SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (75303)3/9/2017 1:41:59 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
TimF

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86355
 
Five Key Reasons to Pull Plug on Wind Subsidies

A tax reform plan drafted in part by incoming Trump administration Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin bodes poorly for wind industry lobbies hoping once again to extend current federal production tax credits (PTCs) which are set to expire by 2021.

Now set at 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, the original subsidy intent was to "level the energy market playing field" by stimulating technology development to achieve competitive costs, reduce fossil fuel "climate pollution," and advance American energy independence.

None of these goals are really any closer to realization now than when these subsidies were first enacted in 1992. Here are some key reasons:

* Remote Possibilities with Fickle Trickles:

First, consider that even gargantuan wind installations covering thousands of acres generate only small amounts of unreliable power. The most ideal wind locations are remote from large urban and industrial regions where power demands are highest. This results in large transmission infrastructure costs and power loss inefficiencies.

The quality of that power isn’t any bargain either. Unlike coal and natural gas-fired plants which provide reliable power when needed — including peak demand times — wind installation output varies substantially with local daily, monthly and seasonal weather conditions independent of demands. This intermittence trend favors colder night-time periods rather than hot summer late afternoons when power is needed most.

Texas, one of the most promising wind energy states, averages only about 16.8 percent of the installed capacity,

* Shadowy Backup Juggling and Grid Balancing Acts:

Those intermittent outputs require access to a "shadow capacity" which enables utilities to balance power grids when wind conditions aren’t optimum . . . which is most of the time.

Anti-fossil energy promoters aren’t eager to mention that those "spinning reserves" (which must equal the total wind capacity) are fueled by the same sort of coal or natural gas turbines that those friendly breezes were touted to replace.

Second-by-second grid management to insure uninterrupted power transfer becomes increasingly complex and inefficient as more and more intermittent sources are added to the power supply mix. Fossil-fueled turbines must be constantly throttled up and down to balance the grid, and wind energy overloads produced on blustery days must be dumped when regional power systems don’t have room for it. This introduces big inefficiencies… much like driving a car in stop-and-go traffic.

* Short on Longevity, Long on Maintenance:

A major study of nearly 3,000 on-shore British wind farms found that the turbines have a very short 12 to 15 year operating life, not the 20 to 25 year lifespans applied in politicized government and industry projections. The report also concluded that a typical turbine generated more than twice as much electricity during its first year than upon reaching 15 years of use. Performance deterioration for off-shore installations is even far worse.

The author, an Edinburgh University economist and former World Bank energy advisor, estimated that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity produced by Britain’s wind farms in the next decade in order for the government to meet present renewable energy targets.

* Environmental and Neighbor Opposition:

Along with high lifecycle investment and operations costs, let’s also add environmental costs to the mix. As with all other energy sources, many self-proclaimed environmentalists aren’t all keen on wind turbines either. A Sierra Club official described them as giant "Cuisinarts in the sky" for bird and bat slaughters. Nearby landowners are fighting them in the courts for un-neighborly human offenses.

"Not in My Backyard" (NIMBY) opposition typically arises from an aesthetic perspective where turbines and associated transmission lines dominate scenic vistas. Other local wind critics have legitimate health concerns about land-based installations. Common symptoms include headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, and ringing in ears resulting from prolonged exposure to inaudibly low "infrasound" frequencies that even penetrate walls.

* Competitive Free Market Fictions:

The existence of the entire wind power industry depends upon federal subsidies. As Warren Buffett, a big wind power investor has admitted, "[O]n wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit."

Production tax credits were first enacted to provide a "temporary boost" for fledgling wind and solar industries two and one-half decades ago. That federal charity cost taxpayers $12 billion in 2014, amounting to around $23 per megawatt of power produced . . . about half the wholesale price of electricity.

This was about 50 times more subsidy support than received by coal and natural gas combined, yet wind and solar together produced less than five percent of total U.S. electricity. Wind farm hand-outs are even more generous when state and local tax credits are factored in.

No, wind is certainly not a "free," reliable or economically competitive energy source. Nor is it a sustainable charity we can continue to afford blow money into.

newsmax.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (75303)3/10/2017 8:31:36 AM
From: Eric  Respond to of 86355
 
Four-Year U.S. Wind Forecast Sees Quarter-Million Jobs, 35 GW Of New Wind



Posted by Betsy Lillian on March 09, 2017


The expansion of American wind power is poised to drive 248,000 jobs and $85 billion dollars in economic activity over the next four years, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), citing a new report from Navigant Consulting.


These and other economic benefits will result from the addition of 35 GW of new wind power capacity through the end of 2020, which also mark’s the end of President Donald Trump’s term in office, AWEA says.

AWEA has released an accompanying white paper, “Wind brings jobs and economic development to all 50 states,” to highlight the economic benefits wind already delivers to the U.S. economy today. For the first time ever, the U.S. wind industry supports more than 100,000 jobs; in fact, there are 102,500 workers in all 50 states.

“Growing wind energy revitalizes America’s rural areas and Rust Belt manufacturing centers,” comments Tom Kiernan, CEO of AWEA. “With over 100,000 jobs today, the industry is just getting started. This new analysis projects the industry could drive nearly a quarter-million jobs by 2020 – with $85 billion in economic activity over the next four years alone.”

AWEA says American wind industry jobs grew nearly 17% during 2016, and Navigant expects this growth to continue: Through 2020, the consultant expects a total of 248,000 wind-related American jobs, including induced jobs. By that time, there would be 33,000 Americans working in factories supplying the wind industry; 114,000 Americans building, operating and maintaining wind turbines; and an additional 102,000 workers in jobs supported by the industry.

The 102,500 wind industry jobs previously documented by AWEA include Americans working only for wind companies or in their supply chain in 2016 (not jobs in supporting industries). And unlike previous AWEA figures reporting the amount of private investment in new turbines each year, the Navigant study incorporates additional economic activity from operating and maintaining wind turbines, payments to landowners, and taxes paid by the wind industry, AWEA points out.

Rural areas that sorely need investment will be the largest beneficiaries of this growth, considering 99% of wind projects are located in rural areas today, the association says.

Wind power development funds states and local communities through sales, income and property taxes, and Navigant calculates that the new wind activity will pay over $8 billion in taxes over the next four years – on top of the tax revenues from existing wind projects. These tax revenues help local communities fix roads, build schools and improve emergency services, notes AWEA.

As pointed out in a recent AWEA report, wind is now the largest source of renewable energy capacity in the U.S.: At the end of 2016, there was more than 82 GW installed. Now, Navigant’s forecast for the development of 35 GW of additional wind power capacity between 2017 and 2020 represents a more than 40% increase.

According to the consultant, this growth is made possible, in part, by the multiyear extension of the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) in 2015. The credit has already begun phasing out on an 80%-60%-40% schedule, starting this year, and by 2019, wind will be the only major source of energy without a dedicated federal incentive.

“American ingenuity and hard work have driven the cost of wind down by two-thirds since 2009, propelling wind to contribute 30 percent of power plant capacity added over the last five years,” Kiernan adds. “The policy certainty provided by the 2015 production tax credit phase-down has allowed the industry to make long-term investments in the American workforce and manufacturing to further bring costs down.”

nawindpower.com