What do Blackouts and BigWind have in common?

Screen Shot 2019-10-13 at 8.02.12 PM

More than you think! As BigWind increases its presence, on our electrical grid, so do the blackouts. Why? Read below to learn how this nightmare is becoming more of a reality…

It is too often assumed that making maximum use of renewables is the answer to addressing environmental goals.  So easy is it to buy into this assumption that intermittent wind power is pulling ahead of coal in Texas.

Energy analysts forecast that wind turbines in Texas will generate about 87,000 megawatt-hours of electricity next year, eclipsing the anticipated output from coal.  Coal power is falling in Texas and nationally, while wind power is on a rapid upward climb.  Wind power already supplies 20% of the Lone Star state’s power and it’s expected to reach 24% in 2020, second only to natural gas, while coal plants continue to close.

If you think those trends don’t come with a downside, think again.  The economy in Texas and nationally demands full-time electricity.  Wind only generates part-time electricity.  In West Texas this summer, on some hot and humid days it was so still there wasn’t enough of a breeze to stir a leaf.  Hundreds of wind turbines stopped spinning.  When the Texas grid needed wind power the most, it was nowhere to be found. The Texas electric power grid came perilously close to collapsing.  

Electricity prices spiked from their normal range of $20 to $30 per megawatt-hour to $9,000 not once but twice. The state teetered on the edge of rolling blackouts and no air conditioning for millions of families during triple digit temperatures. Operators of the Texas grid issued alert after alert asking consumers to turn off devices and conserve power.

Texas is unlikely to be the only state that comes perilously close to electricity shortages.  Federal and state subsidies have made wind and solar power so cheap that they are displacing essential baseload sources of power that are capable of running when needed…

All of this is ominous not only for Texas but also other parts of the country.  The rapid shift toward wind power is an opportunity for a reality check in the debate over the deployment of renewables, which benefit from federal tax credits and generous state mandates.

According to the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, wind and solar power will have received $36.5 billion in federal tax credits between 2016 and 2020.  It’s an imposing number but it doesn’t even touch the subsidies provided for solar and wind at the state level.State renewable portfolio standards that mandate ever-increasing amounts of wind and solar power have been just as disruptive to electricity markets and perhaps even more costly.

It brings into sharp focus the most urgent challenge: How will the United States scale back the use of fossil fuels, yet maintain an adequate energy supply?  …

Instead of indifference, we need to regain our balance and encourage investment in advanced energy technology of all kinds – coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables, along with improvements in energy efficiency – if we hope to avoid future havoc in electricity markets and ensure the availability of reliable and affordable power.

Reliability Gone with the Wind

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

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