Taxpayer handouts to BigWind = good or bad? Let’s review…

Screen Shot 2018-11-13 at 7.47.21 AM

Do we, the USA taxpayers, benefit by supporting BigWind with massive subsidies? Well, you know our opinion, but look at what these experts from Texas say…TEACH your neighbors and friends. The argument against BigWind cannot not be won by merely c/o sound, noise,flicker etc.  The biggest argument should be about the finances. It is the finances that keep them coming back for more acreage!!!…..

Wind energy is a $14 billion industry made up of wind facilities, turbine manufacturers, and financiers. While the industry grew over the past few decades, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its corporate members pushed for new and continued subsidies that would en- able large energy corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

This study investigates the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the corporate beneficiaries of billions of taxpayer dollars. The PTC is a federal subsidy for the commercial production of wind energy that provides a $24 tax credit for each megawatt- hour of energy sold. It is scheduled to phase out and expire at the end of 2019.

This report finds:

  • The PTC costs taxpayers billions of dollars in revenue. In 2017 the PTC cost $4.2 billion. The PTC will cost at least an additional $48 billion before it fully phases out as currently scheduled.
  • The PTC is a subsidy that benefits a few energy corporations. Only 15 parent companies account for more than three-fourths of all PTC eligibility—more than $19 billion in 10 years (2007-2016).
  • The PTC distorts electricity markets. The PTC encourages wind energy producers to accept negative prices. The negative prices in- crease costs for other energy producers and electricity suppliers.
  • The PTC operates within a web of wind energy incentives that increase costs to taxpayers, further distort electricity markets, and benefit large corporations.
  • Providing subsidies for wind energy benefits large corporations while distorting electricity markets. To further simplify the tax code, federal legislators should resist calls to renew the PTC and instead allow it to fully expire at the end of 2019.

Link to full publication

Advertisements

Midwest BigWind energy IS TOO expensive for company to purchase

Screen Shot 2018-08-23 at 7.55.06 AM

You won’t hear about this in the mainstream media. We have blogged for years, that BigWind energy is TOO expensive to ever be a sustainable energy source.  Here is ‘quiet proof’.  Duke Energy has been an avid proponent of BigWind, but they have now ‘quietly abandoned’ plans to actually purchase it…..kuddos to Duke Energy for NOT passing these rate increases on to their ratepayers!!!…..

Duke Energy Carolinas has quietly abandoned plans for purchasing up to 500 megawatts worth of wind power capacity for the Carolinas by 2022 after finding the initial bids from producers “not economically attractive.”

Eleven months ago, Duke issued a request for proposals on wind power, expected to come from outside of North Carolina. It proposed offering power-purchase agreements of up to 20 years to buy wind power from projects, likely in the Midwest, that could be brought into the state.

“As we looked at the proposals, they were not economically attractive enough to go forward,” says Duke spokesman Randy Wheeless….

Duke Energy article

NW Ohio, eyed for ‘wind corridor’, may now change map

Due to the POOR wind in Ohio, per the National Renewable Energy Lab, Representative Brown must surely be including OTHER STATES in his ‘wind corridor’?! All the Ohio turbines produce energy a mere 30% of the time, and we know from our previous post, this intermittent energy is EXPENSIVE and not necessary.  Is someone padding the pockets of these legislators? Why would they want to INcrease our electricity rates? Why would they want to HURT our businesses and, eventually, our job security? Why would they want to take away our property rights???????

State lawmakers are considering a bill that would create an Ohio Wind Corridor encompassing much of the northwestern portion of the state that could be spared from property setback restrictions the industry contends make new large-scale wind farms impractical.

“This is the area that has the most consistent wind patterns to allow [the wind industry] to make investment with a reasonable return,” said Rep. Tim Brown (R., Bowling Green), who is sponsoring House Bill 190 with Rep. Tony Burkley (R., Payne).

Mr. Brown said he’s open to adding other geographic territory to the corridor.

The language was inserted in House Bill 190 last week as a possible way for the region to get around restrictions enacted in 2014 that require newly installed wind turbines to be located at least 1,300 feet from the nearest property line. Prior law required the extended tip of a turbine to be at least 1,125 from the nearest home….

The bill would allow the Ohio Power Siting Board to develop alternative minimum setback restrictions within the northwest wind corridor that, Mr. Brown said, could be geographic or project specific. As introduced, the bill would have given counties the option of imposing the old setback requirement instead of the more restrictive one…
The bill is pending before the House Public Utilities Committee but is not expected to move before lawmakers recess as early as next week for the summer…

In testimony submitted last week, Julia F. Johnston of Urbana told the committee that the impact of wind farms, particularly in mechanical accidents, can stretch well into neighbors’ property.

“Not every location is a good place for wind development,” she said. “Most wind developers are not in the energy business but are private equity investors looking for a handsome return subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers.

“H.B. 190 would now add Ohio families living in the Wind Corridor as subsidy providers where they would be forced to donate their land if setbacks are not measured from property lines,” Ms. Johnston said. “We call this ‘trespass zoning.’…”
Source: NW Ohio eyed for creation of ‘wind corridor’

BigWind is NOT Cheaper than Coal: Obama ignores facts

Share this everywhere and educate others!!!….

Wind advocates frequently argue that wind power has competitive prices. Recently, PolitiFact even granted a rating of “True”—its highest rating—to President Obama’s claim that “in Texas, wind power is already cheaper than dirty fossil fuels.” Let’s ignore for a moment that the word “dirty” could be ascribed to nearly any industrial process, including the process used to mine materials for and manufacture wind turbines. On the question of wind power being cheaper than coal, Obama’s statement could easily have received a rating of “mostly false” under Politifact’s rating system because, as Politifact defines that rating, “[t]he statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

Obama’s statement and Politifact’s ruling both ignore three critical facts that would give a different impression:

1.) the cost of unreliable (intermittent) sources of electricity like wind cannot be compared directly against the cost of reliable sources like coal (also called “dispatchable” sources by industry insiders),

2.) intermittent wind power actually imposes costs on dispatchable sources by robbing them of production without replacing their generating capacity (which is critically important to grid reliability), and

3.) the evidence shows that the all-in cost of wind power, including the costs imposed on reliable power plants—as opposed to subsidized prices wind producers receive—is significantly higher than the cost of electricity from existing nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, and natural gas plants.

In short, the idea that wind power is cheaper than coal power falls somewhere between a meaningless statement and a myth.

Intermittent Resources Like Wind Are a Separate, Lower Class of Electricity Generation

Wind turbines only generate electricity when the wind is blowing, and it is a fact of life that the wind is an inherently unreliable source of energy. Wind power’s intermittency is a well-known limitation and a significant drawback, especially because the large-scale battery storage required to make wind a reliable resource isn’t commercially viable.

Nevertheless, wind advocates breeze through the fundamental problems of intermittent, unreliable energy and attempt to sell the idea of a wind-fueled future on the fiction that wind power can compete head-to-head with reliable sources of power like coal, nuclear power, or natural gas. In fact, the Politifact piece specifically mentions the argument that “wind-generated electricity can’t (or shouldn’t) be price-compared to electricity generated by fossil fuels or nuclear sources.” However, it appears that critical point did not sway Politifact, given the “true” rating it assigned Obama’s comment. We should note that the argument was put forth by the co-author of a groundbreaking IER study on the cost of electricity, Tom Stacy, who was involved in a lengthy email conversation with the Politifact author attempting to convince him such a comparison (of wind to coal) is bogus.

IER is not alone on this point. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)—a fair referee in this arena—has issued the same warning for years. EIA actually separates dispatchable and non-dispatchable resources in its LCOE calculations and warns that “caution should be used when comparing them to one another.” In essence, dispatchable plants “whose output can be varied to follow demand” (e.g., coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc.) are more valuable than wind turbines “whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource.”[1]

Because wind cannot dispatch power in response to demand, the electricity it produces is less valuable, and its cost should not be compared directly against dispatchable resources like coal, nuclear power, or natural gas without serious caveats or significant adjustments to factor in the cost of battery storage.

Wind Power Imposes Costs on Reliable Power Plants

Last year, IER released a report on the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from existing generation resources, a first-ever look at the LCOE of the existing sources on the grid as opposed to new resources. Crucially, the report also introduced the concept of the “imposed costs” created by intermittent resources. The report went one step further and estimated those costs under modeled scenarios to find that one megawatt-hour of wind production imposes a cost of $29 on dispatchable generation from natural gas plants.

The concept of imposed costs is not intuitive, so here’s an example. Suppose a power grid consists of only combined cycle natural gas plants that are allowed to operate freely and satisfy the second-by-second electricity demand on the system. Then, even though the system has enough dispatchable capacity from the natural gas fleet to meet demand, we decide to introduce new, intermittent power from wind turbines.

The natural gas fleet is still needed for those frequent times when wind output is low or zero,[2] but it has to back down to accommodate the intermittent wind generation. In other words, its production is crowded out by the intermittent wind generation. Lower production from the same capital-intense facility is the source of “imposed costs”—wind generation significantly raises the LCOE of the dispatchable resources on the system. By decreasing a reliable power plant’s run time without also reducing its fixed costs, wind power makes it more expensive to generate electricity from existing and new dispatchable resources. [3]

The phenomenon is shown graphically below. New wind production causes the natural gas fleet’s capacity factor to drop from 87 percent to below 60 percent. The imposed cost of wind power in this scenario is nearly $30/MWh, a cost that should be attributed to wind.

LCOE Chart 2
Source: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ier_lcoe_2015.pdf

Analysis of the Full Levelized Cost of Electricity Shows Wind is Not Cheap

The summary table of our LCOE report shows that, when the imposed costs of intermittent resources are taken into account, the LCOE of wind is not competitive with other new sources—especially combined cycle natural gas—and is nowhere near competitive with existing coal, nuclear, hydro, and natural gas resources.

LCOE-Chart
Source: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/wind-lobbyists-critique-of-ier-study-fails-on-all-fronts/

By accounting for imposed costs and adding them to the LCOE for wind power, IER’s report allows for more accurate comparisons between dispatchable and non-dispatchable sources.[4] Under a true apples-to-apples comparison, new wind resources are nearly three times more expensive than existing coal resources.

The article also overemphasizes the importance of wholesale prices for wind power. Wholesale prices don’t take into account the lifetime costs of building and operating a generation resource, nor do they factor in the multiple subsidies that wind producers receive (e.g., federal wind PTC, accelerated depreciation rules, federal loan guarantees, Renewable Energy Certificates, state and local utility property tax rebates).

Conclusion

PolitiFact’s assessment of wind power’s affordability ignores critical facts that would give readers a different impression. By its own standards, we rate Politifact’s conclusion regarding Obama’s statement “mostly false.”…

Source: News Flash: Wind Power is Not Cheaper than Coal – IER

15 Problems that occur when BigWind enters your neighborhood

Be sure to read through all 15. As you just read in our prior post, BigWind is ready to attack Ohio, again. You need to know what comes with it and educate your neighbors and friends. It is also important to let your local, county and state legislators know how you feel!…

…New York State Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, claims that President Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan is making a difference here in New York State. It certainly is, but negatively so! Rural communities in New York …

1.) Wyoming County taxes have risen yearly over the past 12 years (concurrent with the proliferation of wind factories in the County) – up another 9.68% this year.

2.) Wind factories are NOT paying their fair share of taxes, but instead “shift the burden of taxation on to local residents and small businesses.”

3.) Real Estate 101: LOCATION! LOCATION! LOCATION! Property values are significantly negatively-impacted. Many homes are selling below assessed value, if they sell at all. [Three more properties in the area of the Wyoming County wind factories went to auction this week (11/7/15).]

4.) The Town of Eagle, which has a wind project, was reassessed to what they were told was 100% just last year (2014), and had their assessments jacked up another 40% again this year (2015).

5.) Few – if any, meaningful permanent jobs were created here (maybe a few dead bird/bat picker-uppers). Western and Upstate New York continue to hemorrhage jobs as high taxes and electric rates continue to drive business, industry and people out of the state.

6.) The population of Wyoming County has decreased by another 2.2% since 2010 as people continue to flee the area.

7.) Nobody is getting “free” or reduced rate electricity here. In fact, New York State electricity rates continue to “skyrocket” as $Billions more of our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars are thrown into the wind.

According to NYSERDA, the average NYS residential electricity rate in 1999 was 13.3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). The first wind factories went up in New York State in 2000 (Wethersfield & Madison). 20 wind factories later, and the average residential electricity rate in NYS as of February, 2015, is now 19.8 cents per kWh (according to the EIA, as cited by NYSERDA) – one of the highest rates in the nation, and nearly a 50% increase since New York State began mindlessly plastering the NYS countryside with redundant generation of industrial wind factories.

The actual output of New York State wind factories has been averaging a pathetic 24% Capacity Factor – many days providing nothing at all.

Noteworthy: New York State was already getting nearly 50% of its electricity from emissions-free sources back in 2000 – 29% from nuclear, 19% from hydro, and about 1% from all other renewable sources. Fifteen years later, with countless $Billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars thrown into the wind, and the breakdown is now: 30% from nuclear, 23% from hydro, and approximately 3% from all other renewables (wood, biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.). Natural gas is now providing the largest percentage of NYS electricity generation (approximately 40%), while coal is approximately 2% of electric generation in NY.

8.) The only thing that has been reliably generated by industrial wind is complete and utter civil discord. Community relations have been ruined. People who used to be friends no longer speak. Even families have been divided.

9.) Habitat Fragmentation associated with the miles and miles of industrial sprawl, access roads associated with wind factories, and added transmission lines that must be run from remote locations to New York City (where the power is needed), has forever destroyed “the sense of place” Wyoming County (and much of rural New York) was famous for, and is cited as one of the main reasons for species decline worldwide.

10.) Negative impacts from wind turbine-related ‘infrasound’ have been documented worldwide. In fact, New York State officials acknowledged they knew about the problems associated with ‘infrasound’ back in 2009. Yet, Governor Cuomo and Attorney General Schneiderman – the very NYS officials charged with protecting our health, safety and welfare, have neglected to require any health studies to assure the protection of New York State citizens, while continuing to allow ludicrous placement of these giant machines only hundreds of feet from peoples’ homes.

11.) Lawsuits persist.

12.) Radar systems are severely impacted, thus impacting Homeland Security. Since it wasn’t in Invenergy’s contract to cover it, Wyoming County residents are stuck paying an untold amount for a new Emergency Communications tower after the one we had no longer works adequately following the construction of Invenergy’s Orangeville wind factory in 2013 (Another county-wide impact, as the new tower sits unfinished).

13.) The “flicker”/strobe effect created when the sun is behind the turbines, and the blinking red lights at night drive some crazy. The light pollution now corrupting our night sky looks like a cheap blinking Christmas tree spread out for miles.

14.) Since the diffuse energy of wind cannot replace reliable, dispatchable, baseload generation sources, all of the environmental, economic and civil devastation has been for naught. Thus, consumers pay for the redundancy of wind, and for all the transmission lines that must be added to run across New York State to New York City (where the power is needed in New York State).

15.) It remains to be seen who will take these giant fans down once they are defunct. According to a prominent wind industry attorney, should the corporations abandon a project – whatever the reason, “The landowner will be liable.”

It’s long past time that we STOP the decimation of rural America for the destructive NON-SOLUTION of industrial wind energy.

Source: Wind Power Destruction in New York State: ‘Clean’ Power Plan Problem – Master Resource

Will Ohio rollback BigWind’s mandates???????

The Ohio House Public Utilities Committee was greeted by fifty witnesses wishing to testify on Am. Sub. S. B. 310 yesterday.  The group was a mixture of both supporters and opponents and only a small number were able to be heard.  Many were asked to hold over until next week.  Among those who were not heard were the wind developers.  Copies of all testimony submitted can be obtained on the Committee website at http://www.ohiohouse.gov/committee/public-utilities.  

Iberdrola rests its support for the renewable mandate on climate change and the idea that the fuel   – wind – is free. Iberdrola objects to how renewables are characterized:   “The Energy Mandate Study Committee’s foregone conclusion is telegraphed in the legislation that creates the committee and uses terms like unreliable, unaffordable and unrealistic.” Ominously, Iberdrola warns that “If you proceed with passage of SB 310, you are jeopardizing the viability of two additional investments in Ohio we are planning that would total about 250 MWs of generation capacity…”   These two unannounced projects are in addition to Blue Creek Dog Creek and Leipsic Wind.  We have no idea where the two new projects are targeted to be.

EDPR, developer of Timber Road in Paulding County, testified that project was the “direct result” of the mandate. Like Iberdrola, EDPR has unknown projects of 400 MW’s in the very early stages of planning.  Where?

Everpower’s Michael Speerscheider gives testimony  indicating his belief that tax abatement through the PILOT is a foregone conclusion because he states the amount the company will be paying for Buckeye I, Buckeye II and Scioto Ridge.  Everpower acknowledges “The investments that EverPower has made in the state have been made possible by the policies that the Ohio General Assembly put in place.”   (That policy is an unconstitutional mandate to build in-state renewable energy.)  Speerschneider cites numerous industry sponsored research papers to support the notion that renewables do not increase costs and that the subsidies they receive are far less than what other companies receive.   In saying this, Everpower tries to equate tax credits and tax abatement with oil depletion allowances or investment tax credits available to any company as part of the tax code.  This is a phony argument but, remarkably, he goes on to say “Denouncing wind energy because it relies on some level of government incentives is intellectually and ideologically dishonest.”

While not testifying, the American Wind Energy Association’s  (AWEA) lobbyist Dayna Baird filed a comment on yesterday’s story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer saying: “ First, AWEA is supportive of a compromise amendment to SB 310 that makes significant changes to the renewable energy standards .”    We do not know what the proposed “compromise” amendment might be but we are pretty sure it would eliminate the two-year freeze on the mandate while the Committee undertakes its review of Ohio’s mandates.

 Amidst all of the cheerleading for why the energy efficiency and renewable mandates are good for Ohioans and good for business, the annual survey of 500 Chief Executives was announced showing that Ohio has dropped five spots to number 26 as the best place in America to do business.  Regulations and taxes put us in the bottom half of the country with places like New York and California while our neighbor Indiana, with no energy mandates, was rated 6th best in the country.  Hmmmmmm…..

Twenty-nine states and the District of Colombia have passed renewable energy mandates that require consumers and businesses to consume minimum amounts of wind, solar, and other green energy. A handful of states have also enacted laws that require states to reduce their total energy consumption. These mandates have increased energy prices, causing many legislatures to reexamine their value.

While legislative efforts began and stalled in a handful of Republican states like North Carolina and Kansas, Ohio is positioning itself to be the first state to rollback its mandate, known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS, and energy reduction program. As is generally the case, the mandate begins small and relatively painless but quickly ramps up, requiring utilities to use more and more renewable energy….

A study by the Manhattan Institute’s Robert Brycerevealed that, “in 2010, the average price of residential electricity in RPS states was 31.9 percent higher than it was in non-RPS states. Commercial electricity rates were 27.4 percent higher, and industrial rates were 30.7 percent higher.” Indeed, “in the ten-year period between 2001 and 2010—the period during which most of the states enacted their RPS mandates—residential and commercial electricity prices in RPS states increased at faster rates than those in non-RPS states.”…

Since Ohio is part of the multi-state PJM power market, any reduced energy prices resulting from reduced energy usage are spread throughout the entire PJM system while being financed entirely by Ohio ratepayers. Dr. Jonathan Lesser quantifies it this way:

80% of the price suppression “benefits,” to the extent they might exist, flow to customers outside Ohio and customers of Ohio municipal utilities and cooperatives, which are exempt from the electricity usage reduction mandate and the mandate tax. Thus, 80% of the alleged benefits accrue to “free riders” who do not pay for those benefits.

If left unchanged, the Ohio energy reduction mandate has actually created a situation where residential consumers could pay close to $4.00 extra per month for a retail reduction benefit of only $0.37 cents per month, according to Dr. Lesser….

via Ohio Moves to Rollback Costly Green Energy Mandates – Forbes.

How can ‘green’ = poverty?

specc.ie/1i49AHW

How can ‘green’ = poverty? The wind is free! The sun is free! True, those ‘fuels’ are free, but their conversion into electricity is extremely expensive- and, ironically, requires the use of fossil fuels for manufacturing. Changes in the world’s carbon emissions are negligible, yet, the world economies have spent HUNDREDS of BILLIONS installing wind turbines all over the planet. If you believe we can ‘save the planet’ with renewable energy, how can you justify the results on humans? This is not the 1st article covering the poverty caused by renewable subsidies. Last year, “To eat or heat” was a study about rising costs in Germany. Everywhere there are thousands of subsidized turbines, you have higher electricity rates. At some point, you need to ask some questions: What does this do to an average family’s budget? What impact could it have on their eating habits? What impact could it have on their health? How will this impact the business that employs average families? Will these businesses be able to support their employees with same wages or reduced? How will it impact their growth potential? How will it impact their cost to produce? The list goes on….and the answers aren’t good.

Britain’s environmentalists proudly announce that households have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10 per cent since 2005.They seldom mention that this is helped by a 50 per cent increase in electricity prices, in part to pay for Britain increasing its share of renewables from 1.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent. Such a price increase of course hits the poorest hardest. As with many green taxes, it does so because it taxes a basic necessity that makes up a larger proportion of a small budget. Not surprisingly, higher energy prices mean the poor are forced to reduce their electricity consumption far more than the richest, who haven’t reduced their electricity consumption at all.

Over the past five years, heating a home in the UK has become 63 per cent more expensive, while real wages have declined. Unsurprisingly, a greater number of poor households must spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy, becoming what is known as energy poor. This category now covers some 17 per cent of all British households. Worse, because the elderly are typically poorer, energy poverty affects about a quarter of all households whose inhabitants are over 60. Deprived pensioners are spending their days riding heated buses to keep warm, while a third are leaving part of their homes cold….

But things could be worse. In Germany green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year. Real household electricity prices have increased by 80 per cent since 2000, contributing to almost seven million households now living in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria might feel good about installing inefficient solar panels on their roofs, but their lavish subsidies are essentially financed by poor tenants in the Ruhr paying higher electricity costs….

The rich world generates just 0.8 per cent of its energy from solar and wind, far from meeting even minimal demand. In fact, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants over the next two years to keep its own lights on.

Africa is the renewable utopia, getting 50 per cent of its energy from renewables — though nobody wants to emulate it. In 1971, China derived 40 per cent of its energy from renewables. Since then, it has powered its incredible growth almost exclusively on heavily polluting coal, lifting a historic 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from unreliable wind and solar….

via How green policies hurt the poor » The Spectator.

%d bloggers like this: