OH Gov Kasich behaves like a socialist and forces BigWind upon us. Will it solve anything?

As our governor forces BigWind on Ohioans, will his decision actually help our residents and businesses? BigWind will fight hard to reduce their setbacks and place more machines, closer to us. Read below for multiple references related to this issue…

An article from Energy Central explains that most Americans woefully misunderstand energy. “Turns out that Americans are a bit overly optimistic about the role that renewable energy plays in the US. The average American believes that 20 percent of our energy use comes from renewables-11 percent from solar and 9 percent from wind. The reality is quite different. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), solar is at 1 percent and wind is at 2 percent.” This article is important in discussing where people get information – social media is a factor.
Meanwhile, the National Renewable Energy Lab – a cheerleader for wind at any costs claims that “Under existing RPSs, the country will count on renewables for 26 percent of electricity generation by 2030 and 40 percent by 2050. Under the high-RPS scenario, renewables would reach 35 percent by 2030 and 49 percent by 2050, the report found. Satisfying existing portfolio standards will cost about $31 billion, or about 75 cents per kilowatt-hour of renewable energy in terms of levelized costs. “ NREL’s costs are widely disputed but if we look at where the country really stands and the land use cost of meeting such ambitious goals, we think there is no way Americans would consent to these RPSs (Renewable Portfolio Standards)…in Ohio, though, our governor has forced an RPS on us!
In spite of the above, “Wind and solar will provide a mere 4 percent of all the world’s energy by 2040 while conventional fossil fuels provide 80 percent, according to a new report published by energy giant ExxonMobil.” “Exxon’s 2040 projections are roughly similar to the current U.S. numbers, which got 33 percent of its power from natural gas in 2015, another 33 percent from coal, 20 percent from nuclear, and a mere 5.3 percent from wind and solar combined, according to the governmental Energy Information Administration (EIA).”

 

The Irish High Court has found in favor of seven families from the Cork area impacted by low frequency noise from turbines as far as 3,280 feet from their homes – some of which had been abandoned. “The defendant, Enercon Wind Farm Services Ireland Ltd., has admitted liability and the case is listed for ten days in the High Court commencing 25th April 2017 to deal with damages and costs. The outcome of the April court case could be a watershed for existing and planned wind farms as well as for investor confidence in, and government plans for the future of on-shore wind in Ireland. Many families, similarly affected by noisy wind turbines are anxiously awaiting the outcome and it is expected that more cases will now follow.” It is believed (hoped!) the case could affect turbine siting worldwide.
The Springfield newspaper reports about the current environment now that the mandates have returned. “Even with the mandates back in place, both sides in the wind debate also said the real fight in that industry is over setbacks from homes and property lines.” We appreciated Rep. Seitz comment that “When a capitalist makes a product that consumers won’t buy, he improves the price and/or quality of the product in order to get sales,” Seitz said in an email to the Springfield News-Sun. “When a socialist makes a product that consumers won’t buy, he gets the government to mandate that people must buy it. It’s that simple. Because I am a capitalist, I do not favor mandates.” Hat’s off to Terry Rittenhouse for his articulate response to the paper, “In Champaign County though, Rittenhouse argued the tougher standards are necessary to protect residents who live near possible wind farms. He argued there has been enough local opposition that moving forward after a roughly decade-long fight would amount to a hostile takeover.
The Congress ended its term with bills pending in both the House and Senate to protect military property from wind turbine encroachment. “The Protection of Military Airfields from Wind Turbine Encroachment Act would, if signed into law, incorporate revisions to the Internal Revenue Code that will prevent wind energy developers from pursuing renewable electricity production credit and energy credits, both of which provide tax relief, for projects within tens of miles from military airfields. “ Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) would make any wind development within 30 miles of a military airfield ineligible while a bill introduced by Rep. Chris Collins from the Buffalo, New York area would extend the distance to 40 miles. These bills will return in the new Congress. Current law requires that wind developers get clearance from the Defense Siting Clearinghouse. It is widely believed that the DOD Siting Clearinghouse has been under orders from the Obama Administration not to impede wind. We understand that the first director of the Defense Siting Clearinghouse went on to Apex as Vice President for Federal Business. If such legislation were to pass anytime soon, EverPower’s Buckeye Wind development could be impacted as long as the FAA has not given clearance for the project. A Google Earth review reflects that the southern border of Champaign County is about 16 miles from Wright Patterson AFB and the proposed wind project is about 28 miles from the base. The first application made by EverPower to the FAA expired long ago. A new application was filed in August, 2016 and its status remains “pending”.
In response to the reinstated mandate requirement that requires 12.5 of electricity distributed by Ohio utilities to be derived from renewable sources, American Electric Power says it “plans to develop 900 megawatts of wind and solar energy in Ohio over the next five years and that it does not expect any problem meeting the renewable energy mandates.” On the other hand, First Energy plans to purchase Renewable Energy Credits and they do not feel they need to source them in Ohio. The in-state requirement for renewable energy was eliminated several years ago as being unconstitutional. Nevertheless, it appears the state’s development folks want to encourage in-state development by catering to companies like Amazon. It was disturbing to read that “Matt Englehart, spokesman for JobsOhio, the state’s privatized economic development arm, said some companies, including Amazon Web Services, want access to reliable renewable energy. Amazon has contracted to buy wind energy from developers in the state.” Reliable renewable energy? Laughable. This statement tells us JobsOhio is not working to benefit Ohio’s rural communities nor to encourage the lowest cost electrical power for Ohio manufacturers.
Do not miss the commentary by Robert Bryce who writes, “For decades, a central tenet of environmentalism has been small footprints in everything from agriculture to urban planning. But now, in the name of climate change, environmentalism has been turned on its head. Rather than advocate for people, landscapes and wildlife, our biggest environmental groups are cheering for renewable energy schemes that disregard all three. In short, keeping it “in the ground” requires decimating much of what’s above ground. That’s a lousy trade.” Bryce explains his methodology for measuring the land use implications of wind by determining wind energy density capacity. “The result: wind energy’s footprint is 3 watts per square meter, or 1 gigawatt per 131.3 square miles.”. Solar’s footprint is 36.3 watts per square meter or 1 gigawatt per 10.6 square miles.
Our favorite British critic of renewables, James Delingpole, asks “When is the rest of the Western world going to catch up with Donald Trump and point out that the green emperor is wearing no clothes? I ask as a concerned UK taxpayer absolutely sick to death of the vast sums of money that continue to be funnelled into the pockets of crooks, liars, spivs, chancers, con-artists and fantasists in the name of solving the non-existent problem of “climate change.” Delingpole writes that “I once got into trouble with Australia’s incredibly politically correct press complaints commission for quoting a sheep farmer who described wind farm developers being as bad as paedophiles. I would hereby like to apologise to paedophiles for any offence that may have been caused by this disgusting analogy.”…

Alternative energy advocates cheered a recent decision by Ohio Gov. John Kasich to veto a recent bill that would have weakened the state’s clean energy standards, arguing the move will lead to more investment and jobs in the industry statewide.

But opponents, including residents engaged in a long legal battle over a proposed Champaign County wind farm, said they have seen laws repeatedly shift on the issue and hope to continue the fight…

Source: Wind farms stall, solar grows as energy debate continues in Ohio

Advertisements

BigWind in Ohio CHEERS as Gov. Kasich succumbs to lobbying pressure

 

Not unexpectedly, Governor Kasich vetoed HB 554 that would have made wind and solar mandates voluntary goals for the next two years. Wind and solar will now be mandated for Ohio ratepayers. We have no doubt that the wind developers will now claim they cannot meet the mandates for wind unless the current setbacks are shortened and property line measurements are thrown out. In response to the Governor’s veto, Senator William Seitz issued a Press Statement blasting Kasich saying, “It is apparent that Governor Kasich cares more about appeasing his coastal elite friends in the renewable energy business than he does about the millions of Ohioans who decisively rejected this ideology when they voted for President-elect Trump. “ 

Ironically, the environmental community just released an interactive map showing that Ohio is one of the easiest places to source renewable energy if it is desired. With ample supply and easy means to deliver energy choices, it is clear that mandates are not needed. The map notes for Ohio: Electric retail choice programs easily available in this state. These programs allow end-use customers to buy electricity directly from competitive retail suppliers.“ While Kasich based his veto on the need for employers to be able to buy renewable energy, the Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers website already considers Ohio a competitive location “where large energy buyers can access the renewable energy they want at the scale they need through their utility.” Companies looking to make location decisions “can use this map to consider siting new facilities and to prioritize their renewable energy purchasing strategies. It highlights green tariff programs and other utility energy products that allow customers to meet their clean energy goals and lower electricity costs. It compares each product to the Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles.”

In other words, Kasich’s rationale for his veto doesn’t hold water. We think Sen. Seitz is on to something with his charge that Kasich cares more about his “coastal elite friends” in the renewable energy business. One of those “friends” is Kasich’s longtime energy advisor, Wilber James of Rockport Capital (http://www.rockportcap.com/team-members/william-e-wilber-james ) the venture capital firm. James’ website describes his commitment to renewables, sustainable initiatives and an energy independent U.S. It also lists Rockport’s many energy investments that would profit by heavy-handed government environmental policies. James was at the Governor’s side in 2011 at The Governor’s 21st Century Energy and Economic Summit. We recall that he owned 7.5% of Solyndra – the poster child for failed renewable initiatives supported by government largess.

We stand ready to support Senator Seitz in the next session of the legislature and look forward the eventual repeal of mandates. Perhaps in a Trump Administration with fewer or no energy subsidies, the notion of government mandates will be “unsustainable”.

——-

Senator Bill Seitz Reacts to Governor’s Veto of House Bill 554

COLUMBUS—State Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) issued the following statement today regarding Governor John Kasich’s veto of Ohio House Bill 554:

This veto disrespects the legislative process that Governor Kasich himself endorsed when he signed our 2014 bill establishing a legislative study commission, whose recommendation was to indefinitely extend the freeze on Ohio’s expensive march up the Obama-Clinton-Strickland alternative energy mandate mountain. More than that, it disrespects the legislature’s attempt in HB 554 to meet Governor Kasich more than halfway by not extending the freeze, but rather, trying a goals-based approach for two years to prove that statist mandates are not necessary to achieve a cleaner energy future.

It is apparent that Governor Kasich cares more about appeasing his coastal elite friends in the renewable energy business than he does about the millions of Ohioans who decisively rejected this ideology when they voted for President-elect Trump. We can only hope that President Trump and his amazing cabinet of free market capitalists will save us from the regulatory overreach of Al Gore-style policies that take unnecessary money out of ratepayers’ pockets. We will do our part by launching a full scale effort next session to totally repeal these Strickland-era mandates. With veto-proof majorities next session, we are optimistic of success.

# # #

Senator Bill Seitz represents the 8th District in the Ohio Senate, which encompasses a portion of Hamilton county. Learn more at http://www.OhioSenate.gov/Seitz….

Ohio Gov. John Kasich has vetoed a bill that would have continued a freeze on the state’s renewable energy standards…

Source: Ohio Gov. John Kasich vetoes bill making state’s renewable energy standards voluntary – Columbus – Columbus Business First

If BigWind raises electric rates in Ohio, see consequences here!

Ohio results at the bottom, see entire article for detailed tables/charts of detailed effects on jobs in America…
 screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-35-38-am

One European business leader summed up European’s dire energy situation this way: “I can see green taxes, I can see no shale gas, I can see closure of nuclear, I can see manufacturing being driven away. I can see the competition authorities in Brussels blissfully unaware of the tsunami of imported product heading this way and standing blindly in the way of sensible restructuring . . . It’s not looking good for Europe, we are rabbits caught in the headlights, and we have got our trousers down.”…

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-38-25-am

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-39-33-am

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-41-11-am

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-7-42-30-am

 

Ohio

Almost all of the power produced in Ohio (96 percent)18 comes from conventional and low-
cost sources – coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Ohio is also a major manufacturing state – the manufacturing sector alone represents 17 percent of Ohio’s GDP, generates more than 660,000 jobs, and chips in $36 billion in labor income.19 Ohio generated $576 billion in GDP in 201420,had nearly 5.4 million people employed, and had an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, below the national average of 6.2 percent.21

Ohio’s economy is on track to continue its growth, with significant growth coming from oil and natural gas development, including from unconventional sources.22 Under European-style energy policies that make fossil fuels more expensive and/or harder to produce, Ohio households and businesses would suffer major economic impacts.

Those impacts start with jobs: under this new pricing regime, Ohio would lose more than 187,000 jobs, and $8.2 billion in wages being paid out to Ohio workers today would also be eliminated. All told, the state’s annual economic output would decline by a staggering $14.8 billion. Our analysis of energy price increase impacts to Ohio (including the extra $5,000 that Ohio households would have to pay for their energy, over and above what they already pay today) is represented in Table 18.

As with the other states we analyzed, we examined what the potential economic value at risk would be for the top 25 energy-intensive industries in Ohio. Similar in many ways to the industrial profile on display in Michigan, Ohio’s economy would stand to lose more than 512,000 jobs if EU energy prices became the norm there. Those lost jobs put nearly $30 billion in wages at risk, and have the potential to deprive Ohioans of more than $57 billion in annual state GDP.

One segment worth noting in Ohio is its iron and steel manufacturing sector, which contributes
$2.2 billion in direct GDP to the state. If energy prices were to rise to European levels, this sector could be at risk (i.e., the industry may stop or move production elsewhere). Because of the ripple effect, the total economic value at risk increases to $5.8 billion. Table 19 shows the economic value at risk for Ohio’s top 25 energy-intensive industry sectors….

http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/themes/bricktheme/pdfs/EU_Report.pdf

Ohio media still wearing Halloween mask supporting BigWind

Whew! What a week! As the election nears, “conspiracy theories” don’t look so conspiratorial anymore. They look like the real thing. With this in mind, we thought we might share a few “conspiracy theories” that have been raised in connection with industrial wind.

Rigged! Let’s start with “media bias”. On Friday, Senator Bill Seitz decided to call out the media on their biased reporting. In one example sent to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Seitz charges(a similar article from Columbus is referenced, below):

“Today’s Plain Dealer contains two articles by you, one on the “nine major companies” who want green power rules restored and one on the Greenlink group report. To their credit, the Nature Conservancy and EDF shared the Greenlink report with me last week and I am in the process of reviewing it to provide a response.

What is frustrating to me is that you cover all such pro-mandate reports and press releases, but never seem to get around to covering the other side of the story. I sent you the Ohio Business Roundtable (OBR) report a few weeks ago, whose conclusion was to end mandates altogether. OBR surely represents a wider swath of “major companies” than do the nine whose press release you devoted several column inches to today. Where’s the balance?

I now enclose a report I received just last week from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ultimate representative of “major companies”. That report shows a multibillion dollar drag on Ohio’s economy if Ohio pursues European Union style green energy policies as advocated by Clinton, Sanders, and their allies. Specifically, Ohioans could stand to lose 187,000 jobs, and see an annual rate increase of $5,000 per household. This is on top of the nearly $14.8 billion in total GDP Ohio’s economy stands to lose. How about some coverage on that?

And I also shared with you the Canadian news story about the utter failure of Ontario’s rush to renewables. We needn’t go so far as Europe to see the fiscal consequences of these policies when Ontario is only one narrow lake away from Ohio. Why no coverage of that?

I am all for intense coverage of this vitally important issue on which there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides, but you do your readers no favors by failing to covering one side so thoroughly and making it appear as though “major companies” support what the clear majority of them vigorously oppose.”

Rigged! Environmental Lobby & Public Opinion Polls Funded by Billionaires and Russian Oligarchs! Take a look at the well-oiled machine behind wind and solar as they pull the strings of gullible policy makers at both the state and local level. We recommend you read the article from Paul Dreissen of CFACT entitled “Billionaire crony corporatist schemes: Financing “green” companies and pressure groups, to get richer off taxpayers and consumers.” And we wish you a Happy Halloween, too. An excerpt from Dreissen’s column:

“As the investigators reveal, the billionaires’ green network transfers millions of dollars from individual, corporate and “charitable foundation” donors … through tax-exempt “educational” nonprofits that do not have to disclose donor names … to activist and pressure groups that work to influence elections, legislation, regulations, legal actions and public perceptions on energy and environmental issues. A lot of money originates with Russian and other foreign interests that want to protect their monopoly revenues.

Many wealthy donors and foundations that bankroll these operations also have venture capital firms that invest in “green” energy companies which benefit from the laws, policies, regulations and lawsuits – and from government contracts, grants, guaranteed loans, subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and mandates for energy systems, ethanol blends or wind and solar electricity. In turn, US money can end up in the coffers of radical Australian groups that block coal exports to India, thereby keeping its people mired in poverty.

Coal billionaire/climate activist Tom Steyer and other club members invest in for-profit prisons where inmates make ultra-low-cost solar panels. Warren Buffett funneled millions through his family foundation to the secretive Tides Foundation to pressure groups campaigning against the Keystone and Sandpiper Pipelines, thereby benefitting his railroad and tank car companies that haul oil. Others support North Dakota pipeline protesters who destroyed equipment, mutilated cattle and harassed local residents.

One of the most clandestine, devious arrangements involves firms owned or controlled by Nathaniel Simons and Laura Baxter-Simons. Tax records reveal that their Sea Change Foundation gives tens of millions a year to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, US Climate Action Network, League of Conservation Voters, Center for American Progress, White House counselor John Podesta’s Progressive Policy Institute – and Sierra Club, which received millions from Sea Change for its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign, to battle drilling, fracking, pipelines and hydrocarbon use. “

Is Trick or Treat over?….

Some of the world’s largest corporations employing more than 25,000 in Ohio oppose plans by state GOP lawmakers to get rid of state standards requiring utilities to sell increasing percentages of power generated by wind, solar and other renewables.

Nine corporations, including manufacturers Whirlpool and Owens Corning and food giants Nestle and Campbell Soup, released statements Tuesday urging state lawmakers to bring back rules requiring power companies to provide annually increasing amounts of electricity generated by wind, solar and other renewable technologies.

The nine, many of which have also worked with the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association to oppose changes in Ohio’s renewable energy standards, this time organized with Ceres, a non-profit group that works with global corporations and investors around the world to encourage corporate sustainability….

Source: Corporate leaders urge GOP to reinstate renewable energy

Ohio plan to thaw clean-energy freeze makes compliance optional

As we have reported, the renewable energy mandate freeze will expire on December 31, 2016 unless legislation is passed to extend the freeze or to eliminate mandates entirely. The lobbying on both sides is intensifying and this issue of Wind News focuses on impending battle. The first salvos are polls and industry-sponsored research designed to advance the cause of one side or another. These polls are accompanied by newspaper stories, whining from the environmental community and words of caution from the business sector.

Following one news story about a poll claiming that everyone and their brother including Republicans and people of faith want renewable energy, the comment below was posted. We thought it was worth repeating because lost in all the hubbub about mandates is the FACT that TODAY any customer is free to choose whatever type of generation they want, including wind and solar. The issue is why MANDATES should be required for everyone.

Comment from Utility Whisperer :

Well, the results of opinion polls which are issued without identifying the questions that were used or the demographic information for the sample population are as useless as a reserved seat at a Browns’ playoff game. But, for all you Republicans or Democrats who may really want “renewables”, I have some good news. In Ohio, customers of investor owned utilities like CEI (not CPP) have the right to pick their electricity generation supplier and can buy as much “renewable” stuff as they are willing to pay for. Utility customers in Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and many other states have no such right. The question here is not whether people can act on their preference for “renewable energy” but whether people who have other preferences (like reliable service at reasonable prices) should be, nonetheless, forced, by an Ohio mandate, to send their money to some wind farm developer. Since when does a real “conservative” favor consumption compelled by government?

Our friend, Senator Bill Seitz has proposed a compromise bill that would remove mandates and include “goals” for the next three years. Annual renewable “benchmarks” would be replaced with three year targets but there would be no penalty for not meeting the target until the year 2021 after the “mandates” resume in 2020. We understand that the definition of “renewable energy” would also be expanded to include combined heat and power and perhaps other clean generation sources.

We are amused by the complaint from the advocates for wind and solar that the legislation has no “teeth,” we invite them to look at the siting rules which are toothless as well. Can’t have it both ways, fellas!…

A two-year freeze of Ohio’s clean-energy standards is about to expire, and Republicans in the Ohio General Assembly have a new proposal that would technically put those standards back in place from 2017 through 2019 — but would make compliance optional.

Clean-energy rules, which have been law since 2008, say that electricity utilities must meet annual targets for renewable energy or else face penalties. They were frozen in 2014 at the behest of businesses that said the rules were too costly.

“There is no more freeze,” said Sen. Bill Seitz, R- Cincinnati, the chief sponsor of the new plan, which will soon be introduced as an amendment to Senate Bill 320, a measure he brought forward in April.

Opponents, which include the businesses involved with wind and solar energy, say the proposal is bad for the state’s environment and economy.

“Our take is that it is more of the same from Sen. Seitz — a three-year extension of the freeze, another attempt to stall progress on energy in Ohio,” said Ted Ford, president and CEO of Ohio Advanced Energy Economy, a trade group.

With this version, Seitz has deleted several controversial elements, such as rules for the way utilities treat rooftop solar arrays. His goal is to pass a bill by the end of the year, which is when the freeze would otherwise be lifted under current law.

“Obviously we’re working against the clock,” he said. “That’s one of the reasons we shortened and simplified this.”

He also made a subtle change to the main part of the bill. Previously, the measure would have extended the freeze until 2020, and then resumed the annual benchmarks.

In this new version, the annual standards are only required to be met every three years, in 2020, 2023 and 2026. Seitz said this will give utilities more flexibility and also will allow for time to see whether the federal Clean Power Plan survives court challenges….

Source: Plan to thaw clean-energy freeze makes compliance optional

BigWind spends >$20Million (taxdollars) annually lobbying for more Green

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 8.50.05 AM

It is time to remind our legislators that they are in office to lobby for US…

There is nothing “free,” “clean,” or “green” about industrial wind. Quite to the contrary, the true costs of industrial wind development are astronomical. Yet, the wishful thinking of Governor Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General Schneiderman, and ‘green’ ideologues who benefit from this massive taxpayer and ratepayer rip-off, have been repeated unquestioned by many in the media for years now….

As our government officials continue to misdirect great resources into the wind, the key question that needs to be asked by everyone is this:

~ Where is the Scientific PROOF that wind energy is a NET societal benefit?

The answer is that there is NO such scientific proof. None. Nada.

However, there is much proof that development of sprawling, unreliable, industrial wind factories has been vastly detrimental across the nation and the world. So much so, President Obama had to approve 30-Year EAGLE-KILL permits specifically to accommodate the bird-slaughtering wind industry….

Manhattan Institute scholar, Robert Bryce, recently reported that the wind industry has garnered $176 billion of crony cash here in the US. It’s no wonder the American Wind Energy Association spends over $20 million per year lobbying for more of the same! Big Wind and the Big Banks who back them are playing the system to tap into taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ wallets, while the crony-politicians who enable the whole dastardly deal get hefty ‘campaign donations’ in return. The greatest Ponzi Schemes of all times pale in comparison to the eco-heist these ‘Green Gangsters’ are pulling off.

Industrial wind was saved in the U.S. by Enron as a tax-shelter-generating scheme. Nothing about that has changed. Big Wind enriches the top one percent, the rent-seekers, at taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ expense. Just ask Warren Buffett, who said,

We get tax credits if we build “wind farms.” That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credits….

Source: Wind Power Misinformation in the Empire State – Master Resource

Do Ohioans want to spend 3.5X MORE $$ for electricity from BigWind? Say NO!

Screen Shot 2016-07-26 at 3.33.30 PM

A new study from the Institute for Energy Research finds that electricity from new wind and solar power is 2.5 to 5 times more expensive than electricity from existing coal and nuclear power.

This innovative study relies on data from the Energy Information Administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to find the levelized cost of electricity from existing plants, not just the cost of electricity from new power plants as is typical with many studies.

In addition, IER’s study estimates the costs imposed on the grid by the intermittent nature of wind and solar power. Factoring in these “imposed costs” provides a more realistic estimate of what electricity from new wind and solar power costs. In fact, solar power’s imposed costs actually increase as more capacity is added to the system.

A chart, in this study, shows the stark contrast between the cost of electricity from existing and new sources.

It indicates:
Electricity from new solar is nearly 5 times more expensive than from existing nuclear and over 3.5 times more expensive than from existing coal.
Electricity from new wind is over 3.5 times more expensive than from existing nuclear and over 2.5 times more expensive than from existing coal.
“Much of our existing coal and nuclear fleet could continue to provide affordable, reliable electricity for decades to come if not for policies like the Obama administration’s carbon regulations or the deal struck in California to shut down Diablo Canyon,” said IER President Thomas Pyle.

“Unnecessarily shutting down our existing generation in favor of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power means Americans will be left with higher electricity bills and less money in their pockets. This will have the harshest impact on poor and middle class families who spend more of their hard-earned money on energy costs. This study adds a much-needed reality check to the debate over our nation’s electricity policy.”

Click below to read the full study. Thank you to Tom Stacy, one of the authors, from the Great Buckeye State!!

via: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/IER_LCOE_2016-2.pdf