An Open Letter to Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy Economy, Santa Fe. New Mexico by Peter Burrows 2/18/19 elburropete@gmail.com

Dear Ms. Nanasi,

Senate Bill 489 would require New Mexico’s investor owned electric utilities to be 100 percent carbon free by 2045, a goal to be achieved with renewable sources of electricity, especially wind and solar. As I understand it, one hundred percent carbon free has long been NEE’s goal, both for environmental reasons and, to quote from your recent emailing, “because renewables are the most cost-effective option.” With that in mind, I have some questions for you.

1) Our new secretary of the Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Sarah Probst, was quoted in a January 11 article in New Mexico In Depth saying that going to an 80 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard would require a careful approach so that, “we don’t do anything that jeopardizes reliability or increases costs too quickly.“

Why would she say INCREASES COSTS if renewables are cheaper?

2) Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and life-long environmentalist, said in a 2015 interview with The Financial Times that the cost of going 100 percent renewable would be “beyond astronomical.”

Was Gates wrong? Have there been advances in energy technologies that enable us today to have renewable energy that is affordable, not “beyond astronomical” in cost?

3) Is there any place in the world where adding renewables to the power mix has lowered the average electricity bill? An article by The Institute for Energy Research dated 2/8/19, claims that electricity rates increase as renewables are added to the mix, In Germany, Denmark, the U.S., anywhere.

California, for example, in 2017 generated 23% of its electricity from wind and solar and its residential electricity rates were 18.24 cents per kilowatt-hour, “at least 40 percent higher than any other western state,” and 22 percent higher than I paid last month using my cost of14.98 cents after taxes, fees etc. Using the before fees/taxes cost of 12.65 cents, California was 44 percent higher.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-100-percent-renewable-energy-myth/ or Google: The 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth BY IER (Inst for Energy Research) 2/8/19

(I went to the Dept. Of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) site and was unable to verify IER’s numbers. The EIA site is difficult to navigate, to say the least.)

4) I see that my electricity bills are increased by a “Renewable Energy Rider,” not decreased by a “Renewable Energy Credit.” Why are renewables increasing my bill if renewables are so cost effective?

5) If renewables are the least cost option, why are so many new coal-fueled electricity generating plants being built outside of the U.S.?

From coalswarm.org, 2/16/19: “Since 2007 planning and construction of new coal-fired power plants in India has accelerated, and hundreds of new plants are in currently in the pipeline, as shown in CoalSwarm’s India coal plant tracker.”

HUNDREDS of new coal-fired plants? How can that be if renewables are so much cheaper than coal?

6) Totally eliminating the use of fossil fuels in New Mexico would eventually mean the elimination of natural gas to heat our homes.  Is this a long-term goal of NEE? Would this mean using electric heat, and would that increase Bill Gates’s estimate from “beyond astronomical” to “beyond astronomical squared?”

7) Are you using the Energy Information Administration’s Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) calculations when you compare the costs of different sources of electricity, e.g. solar vs. coal? You have to read the EIA’s accompanying notes carefully to learn that they caution that comparing LCOEs between power sources can be “misleading.”

“Misleading,” indeed.  Intermittent sources of electricity such as solar and wind are not comparable to constant sources, such as coal or nuclear.  Intermittent sources need to be buffered, i.e. smoothed for clouds and lulls, and stored for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

The cost of storage is the driver behind Gates’s “beyond astronomical” estimate, and here is where NEE can get some answers from Public Service of New Mexico (PNM). PNM has been operating an electric storage facility since 2012. The PNM Prosperity Energy Storage was heralded as “the nation’s first solar storage facility fully integrated into a utility’s power grid.” (Renewable Energy World, 3/2/15)

By now, PNM should have a good handle on how much the storage costs would be at various RPS requirements, at least with the technology they are using. When PNM held a meeting in Silver City in May of 2017, I cited Prosperity Storage and said: “I assume you have lots of cost data from that project and can provide us with an estimate of what our utility bills would be if PNM was 100 percent renewables-with-storage.”

Six months later, I made the same request in a column for The Grant County Beat. Still no answer and I don’t expect to ever get one. However, I’m confident that New Energy Economy could get an answer. YOU they fear. Me, I’m just a nobody home owner/rate payer.

In conclusion, I share your desire for cheap, reliable, renewable energy. I’m just not convinced that “cheap” and “reliable” are possible with today’s technology.

If you are ever in Silver City, I know a great place to get a cup of coffee, my treat.

Sincerely,

Peter V. Burrows                                                                                                                                elburropete@gmail.com

More on Alexandria Ocasio Cortez by Peter Burrows, elburropete@gmail.com. 1/27/19 

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC, has taken America by storm. The new 29-year-old Congress- woman from New York City is on magazine covers, is featured in TV interviews, has been invited to appear everywhere and is talked about constantly by news pundits.  

If I was 50 years younger, I’d throw myself at her lovely feet. However, in my grandfatherly old age I look at this benighted young lady and feel sorry for her. Wikipedia tells us that she graduated cum laude from Boston University in 2011 with a bachelor’s degree in international relations and economics. My dictionary says cum laude means “With honor. Used on diplomas as a mark of high standing.”  

Why then, was she tending bar and waiting tables before her election? Probably because her college degree is worthless, cum laude or magna cum laude, something a lot of college grads are finding out these days. In AOC’s case, proof she got a college indoctrination and not a college education is to be found in her economic ideas.  

How can anybody take economics in college and come away with the conviction that economic prosperity can be achieved with huge government programs paid for by “the rich” and/or by the Federal Reserve writing checks?   

How can that person think that the government can provide guaranteed jobs at “living wages” for everybody and anybody? Where has this ever worked? How can this be afforded? Throw in Medicare for all, too. 

And, of course, she wants to increase the minimum wage to $15, proving she doesn’t know the first, or the second, thing about economics. (See my article, “God and the Minimum Wage” in Libertarian Leanings.) No wonder college degrees, outside of science and technology, don’t mean much anymore.  

Another AOC fact that bodes ill for America is that she is a Catholic, a Latino Catholic, like Pope Francis, who has similarly stupid economic ideas. Nowhere in the world, with the possible exception of France, has rule by Catholics been hospitable to democracy or free enterprise economics. Certainly, nowhere south of the Rio Grande. 

Catholicism is an authoritarian religion that, like many religions, sees the accumulation of personal wealth as somehow immoral. With that in mind, it’s not inconceivable AOC could run for president on a platform inspired by NYC’s mayor Bill Deblasio, who recently said that NYC has plenty of money to do all the good things Deblasio wants to do, it’s just that the money is in the WRONG hands. 

“Right” and “wrong” are words that inherently incorporate a moral judgement. By golly, if money is in the “wrong” hands, it’s government’s duty to take it and put it in the “right” hands. Lots of people think that is a proper role for government.  

Politically, this works, especially if the electorate both poor and ignorant. It worked for Hugo Chavez, who enjoyed the unique status of being an elected and reelected dictator. All that oil money down there in Venezuela was in the wrong hands, you see, and Hugo was just the guy to right that wrong. If a few billion ended up in his kids’ bank accounts, that was OK because their hands were the right hands.    

Charles Lane, who writes for the Washington Post and is an occasional commentator on Fox News, recently said something to the effect that AOC would be really dangerous if she knew what she was talking about.  

No, Chuck, she wouldn’t be dangerous if she knew what she was talking about, she’s dangerous because she DOESN’T know what she’s talking about.  

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: The Future of America by Peter Burrows 1/25/19 elburropete@gmail.com 

I have to confess: I’m smitten with New York’s new Congresswoman, 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC. She’s gorgeous, charismatic, articulate and vivacious.    

She’s also, at the very least, profoundly ignorant and probably just plain stupid, but that won’t hurt her politically. Just the opposite. There are tons of ignorant and stupid voters in America, enough to make AOC, when she’s 35 and old enough to run for president, America’s first Latina Lady President, maybe even President for Life.    

You’re thinking, “Come on Burro. What’s with the ‘president for life’ crap? The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms.” 

That’s true TODAY, but the demographic changes underway in America that would make an AOC president also make it inevitable that the Constitution will be scrapped.  AOC’s election was the canary in the mine, folks.  

To see what I’m talking about, let’s look at her Bronx Congressional District, which had been represented by an Anglo male for 20 years. This incumbent Congressman outspent AOC in the primary by over 10-1 and yet she kicked his butt by 15 points.  

Why?  Because she reflected the changing demographics of the district: 50% Hispanic, 46% foreign born and 68 % who don’t speak English in the home. You’re thinking, “Well, that doesn’t look much like America, Burro, so how can AOC be America’s future?” 

True, her district doesn’t look like America YET. Another 50 years and it will, but the Democrats aren’t going to wait that long. They realize that the stupid Republicans have finally awakened to their plan to gain permanent electoral majorities with the trifecta of open borders, welfare benefits and easy citizenship.  

While that strategy may still succeed, the Democrats have launched Plan B: Do away with the Electoral College. That way, all of America won’t have to look like AOC’s congressional District, just a few populous states with enough voters to swing the national majority to the Democrat candidate.   

Take a look at California, in which the last election was instructive. Republicans across the state lost elections thanks to a 94% increase in Hispanic turnout, helped in no small part by a California innovation known as “ballot harvesting.” This allows campaign workers to go to a voter’s home and help the voter fill out a ballot, which is then delivered to a polling place BY THE CAMPAIGN WORKER.  

It goes without saying that this system, approved by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016, is open to abuse, especially since in California the DMV automatically registers people to vote if they say they are eligible to vote. The DMV told the Sacramento Bee that “it is not responsible for verification of voter eligibility.” 

California is a sanctuary state controlled from top to bottom by Democrats who are sympathetic to open border immigration and allowing illegals to vote.  California’s population is currently 40 million. Throw in a few more big states that are rapidly tuning blue thanks to illegals from Latin America, and it’s coronation time for an AOC if there is no Electoral College. 

New York state, population 20 million, will probably become a sanctuary state this year, following New York City, which is already a sanctuary city.  Illinois, population 13 million, and New Jersey, population 9 million, are also sanctuary states.  

Here in New Mexico, also a sanctuary state, we can expect the state legislature to pass a bill that directs New Mexico’s five electoral votes to go to whomever wins the Presidential popular vote nationally, regardless of how New Mexico voted.  Governor Martinez refused to sign a similar bill in 2017, but Michelle Lujan Grisham sure as Hell will.      

I doubt this is Constitutional, but as we all know, the Constitution is an out-of-date document created by Anglo-Saxon, white supremacist, male chauvinist Christians, and after they get rid of the Electoral College, “Progressives” will get rid of the Constitution, too. 

Adios, America.    

The ACLU Is Coming To A Sidewalk Near You by Peter Burrows 9/3/18  

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico is notifying cities around the state that their local panhandling laws are unconstitutional.  Here is Silver City’s notification:   

www.aclu-nm.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/ltr_to_mayor_ladner-_silver_city.pdf 

If the ACLU has their way, and it looks like they have a very strong case, anybody walking in downtown Silver City can expect to be approached by someone who will ask for money.  The ACLU says such a person is exercising their First Amendment right of free speech, and any laws that restrict that right, such as designating certain areas as no-begging zones, are unconstitutional.     

You are probably thinking, “Whoa, Burro! What about my right to privacy?” Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution about a “right to privacy,” an oversight the courts have been attempting to correct for years, usually involving cases of sexuality and marriage.  Roe v. Wade, for example, holds that anti-abortion laws violate a woman’s privacy. 

Supreme Court rulings have embodied the notion that a right to privacy is implied in the Constitution. The liberal Justice William Douglas once wrote that a broad right to privacy is found in the “penumbras” (shadows) of the specific protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This was in a case overturning a state’s ban on contraceptives which Douglass deemed a violation of “a right to marital privacy.”    

Robert Bork argued that such reasoning deprived elected officials of the legislative power the Constitution meant for them to have. He said: “The Constitution isn’t the only law that exists. It’s only a framework for how we go about things and a list of specific things legislatures must not do. Beyond that, it’s up to the legislature.”   

As a strict constructionist, I tend to agree with Bork, yet I am in complete agreement with Justice Louis Brandeis, who wrote in a 1928 opinion that the right to be left alone is “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”    

Whether spelled out in the Constitution or not, the right to be left alone is something I think most people would agree is a self-evident, unalienable right, to borrow a couple of phrases from the Declaration of Independence.    

I am well aware of the hypocrisies of a strict constructionist looking in the “penumbra” for an unspecified right, while the “penumbra” crowd denies such a right if it conflicts with the statutory right of a panhandler to exercise his or her free speech.  

To square this circle, I think we need to recognize that the face-to-face spoken word involves more than just the speaker.  Freedom of speech in the written word, e.g. newspapers, magazines, billboards, pamphlets; and in broadcasting, e.g. TV, radio, the Internet; does not require the targets of such speech to pay a damn bit of attention.  

A beggar approaching you on the street and making a verbal request is an entirely different proposition. You are then being placed in a situation not of your choosing and, unfortunately, you have no Constitutional “right” to be left alone that overrules the beggars right to speak to you.    

To illustrate the inherent difference in oral vs, written speech, imagine you see a beggar on the street carrying a sign that reads: “Give me some money because I need it and don’t ask what I’ll use it for because that’s none of your fucking business.”  

I would consider that a legitimate exercise of free speech, and I think you would, too. A little uncivil, but certainly not threatening. Just ignore and walk on by, or if you admire the chutzpah, part with a buck or two.  (I would.)   

Imagine that the same beggar approaches you and makes that same request verbally, perhaps even in a sweet voice. Same thing? Absolutely not.  Most people would feel threatened.  In fact, if San Francisco is any guide, threats from panhandlers will become the norm.    

Goodbye, downtown businesses.  

I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me there are three legal considerations we need to look at in this situation. One, the Bill of Rights is essentially a bunch of laws that limit what the GOVERNMENT can do to an individual. Secondly, the rights in The Bill of Rights are not unqualified. As famously noted, you have no right to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.  Finally, there are legal traditions that have evolved over time in our courts and legislatures that provide protection against encroachments on our privacy by other individuals. 

These sorts of privacy protections are called torts, although torts are not confined to privacy violations. A tort is a wrong or injury caused by an INDIVIDUAL for which the victim can seek compensation.  Privacy torts, specifically, provide the legal means to seek damages when someone has violated our privacy. 

An intrusion tort involves offensive intrusion upon the privacy or solitude of a person, usually physically but also through eavesdropping or wiretaps.  It seems to me the unwanted solicitation of a beggar qualifies as an offensive intrusion.  

You’re probably thinking, “Big deal, Burro. I’m going to sue some panhandler who gets in my face and a judge will award me the poor slob’s dirty socks, if he has any socks. No thanks.”   

Not quite what I had in mind.  If the City must allow the panhandling, the City must protect the citizens from the panhandlers, not an especially difficult task.  I assume street vendors require a city license, why not those “entrepreneurs” who use our streets to make a living without selling anything?  

If the City doesn’t control the panhandlers, sue the City.  Maybe the City could then sue the ACLU.  

An even better solution would be to allow only non-verbal panhandling.  Panhandlers can carry signs or pass out written pleas, but they can neither initiate a verbal exchange nor impede the progress of those on the sidewalk or street.  Would that pass muster with the ACLU? Worth a try.  

Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigrants, Part Three 8/4/18 – Peter Burrows – elburropete@gmail.com- Blog: silvercityburro.com.

Mexican drug cartels had estimated 2016 revenues from the sale of illegal drugs in the U.S. of as much as $50 billion.  They’ve used that money to corrupt local and state police forces, political parties, businesses and ordinary citizens.  What this means is that there are many Mexicans who are not directly involved in the illegal drug trade who profit from it.

The same can be said of the United States.  Drug dealers spend money on cops, politicians, real estate and legitimate businesses.   How big the penumbra of legitimate economic activity that emanates from the illegal drug business is a big unknown.

Add to that the livelihoods of all those employed in the war on drugs, from cops to judges, and there is a perfectly understandable constituency to maintain the status quo.  Legalizing drugs would upset a lot of apple carts, and not just those of the drug dealers and everybody who works for them.

That said, most people oppose legalizing drugs in principle, regardless of whether it would affect their livelihood.  Nonetheless, one of the benefits of legalization would be a big reduction in the government bureaucracies dedicated to the war on drugs.  These bureaucracies will oppose legalization efforts.

For legalization of drugs such as heroin and cocaine to occur, the public has to support it, which they don’t now.  Whether this will change or not is a big question. The legalization of marijuana that is now underway, state by state, has been instructive. Pew Research reports that in 2000 only 31% of those surveyed approved legalizing pot vs. 61% in 2018.

A 2016 survey (Vox) showed a similar result with 59% approval. That same survey showed only about 15% approval for legalizing heroin, cocaine, or meth.  That may change if synthetic drugs become the problem I think they will. More on that later.

As of today, eight states plus D.C. have legalized both medical and recreational marijuana, and another 22 have legalized medical marijuana.  Those states with total legalization have seen price reductions of as much as eighty percent versus the pre-legalized price.  Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in a fifty percent reduction in the amount of marijuana seized at the border.  If the trend continues, the cartels will soon be out of the marijuana business.

Pot smokers in legalized states get not only lower prices, they also get higher quality, more choice and no hassle from the cops.  I wouldn’t be surprised to someday see competing brands of marijuana cigarettes.  “Competing” is the key word.  Competition drives down prices and drives up quality.

The same effects would apply if heroin and cocaine were legalized.  Prices would drop, quality would increase, deaths from accidental overdoses would drop, incarcerations would drop, as would violence and corruption.  The farmers around the world who grow poppies and cocoa would stay in business but their customers would change, e.g. drug companies instead of cartels.

Like other commodities, drug demand is influenced by price, fads, marketing, consumer preference and substitution.  The latter is important, as opioid overdose deaths are lower in states with legalized marijuana.  The cravings experienced by opioid addicts whose prescriptions have expired are alleviated by marijuana, a rational choice if marijuana is legal and non-prescription opioids aren’t.

Opioid addiction, which stems from the over prescription of Oxycontin, Vicodin, etc., is the latest example of a government created drug problem.  I recently filled a prescription for 30 generic Vicodin pills at a dollar a pill.  Should I need refills, (I won’t) I would risk becoming dependent on the drug and suffer withdrawal symptoms.  I would be unable to get my prescription renewed to treat that problem.

The black market would charge me $5 a pill, if I could find them, and even then, I wouldn’t know if I was getting the real drug.  Why not allow me to register as an opioid addict and thereby get the drug for, e.g. $2 a pill along with counseling or something?  As an aside, I don’t think it works as well as advertised, but it works well enough for me to prefer addiction to the pain I experienced.  If I can’t get more Vicodin, please, Great God government, give me permission to smoke a legal joint.

Similarly, methamphetamine might not be as bad a problem if alternative drugs, especially cocaine, were legal and cheap.  Drug consumers make rational choices when they can.

Meth is a good example of the Whack-A-Mole nature of the illegal drug market.  The Mexican cartels have compensated for the loss of their marijuana business by pushing sales of other drugs, especially meth. The DEA says about 90 percent of the meth trade is controlled by the cartels, and the use of and deaths from meth are growing rapidly. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention puts 2015 deaths from stimulants, mostly meth, at almost 6,000, a 255% increase from ten years ago.

This is the second time meth has become a national problem. Back in the 1980’s, biker gangs began making meth from ephedrine, found in many cold medicines. By 2005, meth seemed to be everywhere, along with the very dangerous labs that produced it.  In 2004, near the peak of the meth problem, police in Portland, Oregon, destroyed 114 meth labs. One city!

When the government shut down the supply of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, the meth labs disappeared here and production shifted to Mexico.  There the cartels set up labs, imported the chemicals they needed and got really, really efficient at making the stuff.  The meth sold today is nearly 100% pure and sells for as low as $5 a hit.

“We’re seeing a lot of long-time addicts who used crack cocaine switch to meth,” said Brendan Combs, a Portland police officer.  “You ask them about it, and they’ll say: ‘Hey, it’s half the price and it’s good quality.’“(The New York Times, 2/13/18: “Meth, the Forgotten Killer Is Back, And It’s Everywhere.”)

Cocaine and meth are both stimulants, unlike the opioids such as heroin, and the meth producers compete against both cocaine and other meth producers and they do so on the basis of price and quality.  It is conceivable that legalizing cocaine may be the most effective way to reduce the danger of meth. If we added the death penalty – and used it! — for meth dealers, that might eliminate the meth problem altogether.

War on drugs, my ass. We’re having a pillow fight on drugs.

The meth resurgence illustrates another trend that has huge implications in the war on drugs: illegal synthetic drugs could well become the number one drug problem in America. Opioids and cocaine are derived from plants that are grown. Meth and other synthetics are produced from chemicals readily available throughout the world, no farmers needed, just chemists.

Fentanyl is the best known synthetic. It is a heroin synthetic that is 50 times more potent than Nature’s version.  It is used most frequently as a skin patch for cancer patients and in post-op recovery.  (I recently had a dose. It was very effective, but I hope I never need one again.)  It costs pennies and small amounts can be sent through the mail in regular envelopes. Small amounts yield a large number of doses. It’s coming in from labs in both China and India, and there is no way to stop it.

The good news is that Fentanyl and its myriad analogues could put the cartels out of the heroin business.  Even if the cartels set up their own labs to produce Fentanyl et al, there’s eventually not going to be much profit in something so cheap and so readily available from a number of suppliers.

The bad news is that the synthetic is so powerful that accidental overdoses are becoming a big problem.  Overdoses stemming from over-prescription of analgesic opioids such as Oxycodone are getting all the publicity but the real problem is illegal Fentanyl. According to the CDC (www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm), overdose deaths in America are running at a 70,000 per year rate, up from 50,000 in 2015.  Most of that increase is from Fentanyl deaths, up from 3,000 in 2015 to over 20,000 today.

The problem is that only 2 milligrams constitutes a deadly dose.  Since the drug is being mixed in with street heroin and used in fake prescription pills with little dose control, we can expect the death toll to continue to rise.

What to do?  The safest course of action would be to legalize Fentanyl as an over the counter drug which then puts the dosage in the hands of the drug companies, e.g. Merck or Pfizer. That way, somebody who purchases the drug will know what the dosage is. There is nothing we can do if that purchaser then overdoses.

In addition to synthetic heroin, synthetic cocaine and cannabis are also available and becoming more like the real stuff as chemists around the world compete to make “better” products.  All of this must add to the business woes of the Mexican cartels.  Are they headed to the dust bin of history? Beats me, but I hope so.

Last year saw a record 28,710 homicides in Mexico, an estimated one third related to illegal drugs, and this year is on track to be over 30,000. The violence is spreading into Central America. Throughout the region, decent people are trying to escape the violence by going to America. Sadly, when they cross into Mexico, they are at the mercy of the cartels.  Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen recently estimated that human smuggling brings the Mexican cartels over $500 million a year.

Some of this “business” will dry up as the illegal drug business disappears, but not all. People want to get to America for reasons other than to escape drug violence.  This means we’ll still need a wall, virtual or otherwise.

If it were up to me, anybody caught facilitating illegal immigration/invasion would be executed.  Any illegal in America would forever be denied citizenship and public benefits of any kind.  Any cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals would be sent to the Mexican government.

At the same time, “racist” me would pay Mexican doctors, nurses, electricians, plumbers etc., to immigrate to America.  A million dollars tax free for a Mexican heart specialist? Sounds about right.  I wonder how long it would be before Mexico began cooperating in controlling our mutual border?