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.
But the Madness goes on with the existing Wind farms and the government. It seems that the customer CANNOT get the most reasonably priced electricity
.
FERC Finds for Wind Generators in BPA Curtailment Dispute
POWERnews
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) last week ruled that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) discriminated against wind generators when it used its transmission market power to curtail wind power after high river flows and high wind last May and June caused generation on the BPA system to exceed power demand.
FERC said in an order last week that granted a petition filed by a group of owners of wind facilities in the Pacific Northwest that the BPA used its market power to “protect its preferred power customer base from costs it does not consider socially optimal.” FERC also directed the BPA (under authority granted to it in section 211A of the Federal Power Act, FPA) to revise its curtailment practices and to file a revised open access transmission tariff (OATT) with the commissions within 90 days.
The dispute stemmed from high seasonal river flows and hydro generation this summer that had prompted the BPA to temporarily limit output from nonhydropower resources—including wind. The BPA said it was forced to make that decision because it would “safeguard protected fish and assure reliable energy delivery without shifting extra costs to BPA electric customers.”
But the decision made by the agency—which also operates and maintains about three-fourths of the high-voltage transmission in a service territory that includes Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana, and small parts of eastern Montana, California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming—was “wrongheaded,” the wind industry said, claiming it could cost wind companies tens of millions of dollars.
More….
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/4230.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=2345638&hq_l=6&hq_v=d0622051c2
Are any of them vulnerable this election cycle? Tell them that you’ll be donating to their opponents if they don’t squash renewable subsidies.
Hearings are a gross waste of time. It is the amount of lobbying money being invested by the wind power industry and the NGO of all stripes will make the difference. Any subsidy of anything is foolish and counterproductive. Just like the financial and auto industry it will depend on which and how many politicians have their hands in what pockets.
Ohhhh… so this explains the advertisement I saw on TV last night.
It was a political ad paid for by some unicorns-and-rainbows sounding group and the ad said that congress (senate?) was going to raise taxes on wind energy which would destroy our energy future and all the green jobs created by the wind power industry. The ad urged viewers to contact their representative and urge them to oppose raising taxes on wind energy companies.
Anyone else (USA) see something like that?
My only thought, besides “must barf now,” was that there must be some talk of cutting subsidies to wind power and that the wind industry was spinning it as a “tax.”
Quite a good discussion of the problem here with the usual objectors in comments-
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/30/solar-wind-combined/
Brave New Climate is run by Barry Brook from Adelaide University in South Australia and while he’s a committed warmist, he’s automatically a heretic among them for advocating nuclear as the only sensible alternative to fossill fuels. Whilst I would be more agnostic on CO2 induced warming than Barry, I can respect a man of science re his policy prescriptions.
What has not been posted is the real reason for all the subsidies, loan guarantees and other “green” schemes. Newsweek had an article about this:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html
Well have a look at this http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.htm A kick in the balls for windpower.l
If subsidizing wind power is considered to be an important part of the US budget during a recession, I see no valid reason to deny my request to subsidize my chocolate and red wine needs. So Obama, add me to that budget!
Which begs the question, just how important is the wind power subsidy anyhow?
Answer: Damned Important!
As a scientist you feel that fledgling green energy production should be supported.
Why?
As a scientist you should look at all aspects of the problem before coming to a decision. On all aspects wind energy, an oxymoron if ever I heard one, fail apart from the fact that occasionally the wind blows at speeds acceptable to the turbines to produce power.
>> The fact is that if this same money went to fund reliable, clean, sustainable energy like nuclear power,
>>
Reliable and clean huh? Try telling that to the 200,000 people displaced by the Fukupshima accident.
Perhaps you’ll say that’s apple pollution and not orange pollution and should not be taken into account.
Your argument is as twisted and biased as those you are out to criticise.
>> Blows my mine how Western Civilization in on the brink of collapse due to government SPENDING.
Yep, like “spending” $100bn given to the banks without even President being allowed to know actually WHO got the money.
The main point of subsidy is help a new technology break into a market.
Economy of scale and invested relations always favour the status quo of established firms and technology.
Once the advantages of a new technology become unavoidable they will be adopted. That may be 20 years later than the most advantageous time to get into the change.
dojo, wind power, by its very nature, has a HUGE footprint in relation to the power it generates, and it always will (unless you think you can change the natural laws of physical mechanics). This new technology is as antigreen planet as China’s smog. Subsidizing it is a means to a vote, nothing else. And certainly has nothing to do with “new technology”. Every farm in the US used to have a windmill.
Switch to ‘green’ energy sources will push up electricity bills by 25%, admits Government
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2074418/Switch-green-energy-sources-push-electricity-bills-25–admits-Government.html
excerpt:
The study concluded that electricity prices are likely to rise by 41 per cent by 2020 in real terms – with more than half the increase a result of switching to ‘low carbon’ energy sources.
In total, ‘green’ measures will add 23.8 per cent to the price of electricity.
The impact on families will vary according to consumption, but the report found that those whose homes are heated by electricity could see their annual bills rise by more than £400.
The analysis also suggests that a new ‘carbon price floor’ – introduced on the pretext of cutting carbon emissions – will effectively act as a tax, raising £3billion a year for the Treasury from electricity consumers by 2020.
The CCC’s report suggests that people whose homes are heated by electricity will see their average bills rise from about £1,500 to £2,100 in 2020.
Around £400 of the projected increase is directly related to ‘low-carbon measures’.
Brilliant, I wish that the UK would read this, but we have the mad Huhne spending even more on this rubbish. He must have a plumb job lined up when we eventually get rid of him.
Stupid is as stupid does, huh, or is it one stupid thing deserves another?
China controls roughly 90% of the rare earth resources, and we require rare earth elements to construct these turbines. How does contribute towards energy independence?
Pamela Gray-there is a plan afoot to cover Cricket Flats with Wind power..
Heard that from a local OTEC guy.
For those of you who aren’t denizens of NE Oregon, Cricket Flat is a farm/ranch
area in mostly N Union co. also very windy. There is a local group that is fighting all of this.
OTEC is the Union/Baker Co. Electric CO-OP that hasn’t seen a Govn’t subsidy it doesn’t like.
I’d take a Natural Gas Plant or better yet a Thorium Pebble Bed reactor any day…
The precautionary evacuations took place because of the hysteria being provoked by the fear mongers dedicated to portraying nuclear power plants as unsafe. The reported levels of radiation measured are typically lower than the radiation you are exposed to by sleeping in bed next to your spouse’s normally radioactive body. The evacuations were only necessary to calm the fears which the fearmongers promoted with baseless accusations.
The nuclear power plant underwent a tsunami having much greater force than what it was designed to survive. Nonetheless, the containment worked well enough to avoid radiation exposures any worse than normal everyday exposures. The radiation exposure outside the power plant is lower than what you experience on long commercial air flights. The newer nuclear power plants are much safer than the early designs used at Fukushima, which were recommended to be shutdown and replaced due to their age and eqarly design. If it hadn’t been for the scaremongers trying to shutdown the nuclear power industry with irrational fears, Fkushima and the other early nuclear power plants would already have been replaced with newer and safer plants located away from the areas at risk from tsunami damage. The anti-nuclear activists are responsible for the consequences of the precautionary evacuations caused by the unnecessary fear and any increased risks caused by the inability to replace the older plant designs.
perhaps the evacuees should consider suing the anti-nuclear propagandists for their losses suffered as a consequence of the unnecessary evacuations?
I have studied this subject for decades and I agree with the above guest post by John Droz.
Any energy technology that requires life-of-project subsidies is fundamentally uneconomic and anti-environmental. To date, this includes corn ethanol, some biodiesel, and grid-connected wind and solar power.
Technological improvements could hypothetically improve some of these renewable energy schemes over time, but most are already technologically mature.
A super-battery, consisting of millions of electric cars plugged into the grid, could significantly improve the economics of wind and solar power.
I haven’t studied this for that long, but no disagreement. The technology is not ready-for-prime-time and may never be. The energy density with wind is simply not there, and may never be.
These subsidizes just enrich a few with the taxes of the many.
As someone previously mentioned, the mandates for alternate energy also must be addressed and revoked.
Now I know why, here in central Pennsylvania with no cable and broadcast-only, I’ve been assaulted for a few weeks by non-stop any-time-of-day TV commercials to stop Congress from ‘imposing unfair taxes’ on the wind industry, which will force American jobs overseas.
We’re getting the turbines from China, like those used in this large Texas wind farm, also from Europe. Things like the concrete and the steel towers are sourced in the US due to prohibitive transportation costs. If they stopped putting up turbines then we’d lose the US manufacturing and installation jobs but we wouldn’t be importing parts and materials for putting up windmills. Thus I fail to see how jobs would be sent overseas by killing the subsidies, aka ‘taxing the wind industry’. But then I’m not a marketing genius working for rabid windpower activists and/or windpower profiteers.
Here’s the site the ads are directing people to go visit, click on “Wind Energy by 2030 Fact Sheet” (pdf link, 3.6MB for only two pages of glossy graphics) and experience a curious disconnection from reality:
http://www.saveusawindjobs.com/
Quebec to start cap-trade climate plan with California
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1102549–quebec-to-start-cap-trade-climate-plan-with-california?bn=1
What is interesting here is all the work being done to run transmission lines into New England to balance all of the wind projects going up. Furthermore, hydroelectric power sent to New England from Quebec did not qualify for Renewable Energy Credits.
http://www.electricityforum.com/news/mar10/MaineconsidersimpactofHydroQuebec.html
excerpt:
John Kerry, the director of the Office of Energy Independence and Security, said steady Canadian hydroelectric capacity could balance Maine’s production of wind energy.
“I think we should work collaboratively with our Canadian neighbors,” Kerry said in an interview. “I underscore that we should do it at arm’s length and be prudent, but we should see it as an opportunity.”
For its part, Hydro-Quebec said that its wind capacity, aside from about 150 megawatts for Massachusetts and Connecticut, is for Quebec consumption, and hydroelectric power like that in Hydro-Quebec’s portfolio does not qualify for valuable renewable energy certificates, or RECs, traded in New England.
The question now to be asked is, does this deal change the way Hydro Quebec’s hydroelectric power is treated regarding REC’s?
Here in Australia where Federal Labor are introducing a carbon tax starting at $23/tonne, their State counterparts are busy ditching the ‘Greenwash’-http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/greenwash-call-on-desalination/story-e6frea83-1226223353066?from=public_rss
Supposedly Adelaide’s new desal plant was going to run on wind largely but the cost of ‘waterproofing’ Adelaide with the new plant was getting prohibitive anyway. It was no sooner nearing completion in response to the long General Drought (naturally blamed on global warming by the usual suspects) when down came the rains and Australia was flooded everywhere. Problem is, Adelaide water consumers are saddled with a contractual commitment to buy so much water from the desal plant to guarantee a return on it and with water bills skyrocketing, naturally the polllies are scrambling for obvious savings.
P. Solar. says: December 15, 2011 at 3:44 am
>> The fact is that if this same money went to fund reliable, clean, sustainable energy like nuclear power,
>>
Reliable and clean huh? Try telling that to the 200,000 people displaced by the Fukupshima accident.
—————————————————–
Closer to 20,000 than 200,000 and most of them are back home now. They were displaced by the Japanese government as a precaution. There were zero injuries and zero deaths as a result of the problems at the drowned nuke power plants (unless you count the heart attack, two drownings and two guys crushed when the wall of water hit). It was the tsunami that directly killed thousands of people.