Guest post By John Droz
The matter of how much, if any, federal subsidies that wind energy will get is being discussed (and maybe resolved) today.
Here is a video of the Senate Finance Committee hearing this morning on this (starts at minute 14):
http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=0a55f72d-5056-a032-52a2-b1e30188a9c9
This is a sample recent article discussing these subsidies http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2102129,00.html
PLEASE call your representatives (especially your two senators) to voice your opinion on 1603 Grants and the PTC (Production Tax Credit).
When you phone, all you have to say is that you have an opinion on renewing the 1603 Grants (which expire in 2 weeks) and on the PTC (which expire at the end of 2012, but could be cancelled sooner). Given our financial situation, continued funding of wind energy may be of dubious value, 10 minutes of your time will let your senators know how you stand.
If you want further information to make an informed decision, please read the position piece I outlined on this matter (below).
An Outline of the Case Against Renewable Energy Subsidies
Renewable energy subsidies came about due to intense political pressure from lobbyists groups like AWEA. Their main arguments are NOT that these expenditures will provide us with reliable and inexpensive energy, but rather that these monies will promote jobs and economic benefits. Of course, as lobbyists they are paid to put the best spin on their client’s products that they can. In these times of more focused financial prudence, we need to look at such outlays in an objective light — especially since we are talking about many Billions of dollars (which still is a lot of money).
The fundamental question is: should the US taxpayer subsidize the renewable energy business? From my perspective as a scientist, I think we should support fledgling alternative energy options, under two criteria:1) if there is solid scientific evidence that they will be better than our conventional choices with regards to technical, economic and environmental considerations, and 2) only during the development cycle [i.e. the pre-grid phase]. Wind and solar are neither of these.
A more complex matter is whether mature technologies should be subsidized. My instinctive response is no, but there is a case to be made that if low cost and reliable energy sources can be made even less expensive to homeowners and businesses, then there can be genuine societal and business benefits to be gained from that. Again, this is not the case for wind or solar.
Renewable energy evangelists tend to confuse these points, saying that their “developing” source should be subsidized, since the mature sources are. This is a classic sales slight-of-hand trick, as this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The reality is that no matter which position you take about renewables (they are new, or they are old) they should not qualify for subsidies.
Yet, according to EIA statistics (for 2010, the latest fiscal year), the amount of federal subsidies for wind energy (as an example) exceeded the amounts for all conventional sources of electricity, combined. This is simply an extravagent waste of our resources.
Let’s look at the main assertions of the wind proponents, and see how they stack up:
Claim one: jobs
1) Numerous independent reports have concluded that the cost per job that renewable subsidies fund, is VERY high.*
2) Some independent studies have concluded that when we look at the big picture, that there is actually a net job LOSS from subsidizing renewables. One of the key reasons for this is that the cost of electricity produced by renewables is higher than our conventional sources, which leads to businesses cutting back and laying people off.
3) Some independent studies have shown that many of the jobs created when supporting renewable energy are actually foreign jobs. Is that a good use of our limited funds?
4) If the Billions were spent on other, more reliable forms of energy (e.g. gas or nuclear) MORE jobs would be created.
What we see in this (and their other arguments) is that lobbyists make a false comparison. For example, when they say a billion dollars of subsidy will create x wind jobs, their comparison is versus doing nothing. A more valid question is: what would be the number (and quality) of jobs resulting if we invested that same billion dollars elsewhere? They NEVER accurately answer that critical question!
Consistent with all this, a Federal Oversight Committee recently released their report on the failure of the green jobs program <<http://tinyurl.com/5rmkgxl>>.
Claim two: economic development
The fact is that if this same money went to fund reliable, clean, sustainable energy like nuclear power, that there would be just as much (if not more) economic development that will result. A particular area of importance is mini-nuclear (SMRs: Small Modular Reactors). Providing political and economic support for that one area would be a game-changer in the energy business, and have profoundly beneficial technical and economic results for the US. We need to be the leader in this technology of tomorrow. If we are not, be assured that China will take over that role.
Claim three: energy independence
Funding wind energy with subsidies does not give us energy independence. There are several technical reasons for this. For instance, consider the fact that in every wind turbine there is something like 4000 pounds of rare earth elements. China produces 95±% percent of these rare earth elements, so the more turbines we buy, the more dependent we are on the China. That is not energy independence. Furthermore, the extreme reliance on rare earth elements is not considered sustainable either (which is another green mantra).
Claim four: CO2 reduction
Despite all the claims of the wind lobbyists there is zero independent scientific proof that wind energy makes a consequential reduction in CO2. Zero. One of the reasons for this is that there is no such thing as wind by itself. Wind must ALWAYS be augmented by a conventional source of power, usually by a low cost/low efficiency version of gas. The net CO2 savings of this combination are very low (if any) — significantly less than would be attained by the same amount nuclear or geothermal capacity. Actually wind+gas is likely to save less CO2 than what would result from a high-efficiency gas option by itself! So why have the wind component?
Claim five: they need the handouts
Wind lobbyists are always pleading poverty, which is what they are paid to do. The fact is that wind energy development is one of the most profitable businesses in the country. TB Pickens stated that as a wind developer he would expect to make at least 25% profit per year! We need to subsidize such a business?
Additionally the OMB and Treasury found severe problems with “the economic integrity of government support for renewables.” <<http://tinyurl.com/4amebep>>. Such an assessment should give Congress severe pause for continuing such handouts.
Summary
When all is said and done renewable subsidies (like Production Tax Credits, 1603 Grants, etc.) usually end up supporting a high-cost, low-benefit sources of energy. Clearly we can spend our resources better. We should focus on solutions that have a proper scientific assessment (i.e. technical, economic and environmental) thatproves that they are cos
t-beneficial. No such proof exists for wind or solar.
More Information
*This is intended to be a VERY brief overview. All of the statements above can be supported by references. For example, for a more detailed, science-based assessment of our energy policy, see EnergyPresentation.Info, which has several pages of references.
Here are two pertinent articles of interest:
A summary of wind economics: <<http://tinyurl.com/343wrzv>>
Sample critique of 1603 Grants: <<http://tinyurl.com/4c8mz6u>>
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s exactly the same in the UK. Huge subsidies, grid instability concerns and no evidence to support the claim of CO2 emissions reductions. Fuel poverty is on the increase due to the increased electricity costs and poor people are having to choose between keeping warm and eating. The wind developers, led by the BWEA (now restyled RenewableUK) do not care as long as the subsidies keep rolling in. There are likely to be electricity supply shortages in a few years time as coal and nuclear are replaced by intermittent wind energy. Then people will really die and there will be civil unrest.
The argument against subsidies is simple:
Several states have renewable energy mandates. These are the ONLY markets that large scale renewable energy is being built to serve.
Federal subsidies of renewable energy are cross-subsidy pork projects to benefit these states. It forces states with no renewable energy mandates to help pay for utilities to meet state mandates.
The state mandates are essentially equivalent to infinite subsidies, so the subsidies have no impact whatsoever on the amount of large scale renewable energy construction – but a pronounced impact on the timing of construction.
Effectively, the subsidies spread the cost of renewable energy onto all taxpayers instead of limiting these extra costs to residents of states that have chosen to create renewable energy mandates.
Imagine if 20% of our energy generation infrastructure were wind. Now imagine a storm with 100mph winds taking out that generating capacity. Not only must the distribution infrastructure be replaced (replace downed power lines, takes days to weeks) but now the actual generation capacity must be replaced due to demolished / damaged turbines. (could be a much longer lead time and much more expensive proposition to replace turbines).
This makes NO SENSE.
“For example, when they say a billion dollars of subsidy will create x wind jobs, their comparison is versus doing nothing. A more valid question is: what would be the number (and quality) of jobs resulting if we invested that same billion dollars elsewhere? They NEVER accurately answer that critical question!”
An even better question is, “What would be the number (and quality) of jobs resulting if the same amount of money was left in the hands of the taxpaying public?”
Harry Reid and the Democrats still control the Senate, so I don’t expect much to come from this. However, sometimes, they do let the minority speak, so it may be worth the effort to post your input.
Can the senate push these subsidies without support from the House of Representitives?
The house is making great sport shooting holes in the Senates hopes and dreams lately. I think better use of your time would be to make sure your opinions are voiced to your Reps.
In the UK, we’re halving the subsidies being paid for solar energy programmes. If only wind were next, the building of those bloody bird-choppers would be binned!
Fenbeagle’s contribution is worth looking at!
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/dont-shill-for-shally/
One commentator notes:-
“Turbines required = 800MW power station output x 80% uptime / 3.6MW per windmill x 30% avg output = 592 windmills!!”
Just like the ethanol boondoggle, the subsidies are only half of the problem. The other half is government mandated use of these “alternative”, “renewable” or “sustainable” energy sources. If we ended the subsidies paid for gas, coal, hydroelectric or nuclear power generation we might end up paying a little more for electricity as consumers, but these industries would certainly not cease to exist. Such is not the case with solar, wind or ethanol. These industries would implode without mandated use and subsidies. This is economic idiocy.
Calling my two idiot senators is a waste of time. They’re totally committed to the wind energy boondoggle. All I’ll get back is a letter thanking me for my concern and some drivel justifying their boneheaded position.
John, you make this statement in your article, “The fact is that wind energy development is one of the most profitable businesses in the country. TB Pickens stated that as a wind developer he would expect to make at least 25% profit per year! We need to subsidize such a business?”
What is not clear from your statement is that it is precisely because of such subsidies that Pickens expected to realize a profit of at least 25% — and with very little risk. This is explained in detail in this 2008 article: http://www.wind-watch.org/alerts/2008/05/13/pickens-profits-show-why-ptc-should-not-be-extended/. Things may have changed since then.
Blows my mine how Western Civilization in on the brink of collapse due to government SPENDING, and there are all these special interests out there with their hands out and politicians in both parties mostly gladly and willing to throw out the cash and potentially our societies with it.
This ignores the fact that if these are such good industries, then why do they need my money given (not earned) to them to succeede. News flash, I go to Germany every year and there is a solar panel farm on very other roof. It is as cheap as it will ever be.
It would be nice to know if any of our American friends called their representatives and gave an opinion (one way or another).
My guess is that Obama will have his green shirts waiting to call their senators to support these subsidies.
Does anybody have any accurate information about how long a windmill takes to ‘pay back’ it’s carbon footprint and what proportion manage to pay it back during their lifetime?
Here is an interesting comment I came across:
WilliamLange
Instead of all the hand wringing and intellectualizing about global warming, do something! I have a U.S. patent (pending) which details a low cost, and efficient, wind turbine design. Rather than soaring 500 feet in the air, it operates quite nicely on 20 foot towers. Rather than rotating at right angles to the wind, it rotates with the wind. Rather than locating the generator, complex mechanisms, and most maintenance, at the top of a 300 foot tower, it locates the generator at ground level. I could go on, and on, about design features but then my patent is only “pending”. I will include it’s most important feature. It will not require government funding to remain a viable energy source.
Here is my reply:
Dave Gibson
Hi William.
I am a AGW skeptic but I agree we need to look after the planet/ oceans in the the most practical way. This does not include a lot a crazy solar and wind farms Ect… or listening to Eco fanatics demanding a complete rewrite of modern civilization to solve a lot of the basic problems.
I Have always been a conservationist and a lover of nature, but I am also a practical man who can smell a con job and the UN- IPPC crowd are just that .
It’s not the climate for them it’s about the money as evidenced in the last money grubbing COP 17 in Durban.
However being a hands on practical person I like your wind power solution, it makes mechanical and maintenance sense.
I think you are talking about an affordable unit that is easy to repair and durable enough to lock down safely and can generate power in almost any wind strength except a hurricane?
I particularly like the Idea that It will not require government funding to remain a viable energy source.
How does one get in touch with you and good luck on the patent process.
Dave.
See more in the Warmit alarmist rag
Shock as retreat of Arctic sea ice releases deadly greenhouse gas
Russian research team astonished after finding ‘fountains’ of methane bubbling to surface
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html
And here is a common sense comment to the nonsensical arlarisym!
Wayne Delbeke
And when it was ice covered do they think the methane stopped flowing??? I Have observed methane coming through holes drill in ice for 60 years. This is nothing new for those of us who live with snow and ice for 6 months of the year and my guess is that these Russians know it …. but “Publish or die” is a rule everywhere.
Well, at least the abandoned giant wind farms will make good post-apocalyptic movie sets in thirty years’ time, provided we can afford movies after spending all our money on below-cost solar panels and intermittent power generators.
Eric Seufert wrote:
They’re trying to steal what they can before the music stops.
Thanks for the tip. Oddly enough, earlier today I happened to run across a pro-wind power website that was asking people to write their representative to plead for more subsidies and mandates for the wind industry. I happily clicked through to my representative and submitted the following:
Dear Rep. Berg:
I am writing to plead with you to vote AGAINST continued funding for wind power projects, and to resist and/or roll back if possible all North Dakota renewable mandates unless they are strictly limited in duration and meet strict efficiency standards.
I was once a fan of windmills. When the Tatanka wind farm was going up in Dickey County a few years ago, I would drive out on an almost weekly basis to watch and admire the construction. I still think they are marvels of engineering and in a way they are sort of majestic. I still like to take pictures of them.
However I have learned, rather slowly and painfully, that all things considered, these windmills are no friend of electricity consumers or taxpayers generally. They are inherently inefficient and represent what I think is a significant misallocation of both state and private resources. This misallocation will only become more glaring once the true nature of our natural gas resources becomes widely known.
Mandating that a certain percentage of our electricity be generated by windmills is like mandating that farmers can harvest 90% of their crops with new state-of-the-art combines, but must harvest the other 10% with relatively inefficient, antique early ‘70s vintage machines. Sure, it would be a great benefit to one segment of the economy—namely the people who would sell and maintain that old equipment. But it represents a net economic loss.
Despite the numerous exalted claims made by the wind power industry and echoed by environmentalists, I am convinced that industrial-scale wind power is a dead end. I say this knowing that my community gets money funneled to it from the scheme.
I hope you will, at the very least, propose that the REAL costs and benefits of alternate energy programs (as well as traditional ones) be made entirely publicly accessible and transparent. I have a feeling that if ordinary citizens knew the truth about what wind power costs and who pays for it, they would be overwhelmingly against it.
Thank you for considering my views.
Kenneth L. Smith
Ellendale, ND
Same problem as solar power: absurdly low energy density. The amount of material needed to construct enough units to make a significant contribution to our overall energy needs is massive, and would require decades if not (more likely) centuries to bring on line. The real estate needed is mind-blowing, and the environmental impact horrendous.
If we want an alternative to fossil fuels, there is only one practical, energy dense solution: nuclear power.
The argument against energy subsidies is quite simple: If it were so great it wouldn’t need subsidies.
The author’s claim of 4,000 lbs of rare earth elements per wind turbine seems a bit high to me. But it is impossible to dispute that each whirligig needs its own generator and for that rare earth elements are necessary. Each turbine duplicates machinery in a manner quite the opposite of coal, gas, hydroelectric or nuclear electricity generation.
Sooner or later I believe the nation will wake up to the reality that wind power is folly. There is no valid reason to generate electricity with wind when we have abundant coal and gas and tremendous potential for nuclear. Today at PJMedia there is a fascinating article about rare earths.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/chinas-rare-earths/?singlepage=true
Living in California, I’m more sanguine about the prospects for solar in the Western U.S. But I also say: Let’s cut off all giveaways to the Wind Power corporate welfare bums. We have much higher priorities for our tax dollars.
Here’s some good news and common sense from potential investors. The beginning of the end maybe?
NRG DROPS DELAWARE OFFSHORE WIND FARM PROJECT
NRG Energy brought development of a key offshore wind project off the coast of Delaware to a screeching halt on Monday. Saying the development of a new domestic offshore industry was ridden with “monumental challenges,” the Princeton, N.J., company cited its inability to find an investment partner, a lack of federal loan guarantees, and the looming expiration of wind tax incentives as key reasons behind its decision.
Read More »
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/4231.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=2345638&hq_l=4&hq_v=d0622051c2
OT
Here’s some more good news. Don’t it bring a smile to your face.
VATTENFALL’S JANSCHWALDE DEMO IS LATEST IN STRING OF CCS PROJECTS SHELVED
Vattenfall last week scrapped a much-awaited €1.5 billion ($2 billion) carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration project it planned to build and begin operating by 2015 in the German federal state of Brandenburg, blaming “insufficient will in German federal politics.”
Read More »
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/4233.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=2345638&hq_l=5&hq_v=d0622051c2
One more thing. If the prices for Rare Earth Elements go through the roof, I’d expect wind turbines to become attractive targets for metal thieves, assuming that the figure of 4000 pounds of REEs per turbine is accurate . In addition to the currently outrageous high cost for Wind Power, we’d need to spend even more for armed security at these facilities.
Subsidies for windmills is bad for other reason as well as pointed out.
We have less then five percent of fossil fuel usage, and that’s during the harshest winters, due to nuclear and hydro and because there still isn’t any economical incentive to do large scale energy forestry–you actually have to have the subsidies for that area to make a profit.
So pretty much the largest part of the remaining 95% of emitters are from cargo trucks, since most of the trains ferry people.
And what did the environmentalist party, and all the other crazed climate hippies make sure the more than 200 billions of the money went?
To windmills, instead of the much needed extension to the railway infrastructure to support freight trains and high speed passenger trains at the same time, that would have cost…200 billion of that same money during the same time period.
Did we lower our CO2 emissions? No!
Get more jobs? No!
Get people to go by train, instead of plane? No!
Does cargo and passenger reach their destinations faster? No!
But we did scrap one nuclear power plant, and our electricity prices, plural for all the new taxes that was amended during the same time period, sky rocketed, but we did get the bird choppers around our bird lakes and marshes and cut down large areas of formerly protected forests.
Was the NGOs happy? Yes! Every single one had nothing bad to say…at first.