by Kimball Rasmussen, President and CEO of Deseret Power
the past two years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine
companies -- all of them are members of AWEA’s board. To put that $3.37
billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration,
the total of all “energy specific subsidies and support” provided to
the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 billion in
oil and gas subsidies is being divided among thousands of entities. The
Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates the US now has
over 14,000 oil and gas companies...
look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural gas company,
which also has a seat on AWEA’s board of directors. In 2010, the company
emitted 116 million metric tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that of the Czech Republic,
a country of 10.5 million people. And last year, the company – which
has about 2,000 MW of wind-generation capacity in the US -- produced
about 14 times as much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did
its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has been awarded $542.5
million in section 1603 cash so that it can build wind projects. And the
company is getting that money even though it is the world’s largest
investor-owned utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion...
Green Stimulus Jobs Going to China?
|Anatomy of a Debate: Rejecting Renewable Energy at THE ECONOMIST (Part II)
12/14/2011 by Jon Boone, MasterResource.org
…Let’s critically examine each of the aforementioned arguments for renewables, with a particular focus on wind, since it has become an icon for the entire renewables fleet.
A) Oil provides little more than one percent of the nation’s electricity. Of that, only a fraction comes from the Middle East. Wind, because it only engages the electricity portion of energy usage, can do nothing about affecting what oil does for transportation and heating.
B) There is no empirical causal evidence that less coal is burned per unit of electricity produced as a consequence of wind performance. Quite the contrary. The stark reality is that subsidizing the renewable energy du jour is a terrific way of keeping the world in thrall to fossil fuels.
Consider Iowa, a state reliant upon coal for the bulk of its electricity while deploying increasing amounts of renewables in recent years, especially wind. In 2010, Iowa’s 2800 wind turbines, with an installed capacity of 4,375 MW, generated 8,800,000 MWh of electricity. But according to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, coal generation for that year increased to 41,128,000 MWh (1) up nearly 4,000,000 MWh from the previous year.
In fact, coal generation in Iowa has been incrementally climbing since the decade began; in 2000, coal had churned out more than 35,000,000 MWh. The surge in coal generation has occurred despite substantial increases in wind output since 2006, the year in which the technology produced 2,318,000 MWh, moving to 2,757,000 MWh in 2007; 4,084,000 in 2008; and nearly doubling again to 7,421,000 MWh in 2009.
Those who claim, with Fripp and Astill, that wind can help “wean us off fossil fuels,” must explain such data, which seem consistent across the board around the world. If a MWh of wind replaces a MWh of coal, as American Wind Energy Association and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory maintain, and as Fripp and Astill evidently believe, why don’t we see commensurate reductions in coal generation for high wind production regions?
Why in fact do we see increases in coal generation in heavy coal generation areas like Iowa, despite wind producing up to 15% of that state’s electricity at a time of relatively static demand?
With 42 GW of installed wind, the nation increased its coal generation last year. Despite nearly 200 GW of installed wind capacity around the world, no coal plants have closed anywhere, and more are in the offing. (2)…
…[W]ind isn’t productive. After decades of throwing billions at it on a serial lie, the intellectual insult of which is compounded with each iteration of “isn’t it time we began investing in…” what is risibly called a “new technology”, wind provides a little over 2% of our electricity. Despite the War on Coal, and with an enormous portion of wind’s share brand new (and all of it extremely costly), after a Bush administration-pushed surge and the huge spike from a $90 billion “stimulus” debacle…
When the good news is the selling point is untrue, you know you’re dealing with something you ought just abandon.
|Why should Idahoans pay for someone else's bad energy investment?
Click on heading to see the copy of our EIP mailer for the story.
12/09/2011 by Michael Sandoval, Energy Policy Center
As demonstrated here using the EPA’s own report, the environmental impact of wind alone is nowhere near “neutral” as some in the renewable energy cheerleading camp would like consumers and taxpayers to believe...
Dispelling the myth that “clean” and “green” energy is produced without environmental impact is critical for establishing a level playing field for comparison between renewables and fossil fuels.
|Our Energy Policy: from Science or Lobbyists?
11/28/2011 by John Droz Jr.
Presentation given to North Carolina legislators
|Wind power truly in the realm of mysticism
Let me state categorically that, as a physicist, I am in favour of wind power that is genuinely economically viable. The problem is that large-scale wind power fed into a national grid is just not viable – either economically or practically – from an engineering stand point...
|Duke's Rogers: Wind Subsidies Yield Big Profit
10/18/2011 by Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center
The subsidies available for wind projects allow Duke to earn returns on equity of 17 to 22 percent ... That 17-22 percent looks extremely attractive when compared to what utilities are usually allowed to earn on state-regulated retail electricity ... expect the pursuit of inefficient (but very profitable – thanks taxpayers!) renewable energy capital 'investments' to continue.
|Windmill-Gate Scandal Storms Into CA
10/13/2011 by Wayne Lusvardi
|America's Worst Wind-Energy Project
Wind-energy proponents admit they need lots of spin to overwhelm the truly informed.
10/12/2011 by Robert Bryce, National Review Online
The more people know about the wind-energy business, the less they like it. And when it comes to lousy wind deals, General Electric's Shepherds Flat project in northern Oregon is a real stinker.
I’ll come back to the GE project momentarily. Before getting to that, please ponder that first sentence. It sounds like a claim made by an anti-renewable-energy campaigner. It’s not. Instead, that rather astounding admission was made by a communications strategist during a March 23 webinar sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy called “Speaking Out on Renewable Energy: Communications Strategies for the Renewable Energy Industry."
US 20% wind / $850 billion / 2% CO2 reductionOctober 2011, Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute
Achieving the oft-stated goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs from wind by 2030 would require a total expenditure of more than $850 billion. Yet the likely carbon-dioxide savings from that expenditure would be just 2 percent of global emissions in 2030.