June 23rd 2009
Union Strong-Arming On Alternative Energy
J
ust in case you are casting about today for more evidence of the self-serving immorality and unethical behavior of the labor union movement, look no further than the usually union-loving NY Times, which reports from the middle of nowhere:
When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.
By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.
One big difference between the projects? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.
As California moves to license dozens of huge solar power plants to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.
If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.
Come to think of it, this is also a wonderful example of how environmental laws are exploited by special interest groups – unions, NIMBYs, environmentalists – for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment.
Always ready to tell real thigh-slappers for his client’s benefit, Marc Joseph, a lawyer for California Unions for Reliable Energy, told the NYT:
“We’ve been tarred and feathered more than once on this issue. We don’t walk away from environmental issues.”
Uh huh. The chairman of the union group was more frank:
“You only have so much land that can accept solar power plants. So the question is, should that land be used for low-paid jobs or should that land be used for high-paid jobs?”
How about using it for jobs that will allow the project to be profitable, and that are gained fairly, not through regulatory extortion? How about not burdening potential future employers with 144 data requests, as the union group did recently with one company that refused to sign a union labor agreement. The requests asked questions like how many man-hours would be dedicated to tracking desert tortoise, and which role each individual on the tracking team played – all matters of great interest to any union.
For every charge of “astroturf” community relations campaigns by corporations, there are a dozen “greenmailing” schemes like these – but greenies, NIMBYs and union thugs usually get away with them. Kudos to the NYT for covering the story.
Posted in Alternative Energy, New York Times, unions | 7 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Comments
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Do we need to concentrate solar power converters in one place, when solar power converters can be placed most anywhere sunlight is found. So the current technology is inefficient, power from such installations can still be used to supplement other sources. In addition to, not instead of.
Plant some photovoltaics on the roof, charge up some storage batteries, and either cut down on utility power usage or sell back to the utility depending on your usage. Distributed power generation instead of concentrated.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Alan, your idea won’t work. First, there’s a little thing called economies of scale. Large installations can make solar power cost-effective; rooftop applications’ ROIs are much lower and slower, which leads to the second problem – you’re depending on individual property owners to make the investment, not corporations. Individual property owners don’t have the access to capital that utilities and corporations do, so again, they’re looking at a lower ROI.In a state where government owned the property and means of production, your idea would have a better chance of working, but thank God, that state is not America … yet.
June 24th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Laer — We now have grid-tied solar systems that are very cost-effective, and when combined with two-way meters, allow individual home owners to power their homes and sell the excess power they produce to the electrical companies. I now have two neighbors that use those systems in remote areas (one grid-tied and the other stand alone) that were built for ~$20K and both have a roughly 20-year design life.
The technology will only become more effecient and less costly, so I don’t know how you can argue that Alan’s idea won’t work, or that it doesn’t capture the “economies of scale” available with large remote arrays. Those large, remote arrays have their own problems that make them less desirable than distributed systems or other forms of alternative energy.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:10 am
That’s great Francis – what’s the ROI on their $20K investment? How many people do you know in this economy who have $20K to spare. Certainly not me.
Allow me to rephrase a bit: Alan’s idea won’t work now and it won’t work unless it’s heavily subsidized by government through tax incentives, rebates, etc. Perhaps when the economy is robust again we can visit that idea, but it’s sheer lunacy to spend very dear government money on unnecessary energy frills at this time. Oil and gas and the grid can get us through the recession, then let’s take a look, shall way.
It’s interesting that neither of you bothered to shame the unions for their reprehensible behavior.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Laer,
So? So there isn’t a big return on investment. Does there have to be a big return on investment?
June 24th, 2009 at 9:55 am
For most, there does have to be a good return on investment. You may want to impress your neighbors with your greeness, or you may think you’re following a moral imperative to “save the planet.” But most people look at expenses like solar and ask, “How long will it take to pay for itself?” As long as it’s 10 years, or even 5, most will say, “No thanks.”