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
John F. Hultquist says: ‘The fellow that has argued most persuasively in this arena is Bjørn Lomborg’
Thanks John, I am familiar with Bjorn Lomborg and his views. It was his TED talk which started me thinking about this issue in context (ie that Maleria and AIDS etc are clearly more important and amendable).
That being said, his argument is simply dismissed (I think because he is classed as an economist, not a climate scientist) as a kind of side show which distracts from the scientific debate. The ramifications of global warming are expected to impact these very same people (or rather the generations that follow) in a much greater way than any known disease, poverty or famine we currently witness on a daily basis.
To that end the UN Security council was lobbied full and hard in July last year by the likes of Achim Steiner, a seemingly mild mannered and innocuous bureaucrat, to place ‘climate change’ on the Agenda toward the “Maintenance of international peace and security”
I watched this man place before this council (these are the guys who allocate the big guns) the following;
‘3-4 Celsius warming by end of century’
‘Arctic free of summer ice by 2030’
‘sea level rise by end of century of 1 metre’
‘worst case scenario is 4 degrees by 2060’
‘climate change we know it as fact’
‘2010 – 42 million were displaced by natural disasters and 90% were from weather events’
‘food insecurity will become a phenomenon leading to social insecurity’
‘scientific confirmation increases by the day’
‘65% of Africa will suffer yield crops this century’
‘tipping points; implications of 2-3-4 degree warming…ecosystems like in Amazon cease to function as they do today, Arctic melt and permafrost releasing carbon.’
‘feedback mechanisms;…hydrological cycles are being put into question’,
‘Glacier melt..as in the Himilayas, there is a significant reduction in the air covered by glaciers…determining water flow and sustainability.
‘implications…are of such a profound nature…’
‘CLIMATE CHANGE IS NO LONGER AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION’
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2011/07/achim-steiner-unep-security-council-meeting-part-1.html
With this kind of discussion at this kind of level….where is there any room for debate?
Meanwhile…in the real world…people are dropping like flies.
Kev-in-UK says
– but in the past, when an idea was promoted, it was carefully considered, tested, tried, refined, and tried again.
———
Ah the conservative’s rose-colored glasses about the past. Actually it did not happen that way at all.
The guys who put in place just about every modern convenience took huge risks and very often failed. Railways, cars, electricity, etc., you name it.
They were also government subsidized in one way or another. Military spending is just one standout factor. Land grants are another.
George E. Smith; says:
February 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm
“Wasn’t it the USA that conned Mosadeq into nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and then having him have an oops moment so the Shah could come in and turn it all into Aramco.”
Mosadeq was chosen by the Shah and confirmed by the parliament. The Shah was the head of state all the time.
[SNIP: Sorry, but this really is getting rather far afield from the thread topic and we REALLY don’t want to encourage this topic. Sorry. -REP]
TIM from NZ says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:27 pm
“One thing I do know; Without industrialising…Africa is screwed. Why does no one care about that? Did Bono ruin it for everyone?”
Don’t despair.
http://www.gapminder.org
Also, a thing that has been largely ignored by the media. Notorious Africa-helper Geldof about G.W.Bush:
“”I read it has been incompetent – but not in Africa. It has created bitterness – but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives.” ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm
RockyRoad says:
February 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm
“…Nuclear finally got two new plants approved after 33 years! They won’t be on line for 4 more years (a 37 year gap since the last ones). No solution here.”
Yeah, and the flipping nuisance garbage munchers are still trying to tie that one up.
A dozen environmental groups filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging federal licenses issued last week for the expansion of a nuclear power plant near Waynesboro, Ga…
… In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the plaintiffs asked for an order requiring the NRC to prepare environmental studies outlining how the reactors’ design would protect from the kinds of earthquake and flooding damage that occurred at the Fukushima plant in Japan last year.
I guess that they don’t realize that if there is a tsunami in that reaches to central Georgia… a nuclear power plant would be the least of our concerns.
I think you are correct about that, and the question is “why”.
If you read the various groups posts objectively (hard for any person as we all have “personal filters”) you realize that the two groups have fundamentally different world views, and different models of logical evaluation of information.
The pro CAGW group and liberals (U.S. version) tend to put much more weight on “feel good” issues and have much less precise and restrictive definitions regarding what constitutes “proof”. They accept arguments of authority without question (or nearly so) especially if they come from one of their Guru’s, putting a heavy weight on the source of the information rather than the credibility of the information itself. They seldom run logical reasonableness tests on “facts” and almost never do so from a “friendly source” and assume that just because a “fact” is published some where, it must be true.
The majority of the skeptics (conservatives U.S. version) tend to acknowledge “feel good” issues but to not allow them near the weight that the liberal left does. As a group we tend to be better at compartmentalizing concepts and treating “feelings” and “facts” according to different rules.
It would be “nice to feed the world”, but that does not mean it is a practical possibility in the real world, and they tend to evaluate the two issues independently, and weigh them separately. The skeptics also put much less weight on the source of the information unless they have (in their mind) a proven history or producing bad info. They also accept the premise that it is their duty to question even “trusted information” because they do not assume infalibility even of trusted sources.
So skeptics do weigh the source, but tend to do that evaluation based on their assessment of the value of previous work not necessarily intangibles such as which group the individual works for.
Liberals are also much more likely to allow beliefs in one area to taint credibility in others. For example for many the simple fact some one is religious arbritrarily taints all the views of that individual. They do not recognize that a person can be competent in one area and a moron in others. They tend to project their predujudices on others and because some people who are religious believe in “intellegent design” presume that all people who hold religious beliefs also have those views. They seem impervious to the fact that religious views cover a huge span of beliefs ranging from the extreme radical to very subtle “I think there might be a god” level of religiosity. They tend to assume much more black and white distinctions, and put people in cubby holes if you hold one belief they find unacceptable they assume all your beliefs are unacceptable. Likewise they put great value in titles. The fact someone has a Phd lends great weight to their views regardless of their demonstrated skill.
Classic example is Judith Curry, in the beginning her postings were viewed with significant skepticism here, based on the standing record for other “warmers” but she has largely gained acceptance based on the content of her work, and now is well regarded by many even though they may disagree with some or her positions. The liberal left however has a much more extreme source bias, where the fact someone had a neighbor who worked for Shell oil or some other trivial connection to the “evil big oil” forever taints that person.
This regardless of the fact that many of the biggest and wealthiest power players in the left have a long and very well known connection to “big oil” and make huge investments (and thus have huge incentives financial incentives) involving oil. The man on the street liberal accepts without much critical thought that a major liberal power player opposes some oil related project (keystone pipe line) for entirely benign reasons such as pollution potential and gives them a total pass on the fact they may be heavily invested in an oil venture (Soros Brazil) that might be competing to deliver oil to the same world market.
Unless we recognize this different world view, communication is largely past each other rather that with each other.
A sound scientific hypothisis or theory falsification is meaningless to someone who places little value on the source of that information or places a much higher value on the pronouncements of some authority figure in their own group that asserts a contrary opinion.
Larry
Larry, I agree. Good post.
I’ve long thought that IF we insist on using wind power, it’s energy should be captured in a way that does not depend directly on spinning blades to generate electricity but instead uses an indirect method which saves the energy and generates it’s electricity in a smooth manner from a hydroelectric system. If the terrain allowed, large, sealed reservoirs of some hopefully benign, liquid anti-freeze, could flow downhill into a gravity fed electrical generating station, then to a lower reservoir would catch the fluid, and all the wind rotors would have the sole function of pumping the fluid from the lower to upper reservoir. When electricity demand is low, the fluid can be shut off, and when needed, gates open, fluid flows, and the generators starts spinning. The generating equipment could start and stop quickly.
This would mean no more generators up high on towers. Obviously, the kinetic energy of the spinning blade would have to be connected to a pump rather than to a generator. In this scheme, the electricity all comes from only one spot, making the transmission wiring much simpler. But then, on the downside, there is much more complex plumbling for fluid storage and management. But all the plumbing is at or below ground level, making it much easier to maintain. Since energy can be saved in this scheme, perhaps shorter towers or horizontal spinning blades would be adequate, and could help mitigate bird and bat losses.
Has any wind farm ever tried such a design?
Pumped storage is used around the world to smooth peak load in conventional power grids.
The cabin creek project in Colorado is such a system where water is pumped up hill to a holding reservoir during periods of excess generation capacity and released to generate power during peak demand periods. Hydro pumped storage is right now the only cost effective electrical storage system with enough capacity to be useful.
http://www.xcelenergy.com/About_Us/Our_Company/Power_Generation/Cabin_Creek_Generating_Station
Larry
Additional link regarding cabin creek and wind energy:
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/energystorage/files/EESAT2007/EESAT_Colorado_PHES_Sites_Presentation.pdf
Larry
Re: Larry. ‘Unless we recognize this different world view, communication is largely past each other rather that with each other.’
Agreed. And so the battle rages on with people becoming evermore polarized. As an example of this I saw a Bill Maher episode where he lambasts Republican candidate Rick Perry for denying Anthropogenic Global Warming by stating that ‘He also believes in Intelligent Design’ …then goes on to claim that MOST ‘deniers’ believe the world is 5000 years old. Enough said.
In a world where the ‘shock jock’ (be that Bill Maher or Glenn Beck) influences public opinion so much…what role does ‘truth’ play? There is no room for dissent on either side. They simply form a block and shout each other down.
Having said that, if anyone reading this blog truly believes in ‘intelligent design’ and attempts to argue it’s case…they will instantly lose credibility (in my eyes), which undermines my trust in their views across the board (whether I like it or not). It exposes a flaw (or bias) in critical thinking which diminishes their otherwise sound judgement in other things. It is incurably relevant.
I saw a republican debate last year where they were asked ‘who believes in evolution?’ and only one of the 7 candidates raised their hand….I felt sick to the pit of my stomach. If a President believes that Armageddon is coming (and that Jesus would descend from the clouds)…why would he try to avoid it?
This exposes my own prejudice of course, as it seems ludicrous to ‘deny’ the weight of evidence for evolution and believe in bronze age mythology. But the same argument is used by ‘alarmists’ as their evidence seems, to them, without question.
In these sets of circumstance it seems today that you either believe every storm is evidence of ‘global warming’ or ‘god’s anger’. They are diametrically opposed. Unfortunately I, and many like me, feel lost in the noise between two radical world views.
LazyTeenager says:
February 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm
I’m guessing you’re not an engineer, Lazy. Or a scientist. For all of the items you mention (railways, cars, electricity, etc.) started as an idea that was carefully considered, tested, tried, refined, and tried again and again before they “took huge risks and very often failed”. Those are the logical, procedural steps taken every time.
If an item wasn’t “considered, tested, tried, refined, and tried again” first it won’t even make it to the next step. You make it sound like all that’s needed is to take huge risks and acquire government subsidies (cash or land) to achieve notable success but that’s a myopic (and lazy) view of the whole process–and this from someone who IS an engineer AND a scientist and has gone through the above-described process numerous times.
But nice try denigrating conservatives as wearers of “rose-colored glasses”; it just isn’t true (which if you’d open your mind to find out what conservatives really are about you’d perhaps *gasp* realize you’re one too).
LT? A confused closet conservative? Not a chance in Hades.
@ur momisugly GeoLurking & RockyRoad,
Nuclear powerplants are using up decommissioned nuclear bombs! The deal we had with Russia to supply our powerplants with decommissioned warheads uranium ends in 2013. Uranium mining and production cannot keep up with demand. Spaghetti O’s warhead reductions proposals maybe related to scarcity?
With hundred(s) of planned nuclear reactors worldwide, some under construction, there might not be enough uranium mined to support them.
Well, this is going to screw me in my job. If there are government grants involved, then it’s a good thing to kill them. If it’s merely a tax break, then all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth is awfully Progressive of you guys. The Conservative position is that corporations shouldn’t be taxed in the first place. Giving a business a tax break in order to encourage hiring is hardly a Leftist ideal.
At 8:16 PM on 17 February, des1 had posted:
To the extent that there’s anything resembling a coherent political “Conservative position” on the subject of taxation of productive enterprise, that’s simply not true.
With it understood that “…I Am Not a Conservative” but very much an adherent of the Austrian School of economics, let us discuss the concept of “malinvestment,” okay?
Austrian School economists hold that: “…systemic malinvestments occur because of unnecessary and counterproductive intervention in the free market, distorting price signals and misleading investors and entrepeneurs.”
The provision of something like “a tax break” afforded particular actors (or types of activity) in the power generation market while continuing heavily to tax other generators of electricity – by functioning to impose a heavy penalty upon those who do not get that that “tax break” – induces investment in those actors (and types of activity) which would not have otherwise have warranted monetary support in a free market.
The free market, remember, is one in which economic activities do not sustain either the impairments or the advantages of government thugs intervening normatively to “pick winners and losers.”
When it is understood that wind power has no real comparative advantage against other forms of electricity generation, the resources, funds, and human effort devoted to these bird-whacking pinwheels constitute a malinvestment. Thus whether “there are government grants…” or “a tax break” “…involved, it’s a good thing to kill them” and thereby discontinue and liquidate the malinvestment.
Whether one is politically “Conservative” or “awfully Progressive” (the latter being the weasel-word in current usage to evade the myriad negative connotations of “Liberal” and “socialist” and “fascist”), it should be acknowledged that any government policy or activity which serves to induce malinvestment is destructive of the economy, and reason more than sufficient sufficient for great numbers of the private citizenry:
…in addressing the perpetrators thereof.
des1 says:
February 17, 2012 at 8:16 pm
True, but neither Left nor Right make good business decisions–any time the government gets involved in the economy they create a shortage in one sector and a surplus in another–and the taxpayer makes up the difference ($). (Reminds me of when the Soviet Union collapsed, gold production from the combined USSR fell by about a third practically overnight, ’cause when they put actual cost numbers to their production, they found that much of their gold was costing more to produce per ounce than the spot market. Oops. Theory was they were using gold production figures as a way to promote their ideology just like they used “non-professional athletes” in the Olympics.)
Ed Mertin says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:15 pm
“With hundred(s) of planned nuclear reactors worldwide, some under construction, there might not be enough uranium mined to support them.”
So it should be…
Time to turn to Thorium Technology.
Scrap all Renewable subsidies [Sorry, David Cameron’s Father in Law!] and regret the wasted monies that could have already had the UK’s massive Shale Gas reserves provide us with our own independent source of [not external and politically dangerous] energy.
Frakking obvious I would have thought.
Ed Mertin says:
February 17, 2012 at 7:15 pm
:… Uranium mining and production cannot keep up with demand.”
Of course it cant… that is also by design.
January 09, 2012
Federal land around Grand Canyon off limits to new uranium mining
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that new uranium and other hard-rock mining won’t be allowed on about 1 million acres of federal land around the Grand Canyon for the next 20 years.
The decision doesn’t ban previously approved mines or claims with valid existing rights. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that 11 uranium mines could still be developed because they have pre-existing rights. It says if the ban hadn’t been put in place there could have been 30 mines in the area over the next 20 years.
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2012/01/federal-land-around-grand-canyon-off-limits-to-new-uranium-mining.html
LazyTeenager says:
February 17, 2012 at 3:26 pm
“Kev-in-UK says
– but in the past, when an idea was promoted, it was carefully considered, tested, tried, refined, and tried again.
———
Ah the conservative’s rose-colored glasses about the past. Actually it did not happen that way at all.
The guys who put in place just about every modern convenience took huge risks and very often failed. Railways, cars, electricity, etc., you name it.
They were also government subsidized in one way or another. Military spending is just one standout factor. Land grants are another. ”
The only transcontinental railroad company that never declared bankruptcy was the Great Northern. It was also the only one that wasn’t subsidized.
http://biggovernment.com/dweinberger/2011/12/16/from-time-to-trains-government-is-no-innovator/
The Green in Green power is your money.
polski says:
February 17, 2012 at 6:51 am
Let’s say that the subsidies are removed. Let’s say that many wind farms go bankrupt. Now what should be done with all those wind turbines. Is there an opportunity for some bright, hard working, free enterprise individual to somehow make a viable business out of all this mess?
What would a large amount of intermittent power be good for? Milling wheat, corn or soy? Water heating/treatment for local towns. Powering compressors to aerate lakes and sewage ponds?
Since they are so big and heavy would they not be difficult to just scrap and recycle?
_________________
You are on the right track polski. We probably cannot afford to take down these worthless eyesores, although maintaining them may not be economic either.
If we ever develop a “super-battery” , such as millions of electric cars plugged into the grid when parked, wind power may become more economic.
Other possibilities, such as those you have mentioned, are to use wind power for applications where its intermittent nature is not such a detriment. Large heating systems using hot water could be one such application, perhaps coupled to large industrial users. However, waste heat from coal and natural-gas fired power stations would probably be less expensive.
Further to my immediately previous post, there is also the serious issue of bird and bat kill by wind farms.
It’s seems obvious that wind farms in some areas, such as Altamont Pass in California, should be decommissioned – since the loss of significant numbers of endangered bird species cannot be allowed to continue.
Perhaps the most economical approach would be to remove the large propellers, and leave the structures for large birds to nest in. Over the years, these aging towers would become encased in layers of guano, a fitting end for wind power, and a suitable monument to the discredited global warming movement.
George E. Smith; says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:20 pm
900 Watts probably won’t power the idle standby draw for the whole-house UPS you’ll need to tide you over the dips and surges in the wind turbine output.
As a professional accountant, it never ceases to amaze me that governments still do not get it… that if it needs subsidising, it obviously is not viable, and artificially propping up an industry or a technology, or whatever, is not sustainable, and so when the plug is eventually ‘pulled’, nothing but chaos and misery eventuates.
The sad thing is that politicians introduce their ludicrous policies because its ‘only tax payers money being wasted’… all that matters is that the politicians’ political goals are achieved… without a care in the world for the damage that their policies will most certainly cause, and worst of all, these politicians are never held accountable other than being voted out of office.