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

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

BigWind LOVES Tax Day in America!

Fed subsidies to BigWind13

 

The wind industry often peddles the false claim that conventional energy sources like natural gas, coal, and nuclear receive more subsidies than wind power. Industry lobbyists at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) use this myth as a talking point to push for more subsidies, including the federal Production Tax Credit. In reality, the exact opposite is true—wind energy requires massive subsidies to compete with conventional fuels—and new data (once again) prove it.

Recently, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a new report on federal energy subsidies. An analysis of EIA’s data by the Institute for Energy Research found that despite the wind lobby’s claims, wind energy is by far the most heavily subsidized fuel source, receiving more subsidies to produce less energy than conventional fuels. Moreover, even the data AWEA cites to bolster its case shows that wind is a bad deal for taxpayers….

On Tax Day, Big Wind Gets A Windfall – American Energy Alliance.

Natural Gas Says to Wind Energy: You’re Nothing Without Me!

Many are misinformed and believe that BigWind can survive INdependent from fossil fuels. The reality has been stated by the largest wind turbine company in the USA, GE, “Energy generation from renewable sources like wind and solar have zero emissions and very low variable cost of generation. However, if flexible generation assets, such as gas turbines, are not available, these renewable technologies will NOT be deployed.  In other words, gas turbines are an essential component of renewable energy sources ability to penetrate the market”  https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/oira_2060/2060_07232013-1.pdf

…The idea here is that wind energy should be seen as a hedge against the possibility that natural gas prices could increase. It is basically an attempt to use the old “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” analogy. This is persuasive only when one ignores the fact that wind energy is 65 percent natural gas, which is precisely what the model does.

For those who understand that a dependable blend which includes wind energy must contain mostly natural gas, the analogy of “not putting all your eggs in one basket” used to promote the study is ludicrous.

“The operative word is ‘or,’” said Tom Stacy, an electricity generation analyst and independent regulatory and policy consultant who signs his correspondence “Ohioan for Afford Electricity.” He explains that the “eggs in one basket” warning doesn’t make sense. “There is no ‘or.’ It is either 100 percent gas or 65 percent gas plus 35 percent wind.”

“The catch,” he continued, “is that compared to the cost of the natural gas basket, consumers are forced to pay triple for baskets because the wind basket costs twice what the gas basket does, yet the gas basket is still required to hold 65 percent of the eggs.” He continued, “The end result: For our dozen eggs, we pay for three baskets when we could have paid for one. In exchange we get four free eggs. The problem is the extra baskets cost far more than the eggs.”

… At one point the study report reveals its imaginary basis with the following statement: “If we choose the natural gas path and natural gas prices rise, we may regret that we are stuck using expensive natural gas when we could have had free wind or solar fuel.”

Free wind? That phrase alone seems contrived to deceive the uninitiated and validate the green faithful. Again, since wind is so unreliable, wind energy has to be backed up by natural gas 65 percent of the time. Under that circumstance — obviously — the cost of wind energy will always largely reflect the price of natural gas. What’s more, the impact of any natural gas price change on wind energy is really more that 65 percent, because natural gas, when hooked up to wind energy, is put to a less efficient use. This is due to the requirement that it be constantly adjusted for when the wind is or is not blowing or not blowing enough. It is exactly the same dynamic that takes place with an automobile’s use of gasoline when driving in city traffic as compared to coasting down the open highway.

In the real “power pool,” wind is not physically paired with just natural gas; it is also paired with coal. The example used in this article gives wind the benefit of the doubt by only using natural gas, and not coal, as the balancing source in the hybrid. The average emissions intensity of coal plus wind is far higher than for gas plus wind. In other words, coal gets terrible “city mileage MPG” compared to natural gas and the pairing of wind with coal results in the excessive inefficiency of stop and go traffic.

The flawed and dishonest premise of the 5 Lakes Energy Study marks it as just the latest attempt by wind energy advocates to promote their product by masking wind energy’s true nature. Wind energy is a less than 30 percent add-on to natural gas. Its effect on emissions, as compared to just natural gas alone, is debatable and at best minimal. The failure of the study to acknowledge this spoils all of its conclusions and suggestions….

A glance at a list of 5 Lakes Energy principle founders reveals more than one official from the administration of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Michigan Capitol Confidential emailed the following questions to Douglas Jester, the author of the report on the study, and later to other 5 Lakes Energy officials. They were: Are you denying that wind energy is primarily fueled by natural gas? Why does your study appear to have not accounted for this reality? Is there something we are missing here that you should make us aware of?…

Natural Gas to Wind Energy: Youre Nothing Without Me [Michigan Capitol Confidential].

Jimmy Fallon Makes the Best Argument Against BigWind

Jimmy Fallon Makes the Worlds Best Argument Against Solar and Wind Energy

 

Jimmy Fallon Makes the Worlds Best Argument Against Solar and Wind Energy

BigWind is a parasite that requires a host….

But a few years ago, when he was host of Weekend Update, Fallon made one of the best arguments ever why solar, wind, and other forms of renewable energy work very, very badly….

“…in the future, cars could be powered by hazelnuts.  That’s encouraging, considering an 8 oz. jar of hazelnuts cost about $9.  Yeah.  I’ve got an idea for a car that runs on bald eagle heads and Faberge’ eggs.”

In other words: if your form of energy is UNAFFORDABLE, who cares it it’s based on the sun or works in a lab?…

The diluteness problem is that the sun and the wind don’t deliver concentrated energy—unlike coal or oil—which means you need a lot of materials per unit of energy produced….mFor wind, they can include high-performance compounds (like those used in the aircraft industry) for turbine blades and the rare-earth metal neodymium for lightweight, high performance magnets, as well as the steel and concrete necessary to build thousands or tens of thousands of structures as tall as skyscrapers.

Here’s a comparison of how steel (and iron) intensive it is to generate electricity from wind as compared with coal, nuclear, or natural gas….

The only way for solar and wind to be truly useful, reliable sources of energy would be to combine them with some form of extremely inexpensive mass-storage system. No such mass-storage system exists, because storing energy in a compact space itself takes a lot of resources. Which is why, in the entire world, there is not one real or proposed independent, freestanding solar or wind power plant. All of them require backup—except that “backup” implies that solar and wind work most of the time. It’s more accurate to say that solar and wind are parasites that require a host….

As you look at the jagged and woefully insufficient bursts of electricity from solar and wind, remember this: some reliable source of energy needed to do the heavy lifting. In the case of Germany, much of that energy is coal. As Germany has paid tens of billions of dollars to subsidize solar panels and windmills, fossil fuel capacity, especially coal, has not been shut down—it has increased.

Why? Because Germans need more energy, and they cannot rely on the renewables.

They might be better off relying on hazelnuts.

Jimmy Fallon Makes the Worlds Best Argument Against Solar and Wind Energy.

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)

 

Wind energy is anything BUT free

The truth speaks for itself below…

Various promoters maintain the cost of wind energy is competitive with other sources of energy. As shown below, this is not the case. The EIA calculates the levelized cost of NEW onshore wind turbine plants place in service in 2018, capacity factor 0.34, 30-yr life, at $86.6/MWh, including transmission of $3.2/MWh. NOTE: CFs of 0.34, and greater, are obtainable only in windy areas, such as west of Chicago, and offshore. Elsewhere, CFs are significantly less, based on published wind turbine production data from various areas in the world. See URL.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdfhttp://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated

Assuming a realistic 20-year life of a wind turbine increases the levelized cost to $93/MWh.  After backing out the effect of accelerated depreciation for wind turbine plants, the levelized cost increases to $101/MWh. Adding the cost of increased frequency of start/stop operation, AND keeping gas and coal plants available in cold standby or synchronous standby mode in case of too little wind to turn the rotors, i.e., about 7.5 mph, AND operating more hours in inefficient, part-load-ramping mode extra Btu/kWh, extra CO2/kWh to balance the variable wind energy, is $17/MWh for natural gas, $55/MWh for coal.  Extra balancing NG adds $6.00/MWh, extra balancing coal adds $9.00/MWh  Transmission system investments to get wind energy to the grid adds $27/MWh.  Thus, the total levelized cost of wind energy averages $151/MWh with NG back-up/balancing and $192/MWh with coal back-up/balancing.  

NOTE: Levelized costs are the net present value of the total cost of new construction including finance charges during and after construction, maintenance, and operation of a generating plant over its lifetime, expressed in dollars per unit of output, i.e. dollars/MWh. They are used to compare various generating sources to see which sources are the most cost-effective when constructing new plants. The source of the above data is the American Tradition Institute, The Hidden Costs of Wind Electricity, December 2012, http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Hidden-Cost.pdf

via Wind Energy and Examining Cost | The Energy Collective.