House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
October 22, 2009
I rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to the underlying bill. And to explain why, I'd like to walk through a little history and a little math.
Lets begin with history and two important years: 1978 and 1839.
In 1978, the Wall Street Journal carried this headline: Solar Power Seen Meeting 20 percent of Needs by 2000; Carter May Seek Outlay Boost.
Oddly, the same paper carried a headline in 2006 making the same promise this time for all renewable fuels only this time by 2025 but I digress.
Billions of dollars were poured into research and development for solar technology, and an entire solar industry solely supported by massive subsidies arose to grab those dollars.
And what was the result of all of this plunder of taxpayers and ratepayers? More than 30 years after that promise was made in 1978, solar power accounts for just one percent of electricity generation. Thats not for lack of subsidies its because despite billions of dollars of subsidies, the technology remains immensely inefficient and expensive.
And that brings me to the second year: 1839. This is not a new technology. Photovoltaic electricity was first discovered by French physicist Alexandre Edmond Becquerel in the year 1839.
This technology has existed for 170 years. And in those 170 years of scientific discovery and progress, and despite billions of dollars of subsidies to the solar industry, we have yet to discover a more expensive way of generating electricity!
When the state of California was squandering its wealth on subsidizing this industry a few years ago, I asked the California Energy Commission what is the price range of various forms of electricity generation.
And here is what they reported:
The cheapest form of electricity generation is hydroelectric. It ranges from a quarter cent to 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour average around 1.5 cents.
Then comes nuclear power, with a midrange around 1.7 cents.
After that, coal, about 1.9 cents.
Then wind at 4.6 cents and then natural gas at 10.6 cents. And finally, we get to the most expensive way to produce electricity, solar, between 13.5 cents and 42.7 cents per kilowatt hour, with a mid-range of 28.1 cents.
It gets worse.
In a day, a solid acre of state-of-the-art solar panels can produce 2.2 megawatt hours of electricity, assuming an average of 5 hours of peak sunlight. 2.2 megawatt hours per day. Compare that to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant that produces 49,000 megawatt hours of electricity each day.
In order to duplicate that single nuclear power plant, it would require 22,000 acres of solid solar panels or 34 square miles. By comparison, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant sits on one square mile.
So this technology, after 170 years and countless billions of dollars of research and development, is roughly 17 times more expensive than nuclear power and consumes 32 times the land area of a comparable nuclear facility.
But dont worry, say the proponents of this bill. It just needs a few billion dollars more to become competitive. Im sorry, but weve heard that song before.
I suppose hope springs eternal. For decades the federal government and gullible states like California have kept the solar industry afloat, pumping billions of dollars into subsidized loans, credits to consumers who buy solar panels and, of course, Research and Development ($166 million last year and $175 million this year by the Department of Energy alone).
This is an industry that exists solely of the dole, by the dole and for the dole. It is now clambering for billions of dollars more. And if this rule is passed and the bill is taken up, theyre going to get it directly out of the shrinking savings accounts of American taxpayers.
The Solar Technology Roadmap Act of 2009. Youve heard of the bridge to nowhere. This is the roadmap that will get us there.
Loading...
don't forget solar also doesn't pollute and the other ones you mentioned do pollute...make another speech that includes the pollution fun fact. and while you are talking about it show a picture of fukushima or chernobl. Oh an also remember that having to clean up toxic waste and oil spills actually creates jobs, which is good. solar panels don't leak toxic stuff , so they don't create any jobs after they're built, bummer. hey ding bat, do you understand solar panels make electricity for free?
DelfinoGarza77 1 month ago
This man is now the chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, and that scares me a lot. His solution to everything: Build dams. Dams, dams, dams, and more dams. He wants to build the Auburn dam in northern California, which would destroy much of the canyons of the middle and north forks of the American river. These are two of the best whitewater rivers in the West; the canyons are absolutely spectacular. How many other magnificent canyons does the congressman wish to destroy?
trwent 1 year ago
@scottyboy7300
First of all, Solar energy is inefficient and subsequently takes alot of land to yield any meaningful amount of electricity. Second, the power generation is very inconsistent. Thirdly, the power generation depends on the geography. Using science, instead of the endless environmental rhetoric, solar cannot replace Coal or Nuclear for that matter.
Truthfully Fusion energy is the future. Not Solar, Not Wind, Not Fairy Dust.
Allante715 1 year ago
Cheapest is best? Is that your logic? Is your home and office full of WaMart merchandise?
The first cars were electric, does that mean that the current electric cars have had over a hundred years of growth? No, just like solar power.
Solar typically pays for itself in 10 years then it's nearly 100% maintenance free, emission free, and resource free for the remaining expected *minimum* lifetime of 25 years. And that's using *current* standard technology.
Please don't sell our future for "now."
scottyboy7300 2 years ago