BigWind could DOUBLE your electricity bill!

Screen Shot 2018-11-13 at 7.33.55 AM

Despite what story BigWind spins, we have blogged of the REALITY for years. BigWind IS EXPENSIVE. The wind is free, but converting it to energy is EXPENSIVE.  You must always count the cost of also running a coal or natural gas plant b/c they MUST ALWAYS be on in the background, to make up for calm winds…..Remember, BigWind will NOT lower our dependence on fossil fuels; instead, it will Increase it….

Business and homeowner utility costs could double in many states if environmental groups succeed in enacting draconian solar and wind power mandates in states across the country.

Yet these mandates will have almost no impact in cleaning the air or reducing greenhouse gas emissions….

These mandates come with a steep price to American families and businesses. Residents in states with existing high mandates must often pay between 50 percent and 100 percent more on their electric bills than residents of states where utilities are free to rely on the market and purchase electric power from the lowest-cost sources—often coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.

Because lower-income households spend five to 10 times more as a share of their incomes on energy than do high-income households, high renewable portfolio standards are a regressive—and unduly burdensome—tax on the poor.

Ironically, these green initiatives are usually sponsored by billionaire liberal funders, such as investor Tom Steyer of California….

Today, the United States produces more than 75 percent of its electricityfrom natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. Less than 10 percent comes from solar and wind power.

Given the massive federal subsidies of more than $150 billion between 2009 and 2014 to the wind and solar industries, that is an amazingly small percentage.

Comparing the states with the most stringent renewable portfolio standards (25 percent or more) with the states with low ones (10 percent or less), and then with states with none, reveals a pattern.

States with high renewable portfolio standards have electric power rates that are about 27 percent per kilowatt hour more expensive than states with low ones, and about 50 percent higher than states without them.

The Heartland Institute estimates costs could total an extra $1,000 per year per household, compared with current electricity costs, at the proposed rate increase in Arizona….

Lower-income families would be most adversely affected by stricter green energy requirements. This is because poorer households typically pay about seven times more as a share of their income in energy costs than do wealthier families.

Middle-class families pay at least twice as high a share of their income in energy bills than do the rich.

One of the critical flaws of renewable energy requirements is that they almost all squeeze out two of the most dominant and cleanest forms of energy used across the country—natural gas and nuclear power…

Only a small percentage of this clean air progress is due to renewable energy, because over most of this period, wind and solar power have been fairly inconsequential sources of U.S. energy production.

Since 1980, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants have fallen by 67 percent…

For these reasons, the “clean energy” initiative is best thought of as a regressive tax imposed on those who can least afford it.

Again, this “tax” could cost middle-income and lower-income American families about $1,000 more per year in utility prices. These mandates could also negatively affect business productivity and move jobs to areas with more energy choices.

Americans deserve affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. Renewable energy mandates are a “green tax” on homeowners and small businesses that can least afford it.

original article

Advertisements

“Paying” a BigPrice for BigWind

We have, over the years, repeatedly blogged about how renewables will RAISE electricity prices, NOT lower them, as BigWind touts. Unfortunately, our words are clouded by the loud mouths of BigWind…an industry that has now received Bigpaychecks from the US taxpayers for more than 30 years! Proof of OUR claims are below, right here in the USA. Texas electricity rates are HIGHER, not lower, with BigWind. Is this truth being shared? Not nearly enough. If you read the entire article, you will find that this community is now well known, among the renewable world, for its success in becoming 100% renewable.  Unfortunately, the same renewable world is not being 100% honest, in its reporting…
Georgetown, Texas, just 30-miles north of Austin, earned international acclaim after announcing its transition to a 100% renewable energy portfolio. Since mid-2018, all electricity consumed by the City, its residents and businesses, is sourced from a combination of wind and solar plants operating in the state. Georgetown Mayor Dale Ross, a CPA, touted the decision as a “no-brainer” grounded in economics and long-term strategic planning. For Ross, wind and solar were cheaper, more reliable, and the way of the future.
The shift to renewables put Georgetown on the green energy map and raised Mayor Ross’ public profile leading to national media interviews and a coveted spot in Al Gore’s sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth.” Plaudits aside, Georgetown ratepayers were promised measureable reductions in their power expenses. The City’s 2016 annual budget anticipated an overall 10.8% decrease in electric utility expenses from the prior year’s projections owing largely to renewables.
But now that Georgetown is ‘running’ on wind and solar, its officials are facing a harsh reality.
Actual power purchases for 2016 were 22% over budget coming in at $42.6 million against an expected cost of $35 million. In 2017, costs surged again to $52.5 million and all indications are Georgetown electricity customers will take another bath this year. (See table 2)
TABLE 2
Georgetown, Texas Budget/Cost Data
(all figures taken from City budgets posted online)
Year Demand (MWh) Initial
Budget ($)
Amended
Budget ($)
Actual
Costs ($)
2011 547,476 37,448,760 35,018,526 37,455,227
2012 537,986 39,149,279 36,880,197 36,278,168
2013 544,340 34,550,709  29,020,574 27,689,893
2014 565,518 36,768,008 33,012,132 38,384,323
2015 590,029 37,073,038 37,073,038 40,538,526
2016 605,020 34,000,000 35,000,000 42,622,904
2017 621,464  38,000,000 44,000,000 52,526,535
2018 640,108*  44,000,000 52,000,000  tbd
2019 659,311*  48,000,000 tbd
…It’s no secret that renewable energy is flooding the Texas power market and depressing prices, especially during off-peak, off-season periods. ERCOT regularly reports real-time energy prices so the information was there for the City and everyone else to see. Power contracts and federal subsidies further encourage drops as wind and solar resources become immune to market signals and can afford to generate even when prices go negative.

Windy Kansas county LOSING $ with turbines

Screen Shot 2018-05-16 at 4.19.20 PM

This is remarkable…not that the turbines are worthless, but that this information is PUBLIC. BigWind usually prevents such data, regarding their industrial sites, from becoming easily found. Thank you, Kansas commissioners, for sharing your story. What we also find remarkable, is that according to the NOAA wind map, Kansas has MORE wind than Ohio. Why, then, does BigWind want to spread across our Buckeye state? The reality is that BigWind has nothing to do with wind, but everything to do with the mighty $$$….

If you live in Riley County, the wind turbines, that are meant to bring you savings are actually costing you more tax dollars than county officials would like….

The grants that were paying for the turbines and their up keep have expired and now any work that needs to be done to the turbines, will strictly come out of Riley County residents wallets…

The turbines have been in Manhattan since 2011 and have a life span of about 20 years.

The biggest of the turbines is the only one that’s actually providing any savings, but in reality is really only breaking even when you take into account the repair and up keep costs….

“The big wind turbine that we have is very sensitive to lightning strikes, so every time we get a thunder storm, it tends to stop running,” Public Works Director Leon Hobson said…

Estimated cost of removal for just one of the turbines is about $20,000 just to take the head off the tower. It does all depend on the size of the turbine to determine a cost. Commissioners are trying to decide if the costly removal will be worth the tax payers savings in the long run. ..

 

Kansas failed turbines

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

Are you willing to pay more taxes to support BigWind? See what MIT thinks

I don’t know about you, but I think I pay enough in taxes. Particularly, when I read the ’50 examples of government waste’ by the Heritage Foundation. Enough is enough. MIT has a tremendous reputation of graduating and recruiting some of the brightest minds in America. It is no surprise, then, that they have confirmed what so many of us have been screaming for years.  Now, if you live in Ohio, know that BigWind is pushing our legislature to reduce our wind turbine setbacks, so they can plant MORE turbines across our state!! What happens if the rug is pulled out from under this renewable technology? What will happen to the structures that will dot our landscape? They will deteriorate and then become dangerous, as maintenance will be cost-prohibitive. Who is then at risk? Everyone below…

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have confirmed what many in the energy world already knew: Without government support or high taxes, green energy will never be able to compete with conventional, more reliable power plants.

The study, announced by MIT’s News Office Wednesday, determined that conventional energy would be consistently less expensive than green energy over the next 10 years. The study concludes that the government could make green energy competitive by offering enormous amounts of taxpayer support.

The study confirms that green energy can only work when energy prices are extremely high and require government support. Projections from the International Energy Agency estimate that developing wind and solar power enough to substantially impact global warming could cost up to $16.5 trillion by 2030….

The MIT study also noted that solar and wind power are more than twice as expensive as natural gas, and tax on carbon dioxide emissions could increase electricity prices enough for green sources to compete. Even environmental groups such as The Sierra Club worry increasingly cheap energy will make the case for green power weaker.

“Wind and solar can’t compete with conventional sources on their own merits,” Chris Warren, a spokesperson for the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “That’s why the national environmental lobby and their allies are peddling the idea of a carbon tax. They want to punish the use of natural gas, oil and, coal to make their preferred sources appear more profitable. In practice, a carbon tax would have a devastating impact on American families already struggling in the Obama economy–hurting the poor and middle class the most.”

Critics have said carbon taxation disproportionately harms the poorest members of society….

 

Source: MIT: Green Energy Can’t Work Unless You Tax Everything Via @dailycaller

Clean Energy’s Dirty Secrets and Hidden Costs to USA!

Are you confused as to why renewables can COST us $? And how can anyone say that they DON’T reduce our carbon emissions? Read below, and you will find excellent analyses of why they do NOT belong on our grid and how they will cost all of us in our pocketbook.  Thank you Governor Kasich and our legislators for passing SB 310 to ‘freeze’ our renewable mandates while their effects are studied!…

…In May of this year, President Obama declared the shift to clean energy a “fight” that was about shaping the sector “that is probably going to have more to do with how well our economy succeeds than just about any other.” At least on that, the president was right. If we get energy wrong, America will throw away the world-leading energy advantages bestowed on it by geology, technology, and capitalism….

Presenting the administration’s Clean Power Plan, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy admitted it was not about pollution control. “It’s about investments inrenewables and clean energy,” she told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in July. “This is an investment strategy.” The president’s favorite corporate-tax inverter has a different take on the nature of the investment opportunity. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms,” Warren Buffett told Berkshire Hathaway’s investors. “That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” While wind investors hoover up the $23 production tax credit per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced, the real costs of intermittent renewables such as wind and solar are many times greater. And they’re not even good at what they’re meant to do — reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Deriving a large proportion of energy from renewables is proving extremely costly for Germany…Despite lower economic growth in Germany than in the U.S., German emissions have been rising seven times faster — up 9.3 percent between 2009 and 2013 compared with 1.3 percent for the United States….

The closure of a nuclear-power station shows that something is amiss. Nuclear-power stations emit no carbon dioxide. Their running costs are low and much of the costs are unavoidable whether the stations are kept open or closed — construction and commissioning at the front-end, de-commissioning at the back. Since 2008, the output of America’s nuclear-power stations has fallen by 0.480 billion MWh, a decline of 6 percent. In a properly functioning market, this shouldn’t be happening….

To the life-cycle cost of renewables must be added short-term balancing and longer-term-capacity adequacy to match supply to demand. Because renewables output depends on the weather, an electricity system with a high proportion of renewables needs much more generating capacity. Without renewables, Britain would need 22GW of new capacity to replace aging coal and nuclear-power stations. With renewables, Britain will need 50GW, i.e., 28 GW extra to deal with the intermittency problem. And the more renewables in the system, the worse the problem is…

Levelized costs also ignore extra spending on grid infrastructure. Texas is the leading wind state, accounting for nearly 22 percent of the nation’s wind-generated electricity.  Transmitting electricity from wind farms in the rural north and west of the state to cities such as Dallas and Houston caused grid congestion. The state decided to have consumers back the inaptly named Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) grid program to give wind investors a windfall subsidy in the form of access to nearly 3,600 miles of transmission lines. Subsidies via grid infrastructure spending can be more costly than overt plant-level subsidies. Bill Peacock and Josiah Neeley of the Texas Public Policy Foundation reckon that CREZ costs attributable to wind amount to $6.8 billion. This compares to plant-level subsidies of $4.14 billion in the ten years between 2005 and 2015.

Perhaps the dirtiest secret of renewables is how ineffective they are at displacing carbon dioxide emissions. Brookings senior fellow Charles Frank has calculated that replacing coal with modern combined-cycle gas turbines cuts 2.6 times more emissions than using wind does, and cuts four times as many emissions as solar.  If anything, these figures are likely to be too generous to renewables…

The most insidious and destructive effect of renewables, however, is on the wholesale electricity markets. Intermittent renewables, particularly wind, can flood the market at random times of day with zero marginal-cost electricity. The production tax credit means that renewable investors make money from negative prices down to minus $23 per MWh. Episodes of negative prices are evidence of an electricity market that isn’t working. They imply that what is being produced is garbage — someone has to be paid to take the electricity away.

Negative prices crush incentives to invest in the conventional capacity needed to keep the power on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. The OECD report warns that gas, coal, and nuclear-power stations would experience lower electricity prices, reduced load factors, and higher costs because of intermittent renewables. To avoid the risk of “green outs” caused by inadequate investment in conventional and nuclear capacity, governments and regulators have to intervene and construct capacity markets to redress the distortion created by renewables. These don’t come cheap. In the case of Texas, the Brattle Group estimates that a capacity market would cost Texans an extra $3.2 billion a year….

Across the Atlantic, the calamity of renewable energy is becoming more visible each day. It will not be only good economists who see that imitating Europe would be a colossal blunder….

via Clean Energy’s Dirty Secrets | National Review Online.

Is BigWind using group to ‘investigate’ Gov.Kasich for signing SB310?

Screen Shot 2014-07-23 at 9.51.06 AM

 

 

BigWind just won’t let this decision go and they are working every angle possible to change the outcome of Gov. Kasich’s energy bills. The comment, below, makes us believe that Mr. Tom Stacy is Ohio’s Superman. Let’s keep the Kryptonite away from him!

Gov. John Kasich has signed a measure that freezes Ohio’s popular renewable-energy standards. Although the freeze attracted most of the attention, the new law also calls for a two-year study of the standards impact on the state.

While the General Assembly conducts this review, the process that led Gov. Kasich to suspend the standards deserves scrutiny as well. That’s why I have filed a request for information about communication Mr. Kasich and his senior staff may have had with fossil-fuel interests before he decided to repeal clean-energy expansion in Ohio.

My organization, a government watchdog group called the Checks and Balances Project, seeks documentation of written and email communications from the governor and his staff to representatives of Koch Industries Inc., and the lobbying organizations they are known to support financially, as well as communicatons between the governor’s office and Ohio’s investor-owned utilities…

 

Comment from Tom Stacy, an Ohioan for affordable electricity:

The author states: “Ohioans deserve and honest accounting of what freezing the clean-energy and energy-efficiancy standards will mean to the state.” This is one statement where we agree. And this is why the members of the study committee that SB310 creates will be inundated with tons of information from all sides.

Unfortunately, much of that information will come from parties with a vested interest in skewing the reality by providing only some of the facts.  That is not where I and those I work with are coming from.  We are neither utility-centric, perfect-planet centric nor politically motivated.  Like the author’s group claims to be, we are seeking openness and truth and a complete picture that the American and Ohio public (taxpayers, electricity ratepayers, air breathers and water drinkers) can rely on.  But unlike the “Checks and Balances Project” (nice official sounding name, by the way), we do not try to magnify the trivial in the minds of the public by claiming things like a $12,000 political donation from David Koch could change the law.

We concentrate on the meaningful things like the cost per unit of net environmental improvement differnt electricity choices offer, how intermittent generators cause the utilization rates and patterns of dependable generators to become less efficient, and teaching the public that if we don’t use the power plants we have already built for as long as possible, higher electricity costs will drive jobs and manufacturing offshore to places where electricity is cheaper and dirtier.  There is no legislating around that, and since we already have a cleaner electricity system than other growing manufacturing economies like China and India, we are all better off keeping electricity costs as low as possible here.  It’s cleaner than leaking electricity use to dirtier nations, and better for our economy by reducing unemployment, increasing tax revenues, lowering national debt, improving our trade balance, etc.

Don’t be fooled by the political rants of Peterson and others.  Stick to those who analyze complex situations without the political baggage.  But if a FOIA needs to be brought to your attention to shed light on why certain people tell certain frantic stories like the one in the op-ed above, perhaps you should ask Mr. Peterson if his group has received donations anyone affiliated with the wind energy industry.

via: ToledoBlade.com 7/23/14 ‘On Energy Bill, Kasich owes Ohioans an explanation’ by Scott Peterson (sorry, problems providing you with the link)

 

%d bloggers like this: