Erroneous editorial
June 22nd, 2008 • chatter, environmentalism
I was just reading through my feeds and came across this badly written (and even more poorly copy edited) editorial — source and author unknown — mostly about alternatives to oil-based energy. The writer spends most of the entire editorial lampooning solar energy and talking up natural gas. It’s very light on facts, after all it is an editorial, and heavy on poorly informed opinions. The author states that a 1200+ megawatt LNG drilling port off the coast of Broward County is going to be more efficient and useful than a 75 megawatt solar installation in Martin County. Well, sure it’s going to produce more energy but it’s in no terms more efficient. And apparently the offshore port is going to be less vulnerable to hurricanes. Less vulnerable than what, cows in Montana? Sure, the pipeline will be underwater but the actual drilling port won’t be so I fail to realize how a giant metal spire sticking up in the Atlantic Ocean is less vulnerable to hurricanes than an apparently non-existent more vulnerable alternative is. It’s in the Atlantic, it’s in South Florida, and it’s a giant lightning pole. I really don’t see the “less vulnerable” part here. It will get hit by hurricanes and probably heavily damaged in the process. That 75 megawatt solar field will be a lot less costly to replace entirely than it will be to replace even a quarter of a drilling outfit. Panels are getting a lot cheaper than the author is privy to although it’s pretty common knowledge, you can find out that new production innovations have brought the cost per watt close to $1, the same as coal.
Languish or Learn?
The same author also takes this piece as a way to poke a jab at our own Tri-Rail system which they see as a failed method of transport despite its ridership skyrocketing 46% over the same time period last year. So a nearly 50% increase in riders and revenue makes this a failed railway? Hardly. I’ve been in Palm Beach County for 4 years and many of my coworkers (and my girlfriend’s) have relied on Tri-Rail for transport because of expenses. We lack any good mass transit down here but Tri-Rail is the only thing that’s not failed. Amtrak is a bust, bus routes are a bust — they’re only successful in Ft. Lauderdale and Miami — and not getting better, and taxis are just overpriced. I see over 15,000 passengers a day over 7,000 last year as a sign of a booming rail system.
The author is also quick to point out that FPL’s planned solar field in Martin County will be mostly paid for by customers. Shocking. Isn’t this how most public service infrastructure is paid for? The Florida Turnpike is almost solely paid for by its customers. Nearly all telecommunications infrastructure is paid for by its customers. I’d like the author to find a public service that isn’t nearly wholly subsidized by its customers, after all we’re paying for a service we use otherwise, why are we paying at all? It’s capitalism in action. Their own salary is funded by their readership.
I read a lot of badly written stuff everyday but the first 1/3 of this editorial (really, it’s an op-ed, there’s a pretty big difference according to my mother, a 20+ year veteran of being a news editor and reporter). It really seems like this writer is just pissed that they might have to pay for a lower output infinitely renewable energy source than an ultimately limited and non-renewable higher output energy source. Yes, solar is grossly underpowered for how much land it takes for field installs but that’s changing with each innovation in solar panel production methods. If people can utilize enough panels just on their house to feed back into the grid, there’s obviously more to it than the author wants to admit or realizes.