Florida passes renewable energy mandate.

http://unearthed.earthjustice.org/2009/01/floridas-sweet-energy-mandate.html
Jan. 8 was a sweet day in Florida, and I’m not talking about the weather.

On that day, the state’s Public Service Commission voted for a new energy mandate: the state will get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources -- wind, solar, hydropower, or biomass -- by 2020.

"We want to be a leader in this country in solar and wind," Public Service Commission Chairman Matthew Carter said. "We want to establish a dynamic and vibrant marketplace."


This is some fresh air, indeed. For years, Florida utility regulators have done the bidding of the state’s politically powerful utility companies. The PSC voted for the new renewable energy goal even though the utilities spent months belly aching about how it could not be done (That’s a song that we’ve grown oh-so-very weary of hearing.). And to add icing for our cake, the PSC shot down an attempt by power companies to get nuclear power plants defined as "renewable" energy.

I don't think this would have happened if Jeb Bush was still Governor.

But what are the probabilities of them reaching this goal? Is it reasonable?

Its not

The citizens there will say no to anything that causes prices to go up. Biomass? Thats a new technology so toss that out the door right away.


The legislature thinks they did the right thing, but they are never going to fulfill that plan, because the people living in Florida are not going to want to pay for all the costs incurred to bring in those types of power plants

I bet Florida imports the amounts needed, thus paying far more than they should

They should be encouraging the use of small-scale solar and solar domestic hot water production.
Even here in Indiana solar hot water is capable of producing almost all the hot water your home needs.
Although the benefits of small scale solar aren't quite as great, they are still worthwhile.

board monkey wrote:

But what are the probabilities of them reaching this goal? Is it reasonable?

I think they will hit the goal and exceed it by 50%. I think it is far more unreasonable to believe that we can continue to pollute the air and the water of our planet without consequence. If you look at the article, you will see that Florida stopped the construction of a new coal-fired generation plant in 2007. I look for the federal government to ban the construction of all new coal fired plants this year. Mining coal degrades our land and burning coal pollutes our air and water. We can no longer afford to destroy our country chasing the myth of "cheap" energy. As mainstream environmentalists start setting policies in this country, you will see a surge of conservative conservationists like Newt Gingrich partner with the Democrats and improve our future.

So you are assuming that they will be willing to allow wind farms off their properties Sparks? Hell just think how long an enivormental impact study will take before they are even allowed to drive one pier of a foundation into the water. And they better hope some fish or turtle does not migrate through the area they want to put it, otherwise the deal is off. also lets not forget, the poor innocent birds may fly into the blades.
Also it would take a wind farm the size of the city of Valparaiso to equal the amount of power needed to replace 1 coal fired plant. I don't see the citizens of Florida willing to sell land the size of Valpo to allow the construction of a wind farm. The court cases that will come up wherever they try to build a farm will make this stretch well past the mandated times.


Solar power? Look how ineffective those are even today. It would take a huge plant just to power a medium sized town, which right now in Florida, land is at a premium in most places. And then, like the wind farms, the environmental impact studys and court cases(NIMBY's- yes there are people who want no power plant in their back yard, regard less of type), will drive the costs up and delay it well past the mandated time frame as well

Hydro power? What are they going to dam up and use for the source of the power? Look how much the environmentalists are complaining about encroachment on the giant swamp in the middle of the state. Tide generators? Way to costly still, even though it has been out for over 6 years now. As with other two, the inpact study, NIMBY, effects

Biomass- a very new technology. Everything will cost three times as much as it should, so this is out the door


The only real options they have are the wind farms and solar plants. Both of which have way to many cons than pro's for being built.

And you can claim the state can use eminent domain, but remember, if the state uses it, the citizens will go to court, and tie it up for years.

Its great that Florida thinks they will make a difference, but real life dictates that a 10 yr window is impossible

You do know that California also has such a thing, and guess what they are doing to get to it, PURCHASING the power, which means the rates are higher. And it isn't just Florida where these issues would come up. Its all over the US. No state can have as much energy as you claim is possible by 2020, unless they purchase the power from other sources, and guess what, the Hoover Dam is tapped out, the Niagara Falls dam is tapped out, every windmill that is in the US is tapped out, and so are the tidal generators on the Hudson River in NYC(which only powers 5 buildings, and even they still have to rely on the city grids still). And like BWG stated, no way will the people in Florida want to pay higher taxes and higher energy costs(and most already complain about the price of electricity in Florida)

Mike,
once again you are trying to use your personal opinion to debate an issue. The fact is that the Florida Public Service commission has mandated that the utilities provide 20% of the state's power from renewable sources in ten years. If the public utilities want to continue to provide power to Florida, they will comply or be replaced with other companies that can do the job. Your argument that landowners will not allow windmills on their property has no basis in fact. There is presently one multi billion dollar windmill farm being built in Indiana. A second farm is already in existence. The farmers where the farms are being built are welcoming them because they receive long term contracts from the utility companies for the use of their land.
http://renewableenergydev.com/red/wind-power-fowler-ridge-wind-farm/ If you are really interested debating this issue with facts, I'd like to see a link regarding your statement about a windmill farm occupying a space the size of Valparioso to replace one coal fired plant.

Bill B wrote:

They should be encouraging the use of small-scale solar and solar domestic hot water production.
Even here in Indiana solar hot water is capable of producing almost all the hot water your home needs.

As well as heat. A few years ago during the winter gas prices spiked, a friend just out of Chicago paid $50 and under each month the whole winter. He worked for the ISEA, so he had a pretty impressive setup.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

sparks wrote:

board monkey wrote:

But what are the probabilities of them reaching this goal? Is it reasonable?

I think they will hit the goal and exceed it by 50%. I think it is far more unreasonable to believe that we can continue to pollute the air and the water of our planet without consequence. If you look at the article, you will see that Florida stopped the construction of a new coal-fired generation plant in 2007. I look for the federal government to ban the construction of all new coal fired plants this year. Mining coal degrades our land and burning coal pollutes our air and water. We can no longer afford to destroy our country chasing the myth of "cheap" energy. As mainstream environmentalists start setting policies in this country, you will see a surge of conservative conservationists like Newt Gingrich partner with the Democrats and improve our future.

Exactly why are your figures 50% more optimistic? The "Senior Citizen State" will not support this, or as someone else pointed out, it will raise their taxes. Most are on fixed income. Very few people on fixed incomes even support a referendum supporting tax increases for schools.

Again, why are your figures 50% more optimistic?

It is my personal opinion that the state of Florida can produce 30% of it's power from renewable sources in ten years. I base that on other achievements that this country has accomplished when it set goals. I would dispute your contention that the "Senior Citizen State" will not support renewable energy iniatives. Senior citizens have children and grandchildren who will live in this world long after they are gone. As
the debate over renewable energy shifts to the actual science behind the arguments for investing in it, it will become clear that as a country, we have no other choice than to reduce our contribution to global warming if we are to have a future at all.
Your claim that senior citizens are not capable of supporting renewable energy is an insult to the intelligence of some of our wisest citizens. Once they fully understand what is at stake, they will support the actions that the state of Florida has adopted.

Sparks, you fail to mention why you think florida citizens will do it

A city north of Cape Coral in 2007 voted down a 1% city tax to fund the renovation and building of a new high school, and to try and garner support, the tax would only be imposed for 5 years. It was voted down by a wide margin.

Yep they cared about their children and grandchildrens future right, by voting down a tax for only 5 years to pay.

There was also another city north of Miami that voted down a tax to pay for parks upkeep in the city. Again the seniors cared about the children and grandchildren right?


You think senior citizens care, they don't. they care about how they will live on the income that they have coming in, and if any more gets taken, they don't want it.

Renewable energy is to expensive, and until the costs are equal to or less than the typical plants already in operation, no one wants to pay more

Look around here, people are complaining about high Nipsco Bills. You honestly think if Nipsco got 20% of its power from renewable sources the price would drop? Well they get some right now from reneawable, how come the price has gone up?

You know what this country needs? 200 pebble style nuclear power plants. The meltdown potential is very minimal and they are safer than the traditional nuclear plant, and it would be a huge boost to the electric grid, yet no one wants one built, even though they would produce way more than solar, wind, hydro, and biomass could ever hope to produce. Build them.

This article by a renowned expert suggests that nothing we can do, including wind farms, will prevent global warming.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

He is somewhat supportive of nuclear power, though.