BigWind getting 7 x THE SUBSIDIES of coal/gas… 7 x !!!

Aren’t you sick of the public being ‘hoodwinked’ about the subsidy game? All the electricity providers get subsidies- that is what we hear.  But, how much electricity do each of the players actually PRODUCE? The difference between coal/gas/nuclear and BigWind is like comparing the value of a shortstop to that of a 2nd stringer on the bench! Let us pray that Rick Perry sees the truth and that he isn’t influenced by lobbyists to hide it. States like, Ohio, where BigWind is planning explosive growth, NEED the help of the federal government to keep these companies at bay…

When Energy Secretary Rick Perry requested a study of electric grid reliability, wind and solar energy lobbyists were predictably alarmed. Perry wanted to know how federal policies were shaping wholesale electricity markets and whether public policies were responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants.

The government has long had a role in the electric power industry, so asking for a survey of its effects should not be controversial.

The reason for the alarm? The request mentioned government mandates and subsidies, which have driven wind and solar energy’s growth, as possible drivers of reliability concerns. The industry lobbyists are right to be sensitive. Despite constantly touting the rapidly falling cost of wind and solar, industry growth over the next decade depends on mandates and subsidies….

This “everybody does it” claim about subsidies needs to be put into perspective. DOE data from 2013 show that federal subsidies for coal and natural gas amount to about 0.05 cents per kWh of electricity, while wind gets 3.5 and solar receives 22 cents per kWh. This money is not an investment in the future, but rather a subsidy to developers and financiers for the installation of existing technology….

 

Source: DOE grid study has wind and solar lobbyists spooked — rightly so | TheHill

Advertisements

BigWind proves why wind turbines will cost USA jobs and security

WOW, the evidence is clear. BigWind will raise electric rates, lessen our energy security and, ultimately, cost Americans jobs. What entity, whether it be a state or country, can sustain such illogical policies? These poor decisions, driven by politics and green lobbying, will hurt the American poor the most. Subsidies steal money from necessary social programs and increase tax bases. BigWind has become the BigBully and it is time that citizens tell their legislators to grow some balls or get out of politics….Let’s start with Ohio Senator Cliff Hite, who is clearly a BigWind bully buddy…

New York state is paying 11 large wind and solar power projects two times more in subsidies than the projects actually generate in electricity.New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the $360 million in spending over the weekend, but didn’t reveal the precise amount of funding for each project. …State officials are handing out the equivalent of $24.24 per megawatt-hour over the next 20 years to the 11 projects. Wind turbines can get an additional $23 per megawatt-hour in federal tax credits.The electricity generated by these 11 projects, however, will only sell for an average of $16.25 per megawatt-hour, according to the federal Energy Information Administration (EIA).

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO), the state’s power grid regulator, sharply criticized Cuomo’s plan to boost state green energy use, saying that it could cause blackouts and would make it hard to ensure reliable electricity… 

Cuomo’s green energy czar responded by saying that NYISO was being “held captive” by special interests and lacks “understanding into the imperative to address climate change.”

Solar and wind power get 326 and 69 times more in subsidies than coal, oil and natural gas for the comparative amount of energy generated, according to 2013 Department of Energy data collected by Forbes. Green energy in the U.S. got $13 billion in subsidies during 2013, compared to $3.4 billion in subsidies for conventional sources and $1.7 billion for nuclear energy according to data from the EIA.

New York state currently gets less than 5 percent of its electricity from wind and solar, according to EIA.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/16/in-new-york-wind-and-solar-get-double-their-value-in-subsidies/#ixzz4bUba0syZ

Source: New York Wind And Solar Get Double Their Value In Subsidies | The Daily Caller

If BigWind raises electric rates in Ohio, see consequences here!

Ohio results at the bottom, see entire article for detailed tables/charts of detailed effects on jobs in America…
 screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-35-38-am

One European business leader summed up European’s dire energy situation this way: “I can see green taxes, I can see no shale gas, I can see closure of nuclear, I can see manufacturing being driven away. I can see the competition authorities in Brussels blissfully unaware of the tsunami of imported product heading this way and standing blindly in the way of sensible restructuring . . . It’s not looking good for Europe, we are rabbits caught in the headlights, and we have got our trousers down.”…

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-38-25-am

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-39-33-am

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-41-11-am

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-42-30-am

 

Ohio

Almost all of the power produced in Ohio (96 percent)18 comes from conventional and low-
cost sources – coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Ohio is also a major manufacturing state – the manufacturing sector alone represents 17 percent of Ohio’s GDP, generates more than 660,000 jobs, and chips in $36 billion in labor income.19 Ohio generated $576 billion in GDP in 201420,had nearly 5.4 million people employed, and had an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, below the national average of 6.2 percent.21

Ohio’s economy is on track to continue its growth, with significant growth coming from oil and natural gas development, including from unconventional sources.22 Under European-style energy policies that make fossil fuels more expensive and/or harder to produce, Ohio households and businesses would suffer major economic impacts.

Those impacts start with jobs: under this new pricing regime, Ohio would lose more than 187,000 jobs, and $8.2 billion in wages being paid out to Ohio workers today would also be eliminated. All told, the state’s annual economic output would decline by a staggering $14.8 billion. Our analysis of energy price increase impacts to Ohio (including the extra $5,000 that Ohio households would have to pay for their energy, over and above what they already pay today) is represented in Table 18.

As with the other states we analyzed, we examined what the potential economic value at risk would be for the top 25 energy-intensive industries in Ohio. Similar in many ways to the industrial profile on display in Michigan, Ohio’s economy would stand to lose more than 512,000 jobs if EU energy prices became the norm there. Those lost jobs put nearly $30 billion in wages at risk, and have the potential to deprive Ohioans of more than $57 billion in annual state GDP.

One segment worth noting in Ohio is its iron and steel manufacturing sector, which contributes
$2.2 billion in direct GDP to the state. If energy prices were to rise to European levels, this sector could be at risk (i.e., the industry may stop or move production elsewhere). Because of the ripple effect, the total economic value at risk increases to $5.8 billion. Table 19 shows the economic value at risk for Ohio’s top 25 energy-intensive industry sectors….

http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/themes/bricktheme/pdfs/EU_Report.pdf

Which candidate will force you to LOVE BigWind?

Could you still be undecided in this election? You are not alone.  If, however, like us, you are opposed to the renewable energy mandates, for whatever reason, Trump is your candidate.  Clinton will bring more BigWind industrial machines to our landscape, with no accountability for energy production.  Electricity rates will continue to skyrocket under her, as they have with Obama…

WASHINGTON (AP) — THE ISSUE: Energy independence has been a goal of every president since Richard Nixon. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have very different ways to achieve it.…

Clinton pledges that under her leadership, the U.S. will be able to generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America within 10 years…

Trump vows to “unleash American energy,” allowing unfettered production of oil, coal, natural gas and other sources to push the U.S. toward energy independence and create jobs. Trump would sharply increase oil and gas drilling on federal lands and vows to revive the struggling U.S coal industry. He also would open up offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean and other areas where it is blocked.

Trump calls for rescinding the Clean Power Plan, a key element of President Barack Obama’s strategy to fight climate change, as well as a rule to protect small streams and wetlands from development. He also would cancel the 2015 Paris climate agreement and stop U.S. money going to U.N. global warming programs…

Wind and solar power have grown in recent years, thanks in part to support from Obama, but renewable energy sources accounted for just 10 percent of total U.S. energy consumption in 2015. Renewable energy is generally more expensive to produce and use than fossil fuels. Clouds impair solar energy and calm skies slow wind farms.

Source: WHY IT MATTERS: Energy

WOW, AWEA can’t do basic math

In Ohio, BigWind is/has building/proposing projects that consume, on average 16,000 acres each. Now, if we look at Blue Creek, alone, there are 152 turbines. 16,000 divided by 152 is 105 acres/turbine.  Obviously, each turbine does not take up 105 acres, but when you include setbacks, homes, roadways, communities, etc. AWEA is blatantly WRONG.  You canNOT extrapolate acreage based on the actual, physical consumption of land by the industrial wind turbine.  According to Ohio’s average land consumption of 16,000 acres, our math shows that the AWEA assumption needs to be revised to be multiplied by 141!! In this case, the mass of Rhode Island x 141 = 169,200 square miles…LARGER THAN THE SIZE OF CALIFORNIA.  And, does this actually power America? NO, because we need MORE coal and MORE gas to ‘backup’ the intermittency of the turbines….

…The Supreme Court put a hold on enforcement of the plan in February to allow legal challenges to it to be resolved in court. If the Court of Appeals rules that the government can legally enforcement the plan, the country will have to start using a lot more renewable energy (like wind and solar) — and much less coal — by the year 2030.

Part of the plan calls for the creation of incentives to encourage states to build wind farms. Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation’s energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

But what would a US powered only by wind actually look like?

To answer that question, AWEA’s manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.

In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced….

Source: Here’s how much of the US would need to be covered in wind turbines to power the nation

Will the Renewable Energy ‘house of cards’ FALL in the USA?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently released a report agreeing with the renewable industries’ dual claim that even though technologies like wind and solar power are now cost-competitive with conventional energy sources, governments should continue to subsidize them(say what??). This rhetoric suggests that American taxpayer dollars should continue to prop up the profitability of select companies compared with what the free market would objectively and more efficiently determine.

In other words, the IEA implicitly confirms that by removing government support, many renewable energy companies would collapse like a house of cards because they aren’t competitive without it. Further, the report concludes that without government subsidies for renewable companies, investors would not be comfortable investing private capital.

Why then would the U.S. government want America to put all of her eggs in a renewables basket? Warren Buffet, billionaire and major investor in wind energy, has admitted that wind isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. “The only reason to build them [wind farms]” is the subsidies; “They don’t make sense without” them….

The IEA report confirms that renewable energy technologies depend more on government action than fossil-fuel based investments. Unlike renewables, coal and natural gas producers can respond to market signals by adjusting their output and operating costs. Texas is at the center of this debate over preserving renewable subsidies because the state leads the nation with 18.2 GW of combined installed wind and solar capacity. The Texas Renewable Portfolio Standard’s (RPS) goal of reaching 10,000 MW by 2025 was met in 2010, 15 years ahead of schedule. The Texas Legislature now faces a dilemma of whether to increase the costly RPS after long meeting its goal…

Since the RPS was not increased or made voluntary, renewable energy credits for new projects have become even more scarce than they were during the boom of projects in the early 2000s. Despite this, Texas has reached 16 GW of installed wind capacity since the boom and now produces roughly 20 percent of the nation’s wind-powered electricity generation.

Given the scarcity of renewable energy credits, how did Texas renewables achieve this growth?

According to the IEA, about one-third of the 4.8 GW of wind power installed in Texas in 2014 was financed using “synthetic power purchase agreements,” also known as hedges. Under these agreements, the power producer sells its electricity directly into the wholesale spot market and receives the prevailing market price. To compensate for the unpredictability of market prices, however, the power producer signs a contract for a financial product known as a “hedge” to provide protection against volatility and increase the stability of future cash flows.

These agreements effectively enable project developers, in combination with federal tax incentives, to secure debt and equity financing required to finance their projects.* …

Regarding renewables, producers are hedging their bets on production with synthetic power purchase agreements to ensure profitability despite receiving government subsidies. All this to finance energy that cannot be produced when it’s not windy or sunny outside…

It’s time for Texas to take a closer look at the effect of increasing renewable generation and steer the competitive electricity market away from growing subsidies for unreliable energy sources. Once Texas, the nation’s leading energy producer, starts to move the dial, other states and the federal government should follow to allow free markets to work instead of contributing to a boom and bust cycle.

Source: The Renewable Energy House of Cards | RealClearEnergy

Illinois ‘over’pays for BigWind power, will Ohio?

 

Wise people learn from the mistakes of others, so they don’t repeat the mistakes, themselves. Will Ohio legislators learn from this lesson (and a multitude of other states and countries)? Let us hope so, for the sake of our businesses and residents…

For Springfield aldermen opposed to the 10-year-old Sierra Club deal that required the city to buy power from two wind farms, December 2018 can’t come fast enough.
By then, both contracts will have expired, at which point City Water, Light and Power estimates it will have spent up to $150 million. So far, the utility has spent about $101 million.
Ward 10 Ald. Ralph Hanauer, who wasn’t on the city council when the deals were approved, calls the wind-power contracts “the most costly mistake in the city of Springfield.” He added that the lack of a clause that allows the restructuring of the contacts to keep costs closer to market value — as just happened with CWLP’s coal contract — was part of the mistake….

The Sierra Club’s wind-power agreement… The 2016 price for both contracts for wind power is $58.97/MWh, according to figures provided by the city.
The variable cost of producing the same power from CWLP’s own generation has been about half that — less than $30/Mwh — over the course of the wind contracts. And the new price in the most recent coal contract makes CWLP’s variable cost of generation even lower — roughly $17 to $26/MWh, depending on the unit….

“Wise economics should determine whether future wind and solar investments are pursued,” McMenamin said. “Generally speaking, going forward, municipally owned electric utilities should concentrate on electricity distribution rather than generation.”…

“At the time, we didn’t realize how devastating it was going to be,” Redpath said.
While walking his ward and talking to the residents, Redpath said he’s run into a lot of people who are opposed to the wind-power contracts.
“There’s definitely a lesson for the future,” he said. “We have to be very, very careful when this contract comes back up. I don’t know how I could vote for it in most any form.”
Source: CWLP shells out $100M-plus for wind power