Isaac Orr, a policy fellow for the pro-fossil-fuel Center of the American Experiment, suggests that we slow our statewide efforts to replace fossil fuels with alternatives such as wind and solar ("Cold snap shows reliable energy sources are critical," Feb. 1). He notes that a large number of Minnesotans needed to curtail their use of natural gas, a fossil fuel, so that we wouldn't run out in the middle of the cold crisis.
Pro tip for Mr. Orr: Next time he writes a hit piece against clean energy, he might consider leaving that sort of thing out.
Orr catalogs the types of energy that were used over the cold snap to provide electricity to homes. Most of that electricity was, of course, not used for heating, but never mind that. His point seemed to be that since we use a lot of coal and natural gas, and have not yet installed very much in the way of clean fuel infrastructure, we should therefore not install very much clean fuel infrastructure. This sort of is-ought argument is not helpful or, really, meaningful.
We are moving toward the use of clean energy slowly — probably too slowly — but also carefully. At this time, it is clear that future solar and wind will be much cheaper than present-day coal and methane. When we make our own energy, 100 percent of the contribution of that industry to the statewide or national economy is realized. When we buy methane, coal and oil from other states or countries, Minnesota (or America) loses out.
There have been no instances of which I'm aware in which deploying wind or solar power in Minnesota has caused an energy company to tell customers to stop using fuel. As we deploy more and more clean energy, the energy suppliers, under appropriate regulation, will produce that energy in a way that is reliable, clean and reasonably priced. We know this is possible, is being done increasingly across the world and, for the sake of our children's future, is necessary.
There is an irony in Orr's commentary: Most climate experts agree that the likelihood of a polar air mass excursion of the type we experienced in the last week of January is increased by changes in global jet stream patterns that are now undeniably linked to warming caused by the human use of fossil fuels. We have ignored this problem for too long. We need to act now.
Greg Laden, Plymouth
• • •
Irony of ironies. In the Feb. 1 Star Tribune, Xcel Energy is mentioned twice. First, for its mismanagement of natural gas supplies, forcing 100 households to lose their gas supply and others to be asked to turn down their thermostats to 63 degrees during the recent frigid days. Second, for the announcement of fourth-quarter earnings, exceeding expectations. And how did Xcel achieve these record profits? By not properly planning for weather extremes. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission shares the blame through its ineffective regulation of Xcel. It is time for the MPUC to stand up for its obligation to protect consumers' rights against the utilities.
Janet Shark Frisch, Golden Valley
• • •
Blaming solar and wind power for the outages makes as much sense as blaming them for your car not starting when it was 30 degrees below zero. There is no shortage of energy sources. It was a delivery problem in an extreme weather event that caused the outages. Xcel is looking at its system to remedy that issue, but renewable energy is anything but the problem. In fact, Xcel is seeing record profits while investing heavily in renewable energy.
