Letter: Wind projects boost jobs, save on energy costs

The Daily Advance

3 Comments | Leave a Comment

The Vision 2020 Economic Development Team’s report recognized wind energy as a high priority for good reason. The Desert Wind project in Pasquotank and Perquimans counties will generate local wealth along with carbon-free electricity.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.


Quoting from Investors.com.

Quoting from Investors.com. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042214-697939-wind-industry-in-trouble-despite-massive-subsidies.htm#ixzz2ziM6iHSS Failed Policy: The federal government has spent some $100 billion in taxpayer subsidies on green energy since 2006. Now we are seeing the flimsy and declining returns on that investment. The wind industry saw its growth tumble by 92% last year, according to a new report from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and that's off of a very low base to begin with. Big Wind blames the decline in output on uncertainty over the future of a federal wind industry tax credit — an absurdly generous subsidy of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour produced. This handout is what keeps those giant turbines twirling. These subsidies have been thrown at the renewable energy industry for more than a decade and always with the promise by AWEA that profitability is right around the corner. Sure it is. The reality is that the wind industry is to energy production what Amtrak is to intercity transportation — a perpetual tax-dollar burning machine. The wind industry has admitted that without the taxpayer handouts, its form of energy can't compete. In other words, in a free market system for energy, wind is, well, winded. One reason for the dismal state of affairs for wind is the shale oil and gas revolution. In six years the price of natural gas in the U.S. has plummeted to $4 a gallon from $12. None of the brilliant central planners in Washington ever saw that coming. The fatal conceit of government planners is to believe they can see the future better than private entrepreneurs and investors. The green energy lobby counters that oil and gas get subsidies, so why not bestow favors on renewables? But a report by the Institute for Energy Research based on Congressional Research Service data indicates that, based on per kilowatt of electricity produced, wind and solar receive more than 10 times the subsidy that fossil fuel producers do. (See chart). And if oil and gas are subsidized, better to also get rid of those handouts instead of creating an energy subsidy arms race that taxpayers always lose. The entire rationale for renewable energy subsidies was to reduce carbon emissions, but natural gas is achieving that at a fraction of the cost. The U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions in recent years primarily as a result of the shift toward natural gas for electric power. It's not a stretch to believe the real motivation behind the big push for another round of "temporary" wind subsidies is to line the pockets of major Democratic campaign donors who have bet the farm on renewable energy.

Sparatus, what's your point?

What's your point? Even if ALL coal use regulations were removed from new construction, a new coal fired plant would still be far more expensive than a new windfarm. By 50% in some estimates that I've read.

Besides, wind power is a supplement, rather than a replacment for existing power plants. This is due to technical limitations at this time, i.e., storage capability, wind reliability, etc.

If it comes down to whether to build a windfarm or a coal plant next to your house, which will you choose? Apparently you prefer coal. For a few dollars more you can have a nice tile surround and a diving board for your ash pond.

Respectfully Submitted,

Force 12

The key phrase in the above

The key phrase in the above letter - " the power generated from land-based wind power is less expensive than power generated by a newly constructed coal plant." ... and the key words in that phrase "newly constructed" ... The EPA and the current administration with their war on coal have made "newly constructed" coal power plants cost prohibitive.

Add comment

Login or register to post comments