Critics of clean energy complain all the time that the manufacturing of electric vehicle batteries uses natural resources, or that solar panels contain toxic chemicals – without comparing the environmental impact of clean energy to the impact of continuing to use fossil fuels.

William S. Harwood, Maine’s Public Advocate, is one of those who fails to make comparisons (“Legislature must act now to save ratepayers from PUC solar program,” May 10). He raises alarms about the cost to ratepayers of adding more than 2,000 megawatts of solar energy capacity to Maine’s grid: “approximately $220 million per year, for the next 20 years, or about $4 billion in total,” he states, noting that 2,000 MW is “bigger than New England’s largest nuclear plants.”

So, what would it cost ratepayers to add 2,000 megawatts of capacity from some other source over the next 20 years? Building a 2,000 MW nuclear power plant would cost multiples more. Coal and natural gas plants are cheaper to build, but would need constant supplies of increasingly costly fossil fuels to keep them running over those 20 years. Building solar has upfront costs, but its marginal costs, over 20 years, are near zero.

Solar has one of the lowest levelized costs of electricity around. Harwood didn’t bother to do some comparison shopping before complaining about prices.

David Kuchta
Portland