensive of the potential renewables.

Our bet is that if Mark Udall were a southern congressman, he would be fighting this mandate tooth and nail, too.

It would be useful if Udall named a few of the "many, many experts" he claims believe that the Southern states can produce enough renewables to meet his mandate.

Gazette: Mark Udall's Handiwork "Excessive"

Once again, Mark Udall's handiwork got mentioned in The Gazette without that paper mentioning his name.

But the House version calls for an excessive 15 percent of U.S. electricity to be generated from subsidized “renewable” sources by 2020, even though only 3 percent today is provided by bio-fuels, solar and wind power. Utilities that fall short of the imposed goal would be fined.

It’s no secret to our readers how we feel about renewable mandates, whether imposed by voters or government officials. We don’t object to the use of renewable energy sources; the more varied sources of energy we have, the less likely consumers will be held hostage by suppliers. It’s the idea that consumers will buy renewables only if they’re forced to. We’d rather see proponents of renewable energy educate consumers in an effort to persuade them to ask utility providers to use renewables.

And while we’re objecting to subsidies and tax breaks for energy providers, let’s include those benefits given to traditional sources, too. Subsidies and tax breaks hide the true cost of energy and don’t allow consumers to make truly informed choices.

We think that if The Gazette feels as strongly as it seems to that a 15% renewable energy mandate by 2020 is "excessive," it has an obligation to tell its readers that Mark Udall wanted the mandate to be 20% and inserted an amendment into the energy bill to that effect.

In one more year, the electorate will be deciding who should be Colorado's next US Senator. Voters are entitled to all the information about who is authoring policies that the Gazette calls "excessive" and "extremist."

The Real Cost of Wind Farms

Today, the Denver Post published an editorial celebrating the wind and solar power initiatives in Colorado. In the process, they appear to have let the cat out of the bag on the costs of these enterprises.

This author left a simple math comment at the bottom of that editorial questioning the Post's math. The Post claimed that it cost $166 thousand per megawatt to build a wind power plant in Weld County. The author misplaced a decimal, meaning that the cost was actually $1.6 million.

Worse, the wind only blows about 30% of the time, meaning that they built a 90 megawatt (less simple and more accurate math) equivalent power plant for $500 million. That works out to $5.5 million per megawatt in construction costs.

A conventional coal plant, again according the the Denver Post, costs $250,000 per megawatt to build. That is less than 1/20th of the price of this wind farm.

Consider that the Colorado legislature has just mandated that by 2020 20% of utility power must come from "renewables." How many $500 million plants that only intermittently produce power will it take to meet that goal? Many more than Colorado can afford.

Mark Udall tried and failed to impose that same goal on the whole nation this summer. He was voted down. At some point, taxpayers and ratepayers will start doing the math and realize that Mark Udall and his band of merry environmentalist extremists are much like Hillary Clinton, but with less honesty. At least she admits that she has more ideas than the country can afford.

A Thoughtful E-mail to Senator Salazar

Politicians love to pat themselves on the back for mundane and meaningless things. There is nothing more meaningless than a Congressional resolution. Recently Earl Asbury received a self congratulatory email from Senator Ken Salazar. We'll let him take the story from here:

Senator Salazar of Colorado sent an e-mail today bragging about a resolution he got through Congress setting a goal of having 25% of our energy supply be from "renewable energy" 25 years from now. I sent him this reply:

If you want to help the energy situation, four ways more helpful than your renewable energy resolution would be:

1. Vote to drill on Alaska's north slope, which Democrats have blocked repeatedly.
2. Stop blocking drilling on Colorado's Roan Plateau.
3. Pass legislation to encourage more nuclear power plants, and streamline all the red tape they have to go through to get required permits.
4. Vote government aid for research to devise ways to burn coal with less pollution.

Earl Asbury,
Colorado Springs

PS: I guess you know by now the Congress's ethanol legislation was quite foolish. It was just another boondoggle to pander to the farm vote.

Our thanks to Earl for sending that along. We included it here because Salazar and Mark Udall are close allies on this topic, although liberal bloggers and msm outlets who should know consider Udall much more liberal than Salazar. Even Udall admits to being a Boulder Liberal.

Words vs Deeds

Since we pointed out that The Gazette called Mark Udall an extremist in two separate opinion pieces, it has avoided naming him in any opinion piece, even when he should be named.

Today, Sean Paige writes about Bill Ritter's trip to Washington this week to promote unreasonable standards for renewable energy. Ritter testified, and so did Mark Udall. In Congress, this is Udall's baby, so it seems unreasonable to leave the man out. We won't.

“If Colorado can do it, so can the rest of the country,” Gov. Bill Ritter told members of Congress on Thursday. But Colorado hasn’t done it, at least not yet, so Ritter was talking through his hat...

He can take credit for endorsing and signing a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this year, which added to the Amendment 37 mandates, in another fit of irrational exuberance. This amounted to doubling down on a long-shot bet.

Whether these even more Draconian standards are achievable, and what they will eventually cost utility ratepayers, won’t become known for years. So Ritter’s statements to Congress were empty boasts...

Ritter’s appearance won’t even slightly influence what Congress does on renewables, of course. It was designed to elevate his national profile and provide a little warm and fuzzy PR for the state. It was a waste of taxpayer money.

The best thing about this opinion piece was a piece of advice for Ritter that should have been directed at Mark Udall. Udall, though, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Your job isn’t to invite more federal meddling in Colorado, but to minimize Washington’s claim on our lives, our paychecks and, now, even our utility bills.

Squeaking Through

We were wrong when we thought the Nancy Pelosi House of Representatives was just a bit too conservative (???) to pass a requirement that by 2020 public utilities be producing 15% of their power via solar and wind power.

This little Mark Udall gift to utilities and their ratepayers across the nation passed 220 to 195. Does he think that the money to do this grows on trees? It doesn't. It comes out of ratepayer's pockets. Think of it as just one more hidden tax imposed on the economy by the Sierra Club and its allies. No wonder Udall is getting so much money from them.

Reaching Too Far

Mark Udall sponsored an amendment to require utilities across the nation to get 20% of their power from renewables by 2020. He wants to restrict the definition of "renewable" to wind power (though not in Ted Kennedy's play place, Martha's Vineyard), and solar energy.

The bill was supposed to come to the House floor last night. It didn't. The goals have been cut to 15% by 2020 in committee and still it can't get a simple majority. Because the majority whip, James Clyburn, D-S.C., opposes the bill, Mark Udall and his cousin Tom have been acting as whips for the amendment.

CNN Money reports:

The speaker said the main cosponsors of the renewable energy standard, or RES -- Mark Udall, D-Co., and Tom Udall, D-N.M. - were still whipping up support Friday afternoon.

"They'll be reporting back to me this afternoon," she told reporters in a press conference, adding, "They felt pretty strong about it - that they had strong votes - but I count votes differently..."

[ Nancy ] Pelosi, D-Calif., Friday indicated, however, that the Renewable Electricity Standard amendment would likely be withdrawn if the proposal doesn't garner enough support to pass a simple majority of the House...

Make no mistake, this author favors a reasonable renewable energy power goal, but it should be a goal, and not an unreachable standard set in law. Different areas in Colorado claim to get 300 to 360 days of sunshine a year. Other states aren't so lucky. Likewise, the arid west can be more windy than other, more humid areas of the country.

The Udall cousins, and their ally John Salizar discovered this week that they couldn't stuff an extreme 20% "standard" down the throat of the most liberal Congress in 20 years. It remains to be seen if they have the votes to get a still unreachable 15% "standard." We will know shortly, perhaps today.

One Size Fits All, Or Does It?

Mark Udall, his cousin, Tom, and Diana DeGette are pushing for a national requirement for renewable energy. They want to force utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

While that may be doable in the windy west, where wind power is already a proven renewable source, the south is relatively windless. What are they to do? Fight the proposal, that's what.

In some ways, this is humorous. Remember Homestake II? That was the Colorado water project killed in Congress by eastern lawmakers whose districts have no water shortages. Turnabout is fair play.

We remain curious as to whether Mark has talked his friend Ted Kennedy into putting 400 foot windmills in the water within sight of Martha's Vineyard. We doubt that he has the courage to broach the subject. For that matter, Ken Salizar sees Kennedy every day and seems to be running interference for Udall. Let's ask him the same question.