I had the distinct pleasure of sitting with a small group of energy companies for a meeting with Republican Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona. Senator Kyl is a very impressive individual. A former water attorney from Phoenix who represented Salt River Project, Arizona Public Service, and Tucson Electric Power in various water related issues prior to starting his political career.
So the Senator speaks from a position of expertise when he brought up his concerns about the impending build out of Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) power plants that are set to be constructed in the American Southwest over the next five years. The Senator even wrote a white paper on the subject entitled, "the Solar-Water Nexus" which raises multiple concerns about the utilization of wet cooling technology for solar thermal, especially with regards to electricity that is being exported out of state. The Senator argues for dry cooling and hybrid cooling technology, which makes CST even more expensive than it already is.
Now certainly, examining any energy project's water usage is important. Using reclaimed or effluent water wherever possible is always preferable. But even more important, is to understand the context of the argument that the Senator makes against wet cooling solar thermal projects.
Firstly, the Rose Law Group does a great job of addressing the fact that the agriculture industry (whom Senator Kyl also represented prior to heading to DC) uses 75% of Arizona's water supply and is far more water intensive on a per unit of energy basis. Not to mention, most of the food Arizona produces is exported. So any siting of a solar thermal plant on former agricultural land, is a net water gain.
In the meeting, I raised an obvious question to the Senator:
R.E.preneur: "Senator Kyl, I understand your concern about the water usage of CST, does that mean that you would be equally concerned about the water usage of Natural Gas plants?"
Senator Kyl: "Well no, not necessarily".
The Rose Law Group does a great job of going on to say, that all thermal electric power generation technologies use a large amount of water, Coal, Nuclear, Gas, and Solar. So which should be used to generate power?
Solar does not pollute the water, the air, or produce waste fuel that must be stored for the next 10,000 years.
I could rail on this issue for hours, but let's move on to the rest of the Senator's statements during his talk.
Senator Kyl stated:
"In the new Congress, energy subsidies will be heavily scrutinized"
R.E.preneur: That's fair as the US addresses its deficit problem, but make sure to equally scrutinize fossil fuel energy subsidies.
Kyl: The Republican-controlled House will STOP the Obama agenda
R.E.preneur: I'm glad we have a balance of power, but if your parties' main goal is to stop progress, I believe that shows what the President refers to as a "poverty of ambition". How about we find some items of common value and work together to continue improving our country.
Kyl: Believes a National RES will DISFAVOR Arizona, as well as the Southeast US
R.E.preneur: Everyone makes the argument that a national RES disfavors the Southeast, but Kyl is the first person I've ever heard say that it would disfavor Arizona. While I agree Arizona does not have the wind resources of New Mexico or Iowa, there are two 100 MW wind farms under construction or contract in Arizona and there is more solar resource than could be used by the entire country. Arizona even has its own statewide RES, successfully instituted by the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Instead of fighting a national RES because it would disfavor some states, why not find a way to make it work for everyone. So the Southeast doesn't have wind, they still have solar, and if you make the standard a clean energy or alternative energy standard instead of renewable energy, there is plenty of nuclear power that could be developed for the southeast states. At least we can all agree on clean air and water.
Kyl: Supports more energy exploration, including a lift on the moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf and the development of the US oil sands.
R.E.preneur: I flat out disagree, throw more support behind the development of electrified transportation, mass transit, and improved internal combustion engines (ICE). There is broad agreement that the World achieved Peak Oil four years ago and we are sliding down the bell curve from here on out. It will only be more expensive and dirtier to produce additional petroleum resources. The US is far too dependent on foreign sources of oil and more domestic production is not a long term solution.
Kyl: Supports subsidies for R&D for cleantech such as electric car batteries, but does not support the government subsidies of EVs at the retail level.
R.E.preneur: I believe that government support of EV deployment to the mass market is critical to help the industry cross the chasm of technology adoption. The subsidies should be ratcheted down as EVs compete on par with ICE.
Its the same philosophy that supports the 30% Investment Tax Credits for solar power. By 2016, when the ITC expires, we expect solar to be able to compete directly with fossil fuels.
I'm glad the Senator came to speak to this group of energy companies, but I personally felt that his remarks were yet again another example of why the Republican party has it all wrong on energy.
