End of tax credit a blow for wind power industry
Up to 37,000 jobs, many in Illinois, could be lost as projects are halted or abandoned
By Julie Wernau, Chicago Tribune reporter
The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington.
The move is expected to have major ramifications in states such as Illinois, where 13,892 megawatts of planned wind projects — enough to power 3.3 million homes per year — are seeking to be connected to the electric grid. Many of those projects will be abandoned or significantly delayed without federal subsidies.
The state is home to more than 150 companies that support the wind industry. At least 67 of those make turbines or components for wind farms. Chicago is the U.S. headquarters to more than a dozen major wind companies that wanted to take advantage of powerful Midwestern winds.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0217-wind-ptc–20120217,0,7153601.story
h/t to CRS, DrPH
Rocky,
“These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered “externalities.” We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually” Epstein et al. 2011
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf
And according to you, all the people that stopped using horses with the advent of motorized transportation are hypocrites.
Soylent,
” It’s just a transfer of wealth from consumer and tax payers to well-connected corporate interests and political cronies.”
And which industry you figure is more well connected? Certainly not Big Oil.
“Anti-renewable” is a deliberate mischaracterization of the arguments against green energy subsidies. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
I disagree with your characterization of this as a subsidy for the oil industry. However, if we want to improve energy security then approval of the Keystone XL pipeline is the first step. Expanding domestic drilling and production is the next step. Increased use of natural gas, oil shale and other fossil fuel sources are other steps that should be commenced immediately.
Arnold Ring (@ArnoldRing) says:
February 17, 2012 at 8:17 am
I have no idea why skeptics would dislike wind power, it’s hardly a threat to our way of life or more of a subsidy drain than other energy sources. It only makes sense in certain locations and it can only be used up to about 20% in an energy mix due to diminishing returns.
Because the subsidies result in wind power being installed where it doesn’t make sense. The same is true for Solar. I’ve seen ‘taxpayer subsidized’ solar panels installed in the Seattle Area that face ‘north’. In the spring the Windmills installed in Washington state result in an increase in ‘hydro spillage’ due to lack of demand. Windmills displacing hydro power…that will solve our ‘climate problem’ and ‘dependence on middle eastern oil’.
One can only celebrate wind generation cancellation, when an announcement follows, detailing what the plan is, to build replacement generation. What is important is that the North America grid voltage is maintained reliably and efficiently. Now that is a goal worth celebrating! Trouble is… NO mention of shovels in the ground. GK
Gary says:
February 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Why do I hate the term “Supply x-million homes” as a unit of production ??
————————————-
To me it shows that our intrepid reporter, Julie Wernau, gets her “facts” spoon fed to her by the wind lobby. The wind council may as well have written the article for her if they didn’t already.
DirkH I don’t know why else the US spent trillions in the Gulf other than to secure oil supplies. What other strategic interest is in that region?
“Can you give us the breakdown of these costs?” [health/environmental costs of coal]
I can list them but I’m not going to quantify.
fine particulates, ground level ozone, SO, NOX, mercury, radiation
no big secret
“Do you want to imply that wind power makes gas power stations more efficient? ”
No (badly phrased by me). I mean that the combination of a certain amount of wind power with a peaking gas power plant is more efficient than a peaking power plant alone.
Efficiency is measured by ratio of input costs to output energy. When the wind is blowing, fuel is not being burnt. There are added costs from wind such as starting and stopping gas power generation. There are added capital costs. The method is to predict wind output continually and balance that wind prediction against gas power output and expected demand. An additional saving by using wind is reduced exposure to gas price volatility. No use in a place with a low wind capacity factor or lacking matching peaking gas power gen. Works better in a place with demand power pricing.
Hmmmm, wonder how many jobs will be created to remove those ugly, bird killers?
Let’s assume your premise is correct. How is that a subsidy for the oil industry? Is my local police department a subsidy for the grocer? Is the fire department a subsidy for the lumber yard?
@ur momisugly David Jones,
thanks David, the image of burning turbines is indeed spectacular ! it would give my South Australian bushfire prone locals cause for concern about losing their billion dollar wheat crop. it’s a hot topic. with a google search of ‘windturbine causes bushfires’ yielding 52 000 results, and ‘windturbine fires’ yielding 471 000 results.
@ur momisugly Bernieny,
thankyou for your detective work and math skills. a 20% wind turbine contribution to the European electricity requirement speaks to the success of wind generated electricity, albeit at a grossly increased cost.
@ur momisugly Justa Jo,
thanks for providing the energy sources for Germany during ‘the tight supply situation seen so far in week 6.’
@ur momisugly Espen,
I’m sure wind power has it’s place, but, given present technology, not as one of the main suppliers to industry and societal infrastructure.
I actually agree with Bill (6.38 a.m.) : there is an economy of scale where windpower is practical in the absence of less expensive alternatives, such as where there is no connection to the power grid.
a case in point, a neighbour lived $20 000 away from the power grid, about 12 electricity poles in distance. he was able to buy a ‘Southern Cross’ wind turbine, and a storage bank of batteries, for $12 000. he had 40 volt domestic appliances, a back up deisel generator, and could run the house off the car if necessary.
> Paulino says: 41 [billion US dollars] doesn’t amount to penny and quarters, does it? And let’s account for
> all the costs that each energy source, and then the monumentally stupid coal plants will be
> eliminated as well.
You have funny ideas about what’s “monumentally stupid.” The $41 billion figure is a complete misrepresentation of reality. From the DOE’s own 2007 (apples-to-apples) study of subsidies paid for electrical generation based on fuel type:
coal = $0.44 per MWh
wind = $23.37 per MWh
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf
> And you caught me, I’m hypocrite, but I’m not proud of it, I hope we can change things, that
> will change not matter what. I also hope we are able chose the timing of the change, and it’s
> not imposed on us because we failed to act. Now promise me that, when wind and solar
> catch-up with oil and gas, you’ll turn off the light.
My advice is to stop being ashamed because you have a carbon footprint. Every human does; it goes with the territory. If you can pick some low-hanging fruit to reduce it a bit, more power to you. Conservation is generally a good idea, if you don’t go to stupid or non-economical extremes.
But on the other hand, don’t hold your breath waiting for solar and wind to catch up, because they probably never will. Are you reading some of the links here to windmill reliability, the maintenance issues, the way wind farms affect the power grid, the way we still have to have a complete fossil fuel based system online for the times the wind doesn’t blow, and how that “backup” system is compromised and made less efficient due to variability in the wind generators? Please do, and then you’ll start to commence to begin to understand why your side is losing this debate.
Renewables will never be able to scale to the size of the problem, and simply calling for an end to the use of fossil fuels before an adequate replacement supply of electricity generating fuel is available, is (excuse the phrase) monumentally stupid.
> poor lil’ Heartland institute, only wants to interfere with the teaching of science in schools.
Heartland wants to end the brainwashing of children in school. So do I. Teaching about “climate change in K-12 is not the same thing as teaching science. It’s simply indoctrination about an eco/green policy agenda loosely related to some very suspect science.
> You how kids are these days, always questioning grown-ups., we must not suffer that!
So you support skepticism? Good for you. Now the children just need to be taught how science and the scientific method works. You know, falsification, testing, observing, openness, repeatablility, correlations not equalling causation, stuff like that.
Arnold Ring (@ArnoldRing) says:
February 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
DirkH I don’t know why else the US spent trillions in the Gulf other than to secure oil supplies. What other strategic interest is in that region?
“Can you give us the breakdown of these costs?” [health/environmental costs of coal]
I can list them but I’m not going to quantify.
fine particulates, ground level ozone, SO, NOX, mercury, radiation
no big secret
——————————————
Does Korea have oil reserves that we’re protecting? Your fellow travelers when they’re not worrying about warming are usually complaining about The USA’s (pick a big number) military bases worldwide so we must have presence in about every region in the world. The mideast would be one of the most important even w/o oil.
What is the so-called external cost of not having reliable electricity? It would basically be about the same as the GDP.
“the Windmills installed in Washington state result in an increase in ‘hydro spillage’ due to lack of demand. ”
That’s true, wind turbines produce uncontrolled power. Most people don’t realize that power is not stored, we use it the instant it is manufactured. So if its a warm night and most people are alseep, few people are buying power. The power produced by wind cannot be sold because consumers are not buying.
If it can’t be sold or given to other power producers, I’m not sure what is done with it.
An interesting, very detailed, article about out of date wind farms. It says it is updated from 1997, but I can’t find when it was written. Even if it is that old, it still seems relevant.
“New data from California indicates that it may be more expensive to remove wind turbines and restore their sites than previously thought.”
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/Removal.html
Klem- they feather the blades.and charge the power providers( consumers)….
“Happness is a warm fast breeder.”
Apologies if this has already been touched upon: “where 13,892 megawatts of planned wind projects — enough to power 3.3 million homes per year “.
Uh, in a word, no. 13982 mW, might, if it were all available at once, might meet the demands of 3.3 milion homes at that same instance. But not per year. Watts are measure of power, not energy.
Just another shining example of the scientific illiteracy of the lamestream media.
And no jobs will be lost. No real ones. Some people, getting paychecks for useless, economically unjustifiable work, will cease to get paychecks, and go on unemployment instead. Same udder, different teat.
Ontario spend $30,000,000 last year paying the US to take its unwanted windpower when it came available.
There are three new natural gas generating plants going up near here (Toronto-Windsor) to produce some grid stablility (they can be rapidly brought on and off line). The Mississauga NIMBY’s killed another one meaning we all will have to pay even more to dump power into the US grid so it does not mess up the almost 100% carbon-free power system Ontario already enjoys.
The farmers get rich, the windmill companies get rich, China gets rich, the birds get killed and the general population pays for all of it – fixed income grannies choosing heat over food and the single income poor with 3 part-time jobs. And where is the Left? Bought off! By whom? It is an eco-tax to benefit narrow interests operating as a ‘trust’ in the way of the Robber Barons of old. It is a capitalist money-grab that would have made Edgar Harriman, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John Warne Gates proud. It is not socialism, it is the picking of the public pocket – business in collusion with government – for the private benefit of those connected enough to influence the scripting of Law. Mussolini had another name for that…
William Martin:
It only took figuring out how many zeroes were in a TWh, i.e., 10^12. But remember my definition of utilization is how much of the face plate capacity is actually generated. The % of all electricity generated that comes from wind is another question entirely and it is decidely less than 20% – approximately 5%.
Lights going out on BC solar firm?
http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2012/Feb/17/Stockhouse-Short-Report–Light-going-out-on-B-C–s
To think, this scam was launched because fraudsters utilized upside Tiljander, stripped bark trees, and the lonely Yamal tree to claim we were headed for a catastrophe. And yet ocean data and “unadjusted” satellite data reveal we are in a cooling trend. Makes you want to cry when you consider all the kids who can’t find a job.
By 2007, Federal Subsidies for renewables exceeded those for Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil combined.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf
Spain lost 2.2 jobs for every job created in renewable energy
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Germany’s experience with Wind Power subsidies
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf
Denmark
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
Does Wind Power actually reduce carbon emissions?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/08/does-wind-power-reduce-carbon-emissions/
ferd berple says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:44 am
“It is called insider trading. Politicians have been doing it for years.”……
===============
Not anymore, if you can believe this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/politics/house-passes-bill-banning-insider-trading-by-members-of-congress.html?pagewanted=all
So, all this time, insider trading has been illegal unless one is a member of Congress ?
WUWT
Arnold Ring (@ArnoldRing) says:
February 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
“DirkH I don’t know why else the US spent trillions in the Gulf other than to secure oil supplies. What other strategic interest is in that region?”
This might help you:
“Can you give us the breakdown of these costs?” [health/environmental costs of coal]”
I can list them but I’m not going to quantify.
fine particulates, ground level ozone, SO, NOX, mercury, radiation
no big secret
”
Too bad. When someone tells me XXX is so expensive that it’s uneconomical I expect him to have numbers to prove it. In other words, I was explicitly asking for THE COST. And, uh, radioactive? Your body is radioactive. My body is radioactive. The air we breath is radioactive. So, all of your list doesn’t make sense without numbers.
Yes, completely legal. It’s another example of how Congress exempts itself from laws and regulations us common folk have to obey.
BTW insider trading is still legal for Congress, their staff and families, as the bill hasn’t been passed into law. A better law would be to have them put their assets in blind trusts while in office or on the Congressional staff.
u.k.(us) says:
February 17, 2012 at 11:01 am
“So, all this time, insider trading has been illegal unless one is a member of Congress ?
WUWT”
Yep, and they get an automatic pay increase unless they draft and pass legislation to specifically stop it.
It’s the law. They wrote it.