What is the True Cost of Electricity? More thanks to the EPA

This data substantiates what we have been saying for years. BigWind will make our electricity rates skyrocket, which destroys jobs, families, and our way of life.  Americans need to stand up to this administration, this EPA, and this liberal agenda before it is too late….and it is almost too late!!! What will the Ohio study mandate committee decide to do with our renewable portfolio standard? Let us hope they use common sense. 

Today, the Institute for Energy Research released a first-of-its-kind study calculating the levelized cost of electricity from existing generation sources. Our study shows that on average, electricity from new wind resources is nearly four times more expensive than from existing nuclear and nearly three times more expensive than from existing coal. These are dramatic increases in the cost of generating electricity. This means that the premature closures of existing plants will unavoidably increase electricity rates for American families….

The LCOE-E framework allows for cost comparisons that are relevant for today’s energy policymakers. For example, when all known costs are accurately included in the LCOE calculations, we find that existing coal ($38.4), nuclear ($29.6), and hydroelectric resources ($34.2) are about one-third of the cost of new wind resources ($112.8) on average. By increasing the transparency of the costs associated with policies favoring new resources over existing conventional resources, we hope to inform policymakers with the best available data and raise the level of the electricity policy debate….

What is the True Cost of Electricity? – IER.

Advertisements

Maui experiences power outage when the BigWinds stop blowing

This story will become commonplace as we put more industrial wind sites on our energy grid. Why? The wind does not blow at a constant rate. The output of an industrial wind turbine looks more like a polygraph test, with the line going up and down. Everytime the line drops down, we need traditional energy producers (coal,n.gas,nuclear,hydro) to make up that difference and this is where complexity exists. It is nearly impossible to allow for uninterupted energy supply when wind turbines are on/off/on/off.  Supposedly, this wind site utilizes batteries to store some of the excess load, but this technology is clearly flawed. Additionally, someone needs to tell them that batteries are anything BUT green for our environment. Would you like to live in a home where these ‘brownouts’ will become commonplace?  All of us will be, unless we can convince our legislators to wise up to the truth behind these machines….

The wind farm mills along Ulupalakua Ranch quit working for a while today. Maui Electric Company says  19,258 customers lost power today at 12:34 p.m. for about 20 minutes when the Auwahi Wind Farm tripped offline resulting in a sudden and severe loss of wind generation on Maui Electric’s system….

As a result, MECO was forced to “load shed” customers in order to protect and stabilize Maui’s electrical grid. Presumably that means shutting down as many customers as it takes to operate efficiently for as many customers as possible until the windmills were powering again….

Did The Lights Flicker For You, Too? – Maui’s Weekly Online and Television News Program.

Low wind speeds in 2015 cut BigWind production across USA

Wow, coupled with the fact that most BigWind sites produce less than 40% of their actual capacity, this is disasterous news. Does anyone think global warming could be to blame? 🙂

US: In the first quarter of 2015, wind speeds in California and Texas were the lowest in 47 years, according to weather monitoring firm Vaisala.

In January, nearly all states west of the Rocky Mountains, west US, saw wind speeds at least 20% below their long-term monthly average. Some areas experienced wind speeds nearly 50% below usual in January….

Project developer Pattern Energy said the low wind speeds meant it lost 5% of its annual expected production in the first quarter in the western US and Texas…

Low US wind speeds cut production | Windpower Monthly.

Ohio grid admits BigWind is expensive; Indiana commiss regrets saying YES to BigWind

It has been another busy week with BigWind in Ohio. On the “good news” front, the Ohio Mandate Study Committee convened on Wednesday to hear testimony from the grid operator, PJM.  Our friend Senator Seitz was brilliant in his questioning and extracted admissions that the transmission requirements and back-up needed to support wind made them very expensiveWithout significant, ongoing subsidy, wind cannot compete in the market.   The downstream consequences to the current reliable and affordable generation fleet were dire as well.  It was made very clear to all legislators that the PJM grid operator only counts 13% of wind’s nameplate capacity as viable while next door in Indiana, the MISO grid operator credits wind with only 2.7% of nameplate.  Senator Seitz suggested that MISO’s number may be more credible than PJM’s.  Meanwhile, we understand more clearly why President Obama has proposed that the Production Tax Credit for Wind be made permanent.

Speaking of subsidies, an organization called “Good Jobs First” released a report this week on Uncle Sam’s Favorite Corporations.   GJF is dedicated to educating the public on how much taxpayer money the federal government is handing out and to whom.   Their report totals up subsidies covering  137 programs in 11 federal Cabinet agencies from 2000 to the most recent records.  This is across all industries in the country. Greg LeRoy, the organization’s executive director, said in a news release that the data aimed to give transparency to which companies specifically are receiving federal assistance. “For more than 20 years, so-called corporate welfare has been debated widely with little awareness of which companies were receiving most of the federal assistance,” LeRoy said.    And who ame in first?   Spanish wind developer, Iberdrola has raked in over $2.2 billion in taxpayer funding!  Iberdrola was followed by five other wind companies that received more than $1 billion each.

From Indiana comes an open letter from a Tipton County Commissioner to Howard County Commissioners who are considering proposals for wind development.  This letter is a must read.  It is an ‘oh so familiar’ lament and we are seeing more of them all across America.  Former Commissioner Harper closes her letter with this message: “As an elected official/public servant. . . . . if you must go forward with approvals that allow wind farm development . . . and thus you become the reason a wind farm was built in Howard County. . .  it will be a decision you will regret the rest of your life. “    Please click the link and read this letter in its entirety…

I am writing to you all as a former commissioner colleague who aided in the negotiations and agreements with E.ON Climate Renewables with Tipton County in 2011.  From the onset, I was open to windfarm development in a small section of Tipton County because the commissioners had received no opposition and I felt that the landowners wanted it.  My own family was offered an opportunity to lease land to E.ON and we declined because my husband did not care to farm around the towers, and I just didn’t want to look at them.  I set my own personal views aside and made decisions based on what I felt the majority of the public wanted.  I was outspoken enough, however, to say that I would never support a plan to cover a large portion of the county with wind turbines.  As it turned out, the problem was that when the decisions were being made to build “Wildcat I”, the commissioners were not hearing from the “majority”.  People really did not know this was happening, or if they did, they did not perceive it to be as “invasive” as it was.  As you know, public notices are small and often overlooked in the newspaper, so not much resistance was present……………until the towers went up, and people saw how enormous and intrusive they were.  The red blinking lights even disturb my own summer evenings and my home is 6 miles from the closest tower….. !!!!…

In Tipton County……….my 83 year old mother is mad at me (since I signed the agreements) because she no longer has colorful birds coming to her feeders……..my brother’s view from his family dining room table used to be a vast expanse of crops and natural habitat…….now that pristine ‘vista’ is forever marred by giant metal structures………….neighbors hate each other…………back and forth letters to the editor have been selling papers for over a year now………….families are torn apart,,,,, and because the physical presence of the towers will be there for 30 years, these relationships will never be repaired.   In short. . . . this has become an issue that has divided our community like no other.   

It has torn our county apart.  The May, 2014 primary election is evidence that the majority of the voters supported candidates openly opposed to wind farm development and an incumbent commissioner was voted out of office due to his unwillingness to listen to the majority on any issue, including wind….

You can’t lose something you never had…………so you are not “losing” the supposed ‘windfall’ of money that the project purportedly brings in.   What you WILL lose however, cannot be measured in dollars.  You will lose the rural landscape as you know it and you will lose the closeness of “community spirit” because people will hate each other over this and the presence of the towers will always be a constant reminder of the rift…………thus the wounds will never heal….

Tipton County Indiana Commissioner voted for wind farms, now lives with regrets.

BigWind is subsidized >52x more than fossil fuels. Fair????

The next time someone tells you they support BigWind subsidies because fossil fuels receive them, too, remember this information. BigWind loves to tell the public that they only want what is fair- an equal opportunity. Is BigWind really being treated, equally? Is it fair when BigWind is being subsidized over 52 times more than the more conventional fossil fuels on a unit of production basis? It seems to us, that our tax dollars are subsidizing failure, not success, since BigWind produces less than 5% of our nation’s electricity…

At the request of Congress, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers for fiscal year 2013, updating a study that it did for fiscal year 2010.[i] Over a 3-year period, from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013, total federal electricity-related subsidies increased from $11.7 billion to $16.1 billion, an increase of 38 percent over the 3-year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in electricity-related renewable energy, which increased 54 percent over the 3-year period, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion. Fossil fuel subsidies declined by 15 percent, from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion. Total federal energy subsidies declined 23 percent, from $38 billion to $29 billion due to the expiration of tax incentives for biofuels, the depletion of stimulus funds, and a decrease in energy assistance funds

On a per dollar basis, government policies have led to solar generation being subsidized by over 345 times more than coal and oil and natural gas electricity production, and wind is being subsidized over 52 times more than the more conventional fossil fuels on a unit of production basis.

Over the 3-year period, electricity-related renewable subsidies increased, while conservation, end-use, and biofuels subsidies declined:

  • Renewable electricity-related subsidies increased by 54 percent from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion. Electricity-related renewables saw the largest increase in federal benefits. Of the $13.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, $8.6 billion (65 percent) was related to the Obama administration’s economic stimulus law.
  • Solar led the various renewables with almost a 5-fold increase in subsidy (both electricity-related and non-electricity related) from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion and led electricity sector subsidies on a unit of production basis.
  • Wind subsidies increased by 9 percent from $5.4 billion to $5.9 billion
  • Subsidies for biofuels declined by 74 percent, from $7 billion to $1.8 billion.
  • Conservation and end-use subsidies declined by half from $15.6 billion to $7.9 billion. Conservation subsidies declined from $7.1 billion to just under $2 billion (72 percent). End-use subsidies declined from $8.5 billion to just under $6 billion (30 percent).

Over the 3-year period, fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies declined:

  • Federal subsidies for coal declined by almost 3 percent from $1,116 million to $1,085 million.
  • Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas declined 20 percent from $2,918 million to $2,346 million.
  • Federal subsidies for nuclear energy declined 12 percent from $1,893 million to $1,660 million….

EIA Report: Subsidies Continue to Roll In For Wind and Solar – IER.

Devaluation of BigWind to hurt county coffers -share in Ohio!!

Share this article with Ohioans! This story will repeat across the USA, as industrial wind sites age, particularly where there is ‘poor’ wind resources. What about Ohio? Well, go to our home page and click on the picture at the bottom and you will see that we are a ‘poor’ wind resource state. Could this story repeat in Ohio in Van Wert? YES! In Huron, Champaign, Hardin counties? YES! The historical data for wind site performance in Ohio is poor, with sites producing approximately only 30% of the energy that they are capable of producing. Once the (tax) incentives are removed, these sites are no longer profittable and these companies will disappear. What will county governments do then? What will the farmers do then? Thank you, Ohio legislature and governor for ‘freezing’ our renewable energy mandates while such issues are reviewed!!!…

A sudden and dramatic drop in the value of Kern Countys massive wind energy farms will strip millions of dollars out of government coffers this fiscal year.

The Kern County Assessor-Recorder’s office has warned county officials that they expect to drop wind energy property value by $777 million less than three months into the fiscal year.

County budget officials estimate that will strip $1.8 million from the county’s main operational fund and $900,000 from taxes used to run the Kern County Fire Department.

Other governments — cities and schools and special districts — could also lose revenue….

Ansolabehere said the drop in wind energy values came for a number of reasons.

In the first year that a new wind energy project is active, he said, the operator gets a check from the federal government that covers 30 percent of its value.

That check doesn’t come in the second year.

So, Ansolabehere said, the value of a wind project often drops dramatically in the second year.

The other major reason valuations have dropped, he said, is that some projects are not producing energy at the level they were expected to…

But, on the whole, production is less than predicted.

via Devaluation of wind farms to hit government coffers – BakersfieldCalifornian.com.

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.