Another Boondoggle 'in the making- The Wind Subsidy Bubble

Trajan

conscientia mille testes
Jun 17, 2010
29,048
5,463
48
The Bay Area Soviet
Another 3 Billion? After they airdropped 30 Billion int0 the Green sector in 2 years?

Congress- Why yes lets cut spending.

Ready?
no, not that...uhm, no,...sorry nope....uhm..maybe, nope, not that...:rolleyes:


The Ethanol re-subsidization which received another 6 Billion injection is a Boehner target, ( we'll see, I am doubtful) this Wind subsidy needs to go too, the gov. is as just usual distorting the market and blowing more money through a spigot for an 'idea' and platform that doesn't stand a chance in the marketplace.

Its not a conspiracy folks, its life. The Fossil fuel run has a long road ahead of it.


* DECEMBER 20, 2010

The Wind Subsidy Bubble
Green pork should be a GOP budget target.

snip-

Despite more than $30 billion in subsidies for "clean energy" in the 2009 stimulus bill, Big Wind still can't make it in the marketplace.

Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, had warned that without last week's extension of the federal 1603 investment credit, the outlook for the wind industry would be "flatline or down."

Some 20,000 wind energy jobs, about one-quarter of the industry's total, could have been lost, the wind lobby concedes. For most industries that would be an admission of failure, but in Washington this kind of forecast is used to justify more subsidies.

But what have these subsidies bought taxpayers? According to AWEA, in the first half of 2010 wind power installations "dropped by 57% and 71% from 2008 and 2009 levels." In the third quarter, the industry says it "added just 395 megawatts (MW) of wind-powered electric generating capacity," making it the lowest quarter since 2007. New wind installations are down 72% from last year to their lowest level since 2006. And this is supposed to be the miracle electricity source of the future?

The coal industry, which Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department have done everything possible to curtail, added almost three times more to the nation's electric power capacity in the first nine months of 2010 (39%) than did wind (14%), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The grant program that Congress has extended was created in the 2008 stimulus bill. It forces taxpayers to pay 30% of a renewable energy project's costs. Big Wind insisted on these grants because wind energy producers don't make enough net income to take advantage of the generous renewable energy tax credit.

The industry also wants a federal renewable energy standard, which would require utilities to buy power from green energy projects regardless of price. Without that additional subsidy, AWEA concedes that wind power will "stall out." It is lobbying for billions of dollars of subsidies to cover the cost of hooking off-shore wind projects to the electricity transmission grid. And now that the cap-and-tax scheme on coal and oil and gas has failed in Congress, the windmillers want the EPA to use regulation to raise costs on carbon sources of power.

snip

According to an analysis by Chris Horner, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus bill's subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. That's at least four times what it costs a nonsubsidized private firm to create a job—a lousy return on investment even for government.

The wind industry claims to employ 85,000 Americans. That's almost certainly an exaggeration, but if it is true it compares with roughly 140,000 miners and others directly employed by the coal industry. Wind accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation and coal almost 50%. So it takes at least 25 times more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal.

more at-

Review & Outlook: The Wind Subsidy Bubble - WSJ.com
 
Last edited:
Wind power blows.

Robert Bryce: A Wind Power Boonedoggle - WSJ.com


After 30 months, countless TV appearances, and $80 million spent on an extravagant PR campaign, T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: The wind energy business isn't a very good one.

The Dallas-based entrepreneur, who has relentlessly promoted his "Pickens Plan" since July 4, 2008, announced earlier this month that he's abandoning the wind business to focus on natural gas.

Two years ago, natural gas prices were spiking and Mr. Pickens figured they'd stay high. He placed a $2 billion order for wind turbines with General Electric. Shortly afterward, he began selling the Pickens Plan. The United States, he claimed, is "the Saudi Arabia of wind," and wind energy is an essential part of the cure for the curse of imported oil.

Voters and politicians embraced the folksy billionaire's plan. Last year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he had joined "the Pickens church," and Al Gore said he wished that more business leaders would emulate Mr. Pickens and be willing to "throw themselves into the fight for the future of our country."

Alas, market forces ruined the Pickens Plan. Mr. Pickens should have shorted wind. Instead, he went long and now he's stuck holding a slew of turbines he can't use because low natural gas prices have made wind energy uneconomic in the U.S., despite federal subsidies that amount to $6.44 for every 1 million British thermal units (BTUs) produced by wind turbines. As the former corporate raider explained a few days ago, growth in the wind energy industry "just isn't gonna happen" if natural gas prices remain depressed.

In 2008, shortly after he launched his plan, Mr. Pickens said that for wind energy to be competitive, natural gas prices must be at least $9 per million BTUs. In March of this year, he was still hawking wind energy, but he'd lowered his price threshold, saying "The place where it works best is with natural gas at $7."

That may be true. But on the spot market natural gas now sells for about $4 per million BTUs. In other words, the free-market price for natural gas is about two-thirds of the subsidy given to wind. Yet wind energy still isn't competitive in the open market.

Despite wind's lousy economics, the lame duck Congress recently passed a one-year extension of the investment tax credit for renewable energy projects. That might save a few "green" jobs.

But at the same time that Congress was voting to continue the wind subsidies, Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reported that property tax breaks for wind projects in the Lone Star State cost nearly $1.6 million per job. That green job ripoff is happening in Texas, America's biggest natural gas producer.

Today's low natural gas prices are a direct result of the drilling industry's newfound ability to unlock methane from shale beds. These lower prices are great for consumers but terrible for the wind business. Through the first three quarters of 2010, only 1,600 megawatts of new wind capacity were installed in the U.S., a decline of 72% when compared to the same period in 2009, and the smallest number since 2006. Some wind industry analysts are predicting that new wind generation installations will fall again, by as much as 50%, in 2011.

There's more bad news on the horizon for Mr. Pickens and others who have placed big bets on wind: Low natural gas prices may persist for years. Last month, the International Energy Agency's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said that the world is oversupplied with gas and that "the gas glut will be with us 10 more years." The market for natural-gas futures is predicting that gas prices will stay below $6 until 2017.

So what is Mr. Pickens planning to do with all the wind turbines he ordered? He's hoping to foist them on ratepayers in Canada, because that country has mandates that require consumers to buy more expensive renewable electricity.

How do you say boonedoggle in French?
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

Could you please be more specific regarding oil "subsidies"?

Denise Bode? LOL - I knew her when she was an oil industry advocate.

Article: Denise A. Bode, IPAA president. (Independent Petroleum Association of... | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

This is too good.

O.R. - speaking of "shills"... if you search the IPAA archives you'll find, in her own words, Denise Bode's analysis of oil "subsidies" and her defense of them.

I served under her as an executive director in that organization. She's a great gal and good at what she does, but it's obvious that Denise is on the Green Paycheck bandwagon. :lol:
 
If the government was truly concerned with fixing the economy?

Every American citizen could borrow money directly from the FED at the same rate as any bank.

Of course the insiders will always find the money they need to either do something real or just to make money while they're wasting ours doing things that won't work.

That is the nature of the SYSTEM, folks.

A system designed to create wealth for a few and poverty for the rest.
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

Wind isn't profitable even with subsidies.
Why does everything have to be profitable ?
How about break even for a govt project and small profit for a private company ?

The Jew street journal guys don't like it because theya is maww pwoffit in carbon based energy. It's not that it's not profitable, it's not profitable enough to satisfy the greedy motherfuckers.

Down my way there are many, many big BIG wind and geo-thermal projects going on but the greed is missing.
One German outfit is doing huge projects in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Brazil.
I guess they're just stupid.

How do you say boondoggle in Yiddish ?
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

Wind isn't profitable even with subsidies.
Why does everything have to be profitable ?
How about break even for a govt project and small profit for a private company ?

The Jew street journal guys don't like it because theya is maww pwoffit in carbon based energy. It's not that it's not profitable, it's not profitable enough to satisfy the greedy motherfuckers.

Down my way there are many, many big BIG wind and geo-thermal projects going on but the greed is missing.
One German outfit is doing huge projects in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Brazil.
I guess they're just stupid.

How do you say boondoggle in Yiddish ?

Any project run by the government never breaks even.

The post office loses money, large scale construction projects are rife with graft and corruption and shoddy work (just ask the woman who was killed when a tunnel of the big dig collapsed on her)

And if you think that German outfit is not making a profit then you are stupid.
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

Wind isn't profitable even with subsidies.
Why does everything have to be profitable ?
How about break even for a govt project and small profit for a private company ?

The Jew street journal guys don't like it because theya is maww pwoffit in carbon based energy. It's not that it's not profitable, it's not profitable enough to satisfy the greedy motherfuckers.

Down my way there are many, many big BIG wind and geo-thermal projects going on but the greed is missing.
One German outfit is doing huge projects in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Brazil.
I guess they're just stupid.

How do you say boondoggle in Yiddish ?

There's something missing from Wind programs that are heavily government funded - risk. Where's the risk?

Oil and Gas is a highly capital-intensive high-risk industry. You take the good years with the bad. And there have been plenty of bad years with thousands of companies going under and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost.
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

its a matter of technology and practicality. There is no shilling necessary. Fossil fuel is the most efficacious source of power there is.

If the gov. blowing money out of water hoses at the Wind industry cannot keep them afloat LET ALONE add net energy at least on a break even cost basis, its over. We have to be able to AFFORD the power, you know?

When we get past the technological breakwater of battery capacity at very high yields and a collection system that is cost effective Solar is fine by me. I don't really care.

oh and hey Nuclear, what up wit dat? Its proven, its comparatively very clean, if we are going to throw money at somehting how about something that works?
 
Last edited:
There will be nearly 200 gw of wind power online by the end of this year, worldwide. Up from 159 gw at the end of 2009. What other energy form has that kind of growth at present?

But the best is yet to be, solar and geo-thermal will be seeing this kind of growth this decade.


World Wind Energy Association - Home

WWEA) – The world market for wind turbines saw robust growth in the first half of the year 2010, with approximately 16 Gigawatt of new capacity added worldwide. Again, China represents by far the largest market and added 7800 Megawatt within only six months, reaching total installations of almost 34 Gigawatt. The USA, still number one in total capacity with 36 Gigawatt, saw a major decrease in new installations and added only 1200 Megawatt, followed by India. The five major European markets showed similar growth: Germany added 660 Megawatt, France and the UK 500 Megawatt, Italy 450 Megawatt and Spain 400 Megawatt. The total capacity of all wind turbines installed worldwide reached 175 Gigawatt in mid-2010, compared with 159 Gigawatt by the end of 2009.
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

its a matter of technology and practicality. There is no shilling necessary. Fossil fuel is the most efficacious source of power there is.

If the gov. blowing money out of water hoses at the Wind industry cannot keep them afloat LET ALONE add net energy at least on a break even cost basis, its over. We have to be able to AFFORD the power, you know?

When we get past the technological breakwater of battery capacity at very high yields and a collection system that is cost effective Solar is fine by me. I don't really care.

oh and hey Nuclear, what up wit dat? Its proven, its comparatively very clean, if we are going to throw money at somehting how about something that works?

Fossil fuel is the cheapest in the short term. When you add the cost of destroyed land, health, and the changing climate, it is pretty spendy. Not only that, we have, as a nation, indebted ourselves to some very unsavory people to continue using some forms of fossil fuels. And then there is the matter of Hubert Peak.

Nuclear is good, provided it is regulated enough. No more Three Mile Islands. That was too damned close. However, it is very spendy, far more so than most of the alternatives.

Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

Coal:

Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
Alternatives:

Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653
Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
 
If and when they cut the oil and coal subsidies, then you have a point. Until then, you are simply acting as shills for the present energy companies.

Wind isn't profitable even with subsidies.
Why does everything have to be profitable ?
How about break even for a govt project and small profit for a private company ?

The Jew street journal guys don't like it because theya is maww pwoffit in carbon based energy. It's not that it's not profitable, it's not profitable enough to satisfy the greedy motherfuckers.

Down my way there are many, many big BIG wind and geo-thermal projects going on but the greed is missing.
One German outfit is doing huge projects in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Brazil.
I guess they're just stupid.

How do you say boondoggle in Yiddish ?

Why does everything have to be profitable

This is the best point made yet that until now I never realized. Everyone should recogonize the intelligence and practicality of this point.

Why must building a house be profitable or in other words successful.

Why must planting crops be profitable or in other words productive.

So what if you build a house and it collapses, what is the harm, what if you plant crops and they fail, never make a profit, do not produce seed for next years crop, what is the problem.

People need to wake up and realize success is not need, not a right, and so what if wind completly fails, so what if wind has no profit, we need to adopt this attitude in all things, no profit is the same as failure, big deal, so we produce no energy and spend all our money trying, whats the big deal with that.
 
Fossil fuel is the cheapest in the short term. When you add the cost of destroyed land, health, and the changing climate, it is pretty spendy. Not only that, we have, as a nation, indebted ourselves to some very unsavory people to continue using some forms of fossil fuels. And then there is the matter of Hubert Peak.

the cost of destroyed land? please link to this "destroyed land", then link to the cost it took to fix it please.ye I now the evil rich oil tycoon or shady Sheik, ....whatever, has zero bearing. The HuBBert peak? sorry not interested, they have been saying that fore decades.


Nuclear is good, provided it is regulated enough. No more Three Mile Islands. That was too damned close. However, it is very spendy, far more so than most of the alternatives.


so, nuclear, yes or not, your mumbling......


.and considering the FACT that nuclear is a safe proven product AND doesn't require massive technological leaps to make it so, hence running out a very long time line, the "alternatives' pale to insignificance.
 
Last edited:
Another 3 Billion? After they airdropped 30 Billion int0 the Green sector in 2 years?

Congress- Why yes lets cut spending.

Ready?
no, not that...uhm, no,...sorry nope....uhm..maybe, nope, not that...:rolleyes:


The Ethanol re-subsidization which received another 6 Billion injection is a Boehner target, ( we'll see, I am doubtful) this Wind subsidy needs to go too, the gov. is as just usual distorting the market and blowing more money through a spigot for an 'idea' and platform that doesn't stand a chance in the marketplace.

Its not a conspiracy folks, its life. The Fossil fuel run has a long road ahead of it.


* DECEMBER 20, 2010

The Wind Subsidy Bubble
Green pork should be a GOP budget target.

snip-

Despite more than $30 billion in subsidies for "clean energy" in the 2009 stimulus bill, Big Wind still can't make it in the marketplace.

Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, had warned that without last week's extension of the federal 1603 investment credit, the outlook for the wind industry would be "flatline or down."

Some 20,000 wind energy jobs, about one-quarter of the industry's total, could have been lost, the wind lobby concedes. For most industries that would be an admission of failure, but in Washington this kind of forecast is used to justify more subsidies.

But what have these subsidies bought taxpayers? According to AWEA, in the first half of 2010 wind power installations "dropped by 57% and 71% from 2008 and 2009 levels." In the third quarter, the industry says it "added just 395 megawatts (MW) of wind-powered electric generating capacity," making it the lowest quarter since 2007. New wind installations are down 72% from last year to their lowest level since 2006. And this is supposed to be the miracle electricity source of the future?

The coal industry, which Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department have done everything possible to curtail, added almost three times more to the nation's electric power capacity in the first nine months of 2010 (39%) than did wind (14%), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The grant program that Congress has extended was created in the 2008 stimulus bill. It forces taxpayers to pay 30% of a renewable energy project's costs. Big Wind insisted on these grants because wind energy producers don't make enough net income to take advantage of the generous renewable energy tax credit.

The industry also wants a federal renewable energy standard, which would require utilities to buy power from green energy projects regardless of price. Without that additional subsidy, AWEA concedes that wind power will "stall out." It is lobbying for billions of dollars of subsidies to cover the cost of hooking off-shore wind projects to the electricity transmission grid. And now that the cap-and-tax scheme on coal and oil and gas has failed in Congress, the windmillers want the EPA to use regulation to raise costs on carbon sources of power.

snip

According to an analysis by Chris Horner, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus bill's subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. That's at least four times what it costs a nonsubsidized private firm to create a job—a lousy return on investment even for government.

The wind industry claims to employ 85,000 Americans. That's almost certainly an exaggeration, but if it is true it compares with roughly 140,000 miners and others directly employed by the coal industry. Wind accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation and coal almost 50%. So it takes at least 25 times more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal.

more at-

Review & Outlook: The Wind Subsidy Bubble - WSJ.com

I wish I had the time to address this, being Christmas eve I do not, a quick thought though which many will not consider, the billions you site are but the tip of the iceberg that we see. Obama and Bush gave trillions to the banks, to the investors, to foreign banks and governments, how much of this money is being invested in Wind Energy, how much of this money went to banks or investors or countries invested in Green Energy.

I am as accurate and factual as anyone else on this forum when I state the true cost of Green Energy, of subsidies to Wind Farms or Wind Energy is not yet known to the public.
 
Wind isn't profitable even with subsidies.
Why does everything have to be profitable ?
How about break even for a govt project and small profit for a private company ?

The Jew street journal guys don't like it because theya is maww pwoffit in carbon based energy. It's not that it's not profitable, it's not profitable enough to satisfy the greedy motherfuckers.

Down my way there are many, many big BIG wind and geo-thermal projects going on but the greed is missing.
One German outfit is doing huge projects in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Brazil.
I guess they're just stupid.

How do you say boondoggle in Yiddish ?

Any project run by the government never breaks even.

The post office loses money, large scale construction projects are rife with graft and corruption and shoddy work (just ask the woman who was killed when a tunnel of the big dig collapsed on her)

And if you think that German outfit is not making a profit then you are stupid.




What's more likely is the German company is getting a huge subsidy from the government, and that is likely coming thanks to the American taxpayer.
 
Trajan;

the cost of destroyed land? please link to this "destroyed land", then link to the cost it took to fix it please.ye I now the evil rich oil tycoon or shady Sheik, ....whatever, has zero bearing. The HuBBert peak? sorry not interested, they have been saying that fore decades.
......................................................................................................................

Mountain Justice - What is Mountain Top Removal Mining?

Are you just ignorant, or do you willfully defend these practicies?
 

Forum List

Back
Top