Since wind depends upon gas for integration into the grid your argument is specious. We do not have a choice of wind OR fossil fuels but only wind AND fossil fuels.
Your jobs argument is absurd as well. You seem to suggest that the best source of generation is the source that requires the greatest number of employees per MWh generated. If so then bicycle generators would be hard to top. Since energy is an overhead expense for all human activity the most desirable source of energy would require only one employee: to turn the switch on and off.
Jack Roesler Well we know the PTC for wind has a pretax value of $35/MWh for the first ten years of a wind plant’s life. And we know that wind generation imposes system costs of at least $11/MWh and rising to $22/MWh as wind penetration increases, according to Idaho PUC: http://www.puc.idaho.gov/fileroom/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE1322/staff/20141016PRESS%20RELEASE.PDF This is a total subsidy value of $46-57/MWh (4.5 to 5.7 cents per kWh). Now include accelerated depreciation and wind energy zoning that forcibly donates people’s private property to Spanish wind developers like Iberdrola to be used as uncompensated nuisance and safety easements and I would say there are a whole lot of people paying for your “cheap” renewable energy. (Though I confess I have never seen it available at 2 cents/kWh retail.) Keep in mind that a typical wholesale value for electricity in PJM is maybe 3.5 cents/kWh. The subsidies alone exceed the market value of the energy.
Why has no one here commented on the projected costs of not getting off fossil fuels? One study, The Stern Report, put the eventual costs at 5 times what it would cost us now to switch to renewable sources of power. That, of course, applies to all of mankind. And, deforestation would have to be stopped as well.
Four major reports have shown that wind energy is an expensive means of reducing emissions compared to the alternatives. And 3 of the four are from sources that are deeply concerned about climate change. The fourth is MISO the regional transmission operator with far more wind generation in operation than OH’s RTO PJM. I simply don’t know if they have an opinion on climate change.
Nonetheless the scientific evidence is clear: if CO2 emissions are a problem wind is one of the least cost effective means of correcting the problem except for solar energy,
Anonymous author states: “According to a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the PTC cost the federal government $1.3 billion in 2012, and the wind industry spent $25 billion on new wind farms that year.”
Sure, but the PTC paid cost in 2012 was for projects built between 2002 and 2011! For projects built in 2012 the cost over the next ten years will be almost $8 Billion.
($25 Billion divided by $2 Million equals the number of Megawatts built in 2012. That amount of capacity will produce 34 Million MWhs per year at a 31% capacity factor. The PTC value is $23 per MWh and is paid for the first ten years of a wind plant’s operation)
We can’t trust these people to tell the truth and they have access to our wallets through our tax dollars. That should be a concern to everyone.
The author of this “opinion” piece must have a fairly low self image not to publish his/her name with it. That’s probably because the piece pegs the “propaganda meter.” Production costs of $50/MWh translates to about $120,000 per year per MW in total revenue. That project’s installed cost was likely around $2,000,000 per MW, so barring ANY O&M expenses, taxes OR PROFIT, it would take 15 years to breakeven. Lifespan of the machines is 20 years. Even with the unrealistically rosy assumptions above, no investor would settle for 33% return on investment in 20 years. With compounding, that’s less than 1% per year! The trick here is that the “opinion” author wants you to ignore the fact that 2/3 of wind revenue comes from sources OTHER THAN selling their electricity at market rates. State mandates earn them a premium, and then…See More…