Palin Unveils Statewide Green Energy Plan

[Shady]

Sarah Palin's renewable ambition

Gov. Sarah Palin has crossed swords with conservation groups over petroleum drilling, but she earned nothing but praise Friday after announcing the most ambitious renewable energy goals in the nation. At a news conference announcing her statewide energy plan, Palin called for 50 percent of Alaska's power to be generated by renewable resources by 2025.

The goal addresses both urban Alaska, including Anchorage, Fairbanks and other cities that make up the Railbelt, and the hundreds of Alaska villages off the road system and power grid.

Palin called for six state utilities that serve most of the population to stop traditional infighting and take a regional approach for new power generation projects that could lower costs.

Link

Sarah Palin the Governor of Alaska, and Energy Czar of the United States of America. Seriously, who cannot be impressed? She continues to add to her resume of accomplishments, and will continue to build momentum for higher political office. A second term as Governor, perhaps a seat in the United States Senate....or who knows what else?

[Smallc]

Wow, she's amazing. They should get her to run for some type of US federal office......oh....wait....

[jdobbin]

Sarah Palin the Governor of Alaska, and Energy Czar of the United States of America.

How will she pay for it?

[Canadian Blue]

Does anyone else find it odd that the US calls it's heads of departments "Czars," you'd think they would want them to be not associated with a Royal family that was murdered by communists.

Sarah Palin really isn't that bad, sure alot of people hated her, especially on the left, but in the end she seems to be a somewhat competent governor. If only she could actually articulate her views on foriegn policy.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[kimmy]

How will she pay for it?

Perhaps she will used dirty dead caribou spotted owl oil revenue blood money.

or perhaps she can get a grant from the Obama Green Energy Center for Wind-Powered Generator Innovation. (she can haz subsidy plz?)

-k

[jdobbin]

Perhaps she will used dirty dead caribou spotted owl oil revenue blood money.

Since her state get 90% of its revenue from oil and oil prices are way down, many people in her state are asking the question of how this will be paid for.

Certainly she can apply for federal money but it almost always has to be matched with state money. So my question remains about how she will pay for it?

There are far too many people using deficit spending to fund projects. I think that we need to ask more often: how is this being paid for?

[punked]

It wont happen this is another thing Shady will be wrong about just like Caroline Kennedy.

[WIP]

Sarah Palin's renewable ambition

Sarah Palin the Governor of Alaska, and Energy Czar of the United States of America. Seriously, who cannot be impressed? She continues to add to her resume of accomplishments, and will continue to build momentum for higher political office. A second term as Governor, perhaps a seat in the United States Senate....or who knows what else?

So, before you sign a contract, do you ever take a look at the fine print? Just wondering because since you are presenting her proposal as a "record of accomplishment" you need to read the last paragraph of that news article before you can present this as an actual accomplishment of Sarah Youbetcha:

State legislative leaders have cautioned that with the precipitous drop in the price of crude oil, from which Alaska earns upward of 90 percent of its state revenue, money for renewable energy projects may not be so plentiful in 2009.

That drop in oil prices has many Alaskans worried that the growing budget shortfall could lead to economic catastrophe......Sarah may get a real opportunity to prove that she has the executive skills she already claims to possess.

As for Sarah in the Senate...don't bet on it! A poll taken two weeks ago shows that Sarah would get wiped running against Lisa Murkowski for her Senate seat: New poll shows Palin no longer Alaska's most popular politician

[kimmy]

Since her state get 90% of its revenue from oil and oil prices are way down, many people in her state are asking the question of how this will be paid for.

Certainly she can apply for federal money but it almost always has to be matched with state money. So my question remains about how she will pay for it?

There are far too many people using deficit spending to fund projects. I think that we need to ask more often: how is this being paid for?

I think people lack perspective on energy prices.

Keep in mind that this energy infrastructure was very profitable even back in the days when oil was $20 a barrel, and right now when prices are "way down" it's still over $40 a barrel. People tend to forget that just a few years ago, execs in Calgary were having parties to celebrate when oil hit $60 for the first time. $40 a barrel, until very recently, has been considered a very strong price for oil. (And, a little bird told me, it is not going to stay this low for very long.) Alberta was awash with money back when oil prices were last "this low"; the difference now is not a function of the price of oil. It is primarily a function of a shortage of investment in new projects, which is a result of banking and financial issues, not of the price of oil.

I'm not sure of how royalty rates are determined (flat rate? percentage of market value?) or how they're divided up between federal and state levels in the US. However, Alaska has for several years been giving oil royalty cheques to every man woman and child. The recent decline in oil prices might just mean that those cheques are going to be a lot smaller for the next little while.

Something else people may lack perspective on is the size of Alaska. Geographically it's huge, of course, but it only has 700,000 people. Meeting the energy demands of 680,000 people is not actually a terribly ambitious goal at all.

Of course, some of those people are in areas where power is hard to distribute and these are areas where small fossil fuel generators would likely be in widespread use.

However, half of Alaska's population is on a single power grid, running from Fairbanks to Anchorage and its suburbs (the "Railbelt" mentioned in the article.) Building a single modestly sized green energy project to supply that grid would in itself go a long way to meeting the goal of supplying 50% of the state's power through renewable energy. Alaska has an immense coastline and a multitude of fjords, so I'm sure that hydroelectric and tidal power are viable options at many locations in the state. I'm sure that similar thinking, on a smaller scale, could be applied to Juneau and its nearby communities.

The massive North Slope energy projects at Point Barrow and Prudhoe Bay undoubtedly need lots of power. And the real challenge is providing small, isolated communities with an alternative to fossil fuel generators in a way that's reliable and cost-effective. (I would think that at a scale that small, some variation of geothermal would be a possibility. It shouldn't be that hard to exploit the huge temperature difference between the cold outside air and the warmth under the permafrost...). With these little communities of a few hundred or a few thousand people, the power demands would be tiny and plunking some kind of tiny alternative energy generator onto their micro-grid could probably be done almost ad-hoc. ("New traffic light for Kamookta... pave Main Street in Nukwutsup... green energy generator for Tagloolik...")

Anyway, I think what I'm getting at is that oil isn't actually low priced right now, and the scale of Alaska's power requirements is modest, and that what's being discussed here is on one hand not terribly far-fetched but on the other hand not terribly impressive either.

-k

[Shady]

How will she pay for it?

Gee. That might have been a good question to ask about Mr. Obama's vast political promises, which also included similar energy plans.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Shady

[jdobbin]

Gee. That might have been a good question to ask about Mr. Obama's vast political promises, which also included similar energy plans.

Think I did ask that question about McCain and Obama's plans. I think you need look no further on my criticism of cap and trade for passing on costs as well as my opposition to ethanol.

[jdobbin]

Keep in mind that this energy infrastructure was very profitable even back in the days when oil was $20 a barrel, and right now when prices are "way down" it's still over $40 a barrel. People tend to forget that just a few years ago, execs in Calgary were having parties to celebrate when oil hit $60 for the first time. $40 a barrel, until very recently, has been considered a very strong price for oil. (And, a little bird told me, it is not going to stay this low for very long.) Alberta was awash with money back when oil prices were last "this low"; the difference now is not a function of the price of oil. It is primarily a function of a shortage of investment in new projects, which is a result of banking and financial issues, not of the price of oil.

The fact remains that Alaska gets 90% of its revenue from oil. Today oil fell $2 to $41 a barrel. It was $35 last week and inventories are still high as demand slackens.

Yesterday's surpluses in Alaska and Alberta could be this year's deficits based on spending patterns in both jurisdictions.

Something else people may lack perspective on is the size of Alaska. Geographically it's huge, of course, but it only has 700,000 people. Meeting the energy demands of 680,000 people is not actually a terribly ambitious goal at all.

It can be based on where the people are and where the power source is.

Anyway, I think what I'm getting at is that oil isn't actually low priced right now, and the scale of Alaska's power requirements is modest, and that what's being discussed here is on one hand not terribly far-fetched but on the other hand not terribly impressive either.

It isn't far fetched but for a state that legally can't run a deficit (the last I heard), I wonder how the project will be paid for when oil remains as low as it is.

[JerrySeinfeld]

How will she pay for it?

How about HOPING for some CHANGE to pay for it?

Oh wait... there's only one person alive who can pay for things with HOPE and CHANGE. Maybe we can all HOPE for CHANGE or CHANGE what we're HOPING for. Or maybe the HOPE of CHANGE can CHANGE the power grid in alaska and there will be a HOPE of CHANGE.

Then again, maybe it's all just some guy who's really good at saying NOTHING.

what were we talking about? oh yea. real policy. sorry, I was HOPING someone would CHANGE the topic so I could talk some more about HOPE and CHANGE.

Got it?

mwaaa.

[punked]

How about HOPING for some CHANGE to pay for it?

Oh wait... there's only one person alive who can pay for things with HOPE and CHANGE. Maybe we can all HOPE for CHANGE or CHANGE what we're HOPING for. Or maybe the HOPE of CHANGE can CHANGE the power grid in alaska and there will be a HOPE of CHANGE.

Then again, maybe it's all just some guy who's really good at saying NOTHING.

what were we talking about? oh yea. real policy. sorry, I was HOPING someone would CHANGE the topic so I could talk some more about HOPE and CHANGE.

Got it?

mwaaa.

That was a piss poor answer and had nothing to do with anything. It is an I told you so that doesn't make any sense.

[trooper]

Let's see how she governs in a tough economy.

Any idiot can bring surpluses and bring tax cuts in oil rich states like Alaska, even the Saudis who don't even have a single tax-payer base run a decent empire.

It's when you don't have these luxurious that churn out cash consistently do you get exposed.

[kimmy]

The fact remains that Alaska gets 90% of its revenue from oil. Today oil fell $2 to $41 a barrel. It was $35 last week and inventories are still high as demand slackens.

Yesterday's surpluses in Alaska and Alberta could be this year's deficits based on spending patterns in both jurisdictions.

Demand never stays slack for long. Oil is still a good business to be in.

It can be based on where the people are and where the power source is.

I thought I addressed that pretty nicely. With 50% of the populace on the Anchorage power grid, meeting the goal of 50% renewable energy by 2025 could conceivably be done with just one renewable energy facility, and with just 340,000 people on that grid, we're not exactly talking about a mega-project either.

It isn't far fetched but for a state that legally can't run a deficit (the last I heard), I wonder how the project will be paid for when oil remains as low as it is.

It's not going to stay this low for long. And it's not actually low at all.

-k

[Riverwind]

It isn't far fetched but for a state that legally can't run a deficit (the last I heard), I wonder how the project will be paid for when oil remains as low as it is.

Obama has annouced "renewable energy" subsidies as a key policy objective so you can bet that this project is designed to tap into the huge federal slush fund. Expect more of the same from other states.

[Moonlight Graham]

Well this a nice suprise from palin. Good for her.

However, she still needs to read a lot more books & newspapers if she wants to become President in 2012.