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

Advertisements

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 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

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.

BigWind’s hypocrisy= ‘like showing up at an AA meeting with booze on your breath”

Ouch! This is a zinger against the Windustry! Your decision to purchase an electric car doesn’t appear too wise, either. Thank you for these authors for taking their time to research and put together a tremendous amount of information about our various energy options and the costs to the future of our nation and our electric stability. The costs to implement the renewable aspirations of this administration are absolutely terrifying and not sustainable. China, the largest foreign holder of our debt, is aware of this and they are building Thorium reactors. Why shouldn’t we?…..

Four bottom lines up front:

  • It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana. Or:
  • It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia. Or:
  • We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles. Or:
  • We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel.

Whatever we decide, we need to make up our minds, and fast. Carbon fuels are killing us, and killing the planet as well. And good planets are hard to come by.

If you think you can run the country on wind and solar, more power to you.

It’s an attractive idea, but before you become married to it, you should cuddle up with a calculator and figure out exactly what the long-term relationship entails….

Wind and solar farms are gas plants.

Don’t take our word for it; listen to this guy instead, one of the most famous voices in the renewable energy movement:

“We need about 3,000 feet of altitude, we need flat land, we need 300 days of sunlight, and we need to be near a gas pipe. Because for all these big solar plants—whether it’s wind or solar—everybody is looking at gas as the supplementary fuel. The plants we’re building, the wind plants and the solar plants, are gas plants.” – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., board member of BrightSource, builders of the Ivanpah solar farm on the CA / NV border.

Large wind and solar farms are in the embarrassing position of having to use gas-fired generators to smooth out the erratic flow of their intermittent energy. It’s like showing up at an AA meeting with booze on your breath….

Let’s review.

We’ve been cuddled up with a calculator, thinking about whether to go with a 500 MW Light Water Reactor, or a 500 MW wind or solar farm.

So far, wind is weighing in at $26.7 Billion, CSP solar at $12.3 Billion, and a Gen-3+ Light Water Reactor at $4.03 Billion. The land, steel and concrete for the reactor is minuscule, the material for wind or solar is substantially more, and the land for the wind farm is enough to make you faint.

But wait, it gets worse…

A reactor has a 60-year service life. Renewables, not so much.

The industry thinks that wind turbines will last 20-25 years, and that CSP trough mirrors will last 30-40 years. But no one really knows for sure: the earliest large-scale PV arrays, for example, are only 15 years old, and CSP is younger than that. And there’s mounting evidence that wind turbines will only last 15 years….

A word or two about natural gas.

Gas-fired plants are far less expensive than nuclear plants, or even coal plants, which typically go for about $2 an installed watt. Nuclear plants, even in America, could be as cheap as coal plants if the regulatory and construction process were streamlined—assembly-line fabrication alone will be an enormous advance. Still, a gas plant is about a third the price of a coal plant, which sounds great. But the problem with a gas-fired plant is the gas.

CO2 emissions from burning “natural gas” (the polite term for “methane”) are 50% less than coal, which is a substantial improvement, but it’s still contributing to global warming. It’s been said that natural gas is just a slower, cheaper way to kill the planet, and it is. But it’s even worse than most folks realize, because when methane escapes before you can burn it (and any gas infrastructure will leak) it’s a greenhouse gas that’s 105 times more potent than CO2. (If it’s any consolation, that number drops to “only” about 20 times after a few decades.)

Another problem with natural gas is that it’s more expensive overseas. Which at first glance doesn’t seem like much of a problem, since we’ve always wanted a cheap, abundant source of domestic energy. But once we start exporting methane in volume (the specialized ports and tankers are on the drawing board), why would gas farmers sell it here for $3 when they can sell it over there for $12?

A final note on natural gas: Even if all of our shale gas was recoverable (which it’s not), it would only last 80-100 years. But we have enough thorium, an easily mined and cheaply refined nuclear fuel, to last for literally thousands of years.

Natural gas is a cotton candy high. The industry might have 10 years of good times on the horizon, but I wouldn’t convert my car if I were you. Go electric, but when you do, realize that your tailpipe is down at the power plant. So insist on plugging into a carbon-free grid. Otherwise you’ll just be driving a coal burner.

Which brings us back to nuclear vs. renewables, the only two large-scale carbon-free energy sources available to us in the short term. And since all we have is the short term to get this right, we’d better knuckle down and make some decisions.

America has 100 nuclear power plants. We need hundreds more.

Reactors produce nearly 20% of America’s electrical power, virtually all of it carbon-free….

 Let’s Run the Numbers – Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar | The Energy Reality Project.

BigWind attacks Newsweek. Did they divert attention FROM the facts

Newsweek created quite a stir this week when AWEA ‘called them out’ for not vetting a college prof who wrote an op-ed piece about problems with wind energy. The attacks thrown at them, along with the defensive position that Newsweek has, subsequently , taken the story away from the facts. But isn’t this what BigWind is all about? Diverting you AWAY from the facts? The comments below this article are enlightening and chock full of facts. We have share some with you…

Texas prides itself on being a national leader, whether it be in barbecue, football or wind energy. That’s why when someone misguidedly attacks one of our strengths—as Randy Simmons did in an opinion article republished by Newsweek last week—as a Texan, I can’t remain silent.

Simmons’ op-ed on the “true cost of wind power” is the same tired slant we have heard from fossil fuel interests time and time again, which should come as no surprise when you learn who’s really behind the piece. Simmons lists his title as professor of political economy at Utah State University, but he doesn’t mention he is the Charles G. Koch professor of political economy. He’s also a senior fellow at the Koch– and ExxonMobil-funded Property and Environment Research Center. In other words, he works for oil companies.

So let’s expose this op-ed for what it really is: a fraudulent attempt to discredit clean, affordable wind energy and protect polluting coal plants….

Comment thread:

Kevon Martis: The author also disingenuously paints a false either/or scenario with respect to wind and fossil fuels. The truth is far different: wind energy binds ratepayers to fossil fuel generation in perpetuity, particularly gas-fired generation like that the produces more than 50% of Texas’ electricity. AWEA board member GE made that clear in testimony to the Obama White House: 

“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

And no one knows this better than the “fossil fuel front men” that inhabit the board of the American Wind Energy Association: http://www.awea.org/About/content.aspx?ItemNumber=779

Duke, E.On, AEP, Invenergy, FPL/NextEra: wall to wall fossil fuel.

That’s at least 3 strikes against this totally deceptive author….

Bruce Morgan Williams: FALSE. Recent studies by NREL, LBL, PJM, GE, and several universities have proven that we can integrate large amount of renewables and reduce fuel consumption significantly. It’s already happening. You post some political editorial BS that ignores real world data, and I post links to in-depth industry studies by grid operators.
You are either a Rube of a Shill (If you’re not sure, you’re a Rube)

http://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/subcommittees/irs/pris.aspx

Kevon Martis: Bruce Morgan Williams Actually the quote is from GE. You do know they are the biggest US wind turbine manufacturer and an AWEA board member? And the PJM study stipulates billions of dollars of new gas-fired generation right up front.


And it was done by GE as well.

The NEWIS study for ISO-NE (also by GE) says the same thing: gas is needed to integrate wind.

And NERC is saying the same thing about CAISO: nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability Assessments DL/NERC-CAISO_VG_Assessment_Final.pdf

Now show me where I posted editorial BS Bruce.

“Generating electricity from renewable energy rather than fossil fuels offers significant public health benefits. The air and water pollution emitted by coal plants is linked to breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, and cancer. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy has been found to reduce premature mortality and lost workdays, and it reduces overall healthcare costs.”

Here is another whopper.

Notice how this quote conflates “coal” with “fossil fuels” and health impacts?

Here is the deceptive part: the alleged health impacts from coal emissions are derived from PM2.5 and/or Hg emissions. But natural gas-a fossil fuel- emits essentially none of those.

This author appears to be determined to deceive his audience at every turn….

Interesting that the wind promoters have decided to talk about water use in the generation sector as if reducing that use would end droughts.

Consider:

“When talking about water for power generation, two important terms must be explained and understood: water use and water consumption, said Dr. Susan Stuver, research scientist with the Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IRNR) and Texas Water Resources Institute (TWRI).

“If you’re using water and putting it back where it came from, it’s water use,” Stuver said. “A power plant is not consuming millions of gallons; it just needs (the water) once and then puts it back, and keeps using the same water over and over again.

“Water is drawn from the reservoir, used to cool the power plant and is then returned to the reservoir where it can therefore be used for other activities such as habitat for wildlife or recreation.”...

The problem is that wind energy costs at least $80/MWh to produce and often much more in many markets yet can only save $25-35/MWh of coal or gas fuel costs. In the meantime it is reducing the profitability of existing dispatchable power plants which normally would be fine if wind were a replacement technology for coal or gas generators. But it is not. Wind energy has a parasite/host relationship with primarily gas fired generators and when the parasite siphons off enough of the revenue stream of it’s requisite host it either dies-thus killing wind too-or the host demands new revenue removed from energy sales to keep it alive and the grid stable. That is a poor economic construct.

John Thomas Jordan Jr: Sorry not buying in. I don’t have a problem subsidizing renewable resources of any kind, we already subsidize traditional energy directly and indirectly. I also don’t have a problem with using all the above. As we develop more and better means of storage which won’t happen if there is no demand the reliance on other types of energy will shrink and the market will determine who is the ultimate winner.

Kevon Martis: John Thomas Jordan Jr. I see you are a union guy. Consider this: the steel industry spends $18 billion per year on electricity. They employ 100,000 people who are largely union. A 10% increase in the price of electricity takes $18,000/employee/year off the table for fringes and benefits. Wind energy’s wholesale PPA price is typically 80-120% higher than the wholesale value of electricity in most markets. Good luck with that next pay raise…

David Davila:  live in the Banning Pass, where wind power has been for decades. I really wish those that support it take a very close look at the existing farms here. Many are obsolete and don’t even work. They can’t be upgraded easily, all foundations, structures and wiring must be removed before an upgrade, that’s why many owners just walk away and abandon them. Many leak oil like a sieve that blows all over the desert. I also read these articles and wonder whether the authors ever calculate the energy deficit that they start with. +/- 5 tons of copper, +/- 80 tons of steel and +/- 150 gallons of oil and there are many other materials need as well that increase that consumption of energy before they produce a single watt. These materials were not mined, created or smelted using wind power. The authors do not even mentioning scraping vast amounts of pristine desert, local wildlife be damned. Want a permit for a large construction project? Good luck. Want one for a wind or solar farm and they can’t write them fast enough. Nice job looking at numbers and linking to them, horrible job taking all factors into account…

The True Benefits of Wind Power.

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.