'Near Unanimous Support': Kansas Sends a Renewable-energy Message to America

[kristopher]

'Near Unanimous Support': Kansas Sends a Renewable-energy Message to America

Carl Levesque, AWEA
January 30, 2014

...The Wind Coalition and the Climate and Energy Project released new poll data showing that Kansans overwhelmingly — and we mean overwhelmingly — support the development of renewable energy resources in the their state. The poll, conducted by North Star Opinion Research, found that 91 percent of Kansas voters are strongly supportive of using renewable energy. It showed further that renewable energy is just as popular as it was in 2009, when Kansas first pursued renewable energy legislation. Last year, efforts to roll back the state’s renewable energy law failed in the legislature. Small wonder.

Again, 91 percent. That’s nine out of 10 people — people who are already well familiar with wind energy because it’s being developed in their state — who support renewables. Nine out of 10 translates into a great free-throw percentage in basketball; in polling, it’s almost unheard of. Moreover, it’s not often you can say a poll shows “near unanimous support statewide,” as the news release states.

Why do Kansans like renewables so much? Probably because renewables have been great for the state’s economy.

"Kansas has been a significant beneficiary of renewable energy investment with nearly $8 billion of dollars in new investment and more than 12,000 new jobs in a decade,” said Jeff Clark, Executive Director of The Wind Coalition. “This poll underscores the sentiment developers see in the field — Kansans want to develop renewable energy, and more of it.”

What’s almost as noteworthy as the sweeping support is its breadth...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/keqy546

[DURHAM D]

1. Why do Kansans like renewables so much?

Because the wind blows ALL OF THE TIME and you would need to be a complete idiot not to realize it is a wasted resource.

[kristopher]

2. There is wind everywhere - just like sunshine.

[DURHAM D]

3. Not like there is in Kansas.

Have you spent much time there.

[kristopher]

4. Then you are restating what the OP said?

The economics for wind are particularly good in Kansas, but the resource itself is economically exploitable just about everywhere.

[FBaggins]

5. Deceptive spin in their polling - but the real issue IS in there.

Questions 1-3 are hardly surprising. Virtually everyone loves wind and solar power and in principal would like to see more of it... and of course they recognize the societal benefits. With the exception of a tiny NIMBY contingent and the die-hard anti-renewables-uber-alles crowd... what were we to expect?

The key question is #4. Are you willing to pay more to accomplish this? Support drops from 91% to 73% if the additional green power will cost a single additional dollar per month... and drops further to 67% if the price increases to an extra $2/month. Note that there's nothing unique to renewables about this. Ask people if they want cleaner energy... they'll say yes. Ask them how much more they'll pay for it or if the plant can be in their back yard... things change.

We all know that a 25% renewable portfolio standard will cost far more than one or two dollars per month per consumer. The question is how much more can it be before support drops too low. So why ask the question that way unless you're "pushing" the listener to think that the cost of the policy will be that low?

The Kansas Policy Institute (RW I suspect) estimated the cost at over $50/month per household when the RPS was at 20%. That's bound to be high... but much closer than the polled $1-2/month. In Germany (not up to 25% yet, right?)... they pay 50% more than the rest of Europe... and the gap with the US is even higher.

For the record... the answer is still "yes" for me (and I suspect for many here)... but let's not pretend that it would be for most.

[kristopher]

6. Sure Baggins, you support renewable energy

That's why you spend all of your time trying to find a way to put a negative spin on any positive news about them.

You are a "realist", not an antirenewable nuclear promoter cloaking your anti-progressive activities on a progressive website in a couple of throw-a-way greenwashing phrases.

I note that you spent a fair amount of time tracking down the original questions but you didn't see fit to include the link to the questions and responses so others could verify your claims.

Perhaps that's because the same poll only found 19% support nuclear.

http://climateandenergy.org/resources/KSEnergyPresentationRelease.pdf

[FBaggins]

7. Your track record on the issue is poor.

You see pro-nuclear anti-renewable predilections behind every tree. I really couldn't care much less whether or not you believe me despite years of telling you otherwise. You're incapable of believing that anyone supports both renewables and nuclear power. If they support nuclear power... they must oppose renewables because in your fantsy world... those are conflicting energy systems.

I note that you spent a fair amount of time tracking down the original questions

I didn't have to spend any time at all. I clicked the link you provided and then the link to the survey is right there at the top. Did you not read your own source?

But thanks for the more detailed link. Note that support falls all the way to 55% when the cost is a mere $5/month. What do you think support is with a more realistic figure? The problem we have to deal with (whether you think it's "we" or not) is that roughly 1/3 of the population in a renewables-industry poll is unwilling to spend half as much for clean energy as they spend for their HBO.

Perhaps that's because the same poll only found 19% support nuclear.

Intentional falsehood or just ignorance?

[kristopher]

8. So you think that your passive/aggressive behavior means you "support" renewables?

"Renewables suck blah blah blah, but I support them."

Or

"I support renewable but they suck because blah blah blah."

Then there is nuclear power, something that you obviously do support in a very positive and aggressive fashion since you work just as hard to put a positive spin on every negative about nuclear as you do to put a negative spin on every positive story about renewables.

Let's take the assertions in your last post as a case in point.
You wrote:

The Kansas Policy Institute (RW I suspect) estimated the cost at over $50/month per household when the RPS was at 20%. That's bound to be high... but much closer than the polled $1-2/month. In Germany (not up to 25% yet, right?)... they pay 50% more than the rest of Europe... and the gap with the US is even higher.

You support renewables so much that you start by using an absurd figure from an admittedly right wing source. Why? Is that really part of the keeping-it-real pragmatism you are trying to portray as a motive for your actions?

Then you turn to Germany. It's pretty hard to see how the policies in Germany have any relationship at all to what is happening in Kansas. Germany put strong government support towards renewables long before they were economically competitive and the costs of those legacy policies are directly reflected in their current price per unit of electricity. However, and I repeat that very large however, they also have invested heavily in reducing consumption - meaning that as a percentage of their income the typical German pays less for energy than the typical American.

Wind in Kansas, on the other hand, is pushing the per unit costs of electricity down for the consumer.

Add to that the fact that study after study after study shows that the switch to renewables will stabilize energy costs at or below current levels and we have a clear picture of a person dedicated to promoting nuclear power who is following a well established pattern of bringing false rightwing talking points to this forum in their zeal to depress support for renewable energy.

[AZCat]

9. That sounds more like the Kansas I know.

55% support for a $5/month bump lines up with my expectations of support from Kansans for changes to regulations requiring renewable energy sources. 91% sounds a bit "pie in the sky", unfortunately.