Congratulations: Florida Power & Light Energy’s NextEra named Pennsylvania’s highest risk Non-Cooperator.

Posted on April 6, 2011 by morgan

The Pennsylvania Game Commission just issued it’s WIND ENERGY VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AGREEMENT SECOND SUMMARY REPORT

In case you’re not aware, there are a group of wind companies who voluntarily signed on to the Wind Energy Cooperative Agreement.  By signing the agreement, they effectively became the official foxes guarding the hen house surveyors and reporters of bat and bird kills at their wind business sites.  You can read all about that in the full report, which I’ve provided below for your convenience below.

Amazingly, it seems there are a number of companies placing turbines in the Alleghenies who seem happy to be Non-Cooperators.  A Non-Cooperator is basically  a wind company operating, or planning to operate these massive kill machines in the middle of delicate habitat which chooses not to sign the agreement to help protect the wildlife.  Hey!  You gotta give them credit for honesty.  They don’t seem to give a damn what they whack and don’t mind letting the Game folks know it.

Here’s what the report has to say about this gang:

NON- COOPERATORS

There are five additional wind energy developers in Pennsylvania with active or proposed wind sites who have not signed the Cooperative Agreement. These companies include a subsidiary of Florida Power & Light Energy, NextEra Energy Resources (five active wind sites), Reading Anthracite (one proposed wind site), STK Renewables (three proposed wind sites), OwnEnergy (two proposed wind sites), and Laurel Highlands Energy (three proposed wind sites). There are an additional eight sites in early stages of project proposal for which the potential developer has not been identified.

The PGC is currently investigating the monitoring efforts and site mortality of bats and birds of those non-Cooperators, prioritized by project site location and risk assessment from the PGC‟s internal reviews. These investigative efforts by the PGC will be directed towards assuring that all projects, including non-Cooperators, are employing feasible measures of protection and minimization of adverse impacts, which are anticipated to occur to the Commonwealth‟s bat and bird resources.

Currently, very few wind developers with active wind sites in Pennsylvania have not signed the PGC Cooperative Agreement and are not conducting post-construction monitoring. The most significant developer not signed into the Cooperative Agreement, that currently has the largest 10 projects, greatest number, and highest risk projects in Pennsylvania, is Florida Power & Light Energy‟s subsidiary, NextEra Energy Resources. Developers that have bat mortality continue to be investigated so the PGC can determine the proper course of action to safeguard and conserve bat and bird species with regard to mortality from wind energy facility operation. In fact, NextEra Energy Resources has received written warnings and several letters from the PGC regarding their post-construction monitoring efforts at their five active wind facilities in Pennsylvania. Each time the PGC has investigated sites not enrolled in the Cooperative Agreement, three times over the last two years, the PGC has found evidence of mortality. Some of the bat carcasses found during these investigations were tested and found to have evidence of barotrauma, indicating the cause of mortality was the operation of the wind facility. The PGC will continue to investigate all wind sites, paying careful attention to those not signed into the Cooperative Agreement, in an effort to further ascertain what avenues, including potential legal action, may be deemed appropriate to safeguard and conserve bat and bird species within the project area.

Plus folks, take a look at the map on Page 12 of the report.  My attempt at scanning the page doesn’t really do it justice.  Maybe someone can explain how the migratory birds which famously utilize the Appalachian Super Flyway will navigate this maze:

And, if anyone thinks this horror ends at the Pennsylvania State Line, I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

Here’s the full report:

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Appalachian Mountains, Bat/Bird Kills, Endangered Species Act | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Frank Maisano and the “merry handful”

Posted on April 4, 2011 by morgan

What happened Mr. Maisano!  Didn’t you get the memo?  You won!  There’s nothing standing in the way of the Pinnacle Wind project, and there hasn’t been since the WV PSC gave permission months ago.  In fact, if US WindForce had been able to cross t’s and dot i’s this project would have been under construction months ago.

So … am I missing something in your attack on Wayne Spiggle in today’s Cumberland Times-News?  Why in the world is Dr. Spiggle still getting under your skin even after he lost the election?  Is your case that weak?  I mean, creating a “straw man” to knock down is hardly a tactic worthy of “a skilled media specialist with a track record of success.”  So what if he continues to ask questions!  Stop whining, and for land’s sake simply place fact against fact and let the readers choose.  All the better if, as you say, his points are “completely irrelevant claims?”

Now I know you don’t need advice from me, one untrained in the media arts.  But here’s what I’d do if I were you, Mr. Maisano.  Rather than just laying out a general narrative as you did in your personal slam, I’d slam the Doc with details.  Go for the jugular!

I know it’s hard to really lay out your case in a short letter to the editor, but ask for a full column to lay out the details.  Heck, if they won’t give you the space, you’re welcome to all you wish right here at Allegheny Treasures.  We’d be honored to host!

In the meantime, here are a few suggestions:

1 – Rather than simply talk about the 40,000 MW operating and generating enough power to run 10 million homes, publish the actual results.

    • How much electricity was actually generated?
    • How much electricity was actually utilized by grid operators?
    • What was the actual electricity generation as a percentage of nameplate capacity?
    • Insist that your industry publish the results by turbine unit, by location, by hour in a user friendly and easily accessible format similar to that published by our friends in Ontario.

2 – Rather than dismiss the tax incentive issue out by comparing to fossil and nuclear, provide the comparative details.

    • For example, you seem to like the US Energy Information Agency:
      • Wind – $23.37 per megawatthour
      • Solar – $24.34 per megawatthour
      • Coal – $.44 per megawatthour
      • Nuclear – $1.59 per megawatthour

3 – Don’t use terms like “create jobs.”

  • Insist your wind partners speak to communities in terms of labor hours.  When you say construction will generate 250 jobs, folks actually think 250 people will show up for work at the beginning of a project and be there until construction is complete.  You and I both know that portrayal is deceptive.  So let’s clear the fog by publishing the labor hour content so we can really see the contribution.

4 – “As much wind as possible.”

  • If I were a big shot in the wind business with your credentials, I’d be linking up a phone call between PJM and Bonneville Power so the folks out west could begin to understand how PJM is begging for “as much wind as possible.”  Bonneville Power, much like our friends in Ontario, is finding it necessary to unload the ill-timed generation from the uncontrollable wind plants at a substantial cost penalty.  Check out the problems in Germany!

5 – Define “jobs.”

  • If you really want to set Doc back on his heels you could publish where the labor content for projects such as Pinnacle is actually secured from and how much local labor (of what skill set) was utilized in the construction phase.  This would help the “modelers” your gang hired to sell the Pinnacle project to the WV PSC assess the accuracy of their predictions, since they didn’t seem to have a clue how their (coincidentally favorable to wind) economic benefit estimates play out in reality.
  • How about if you insist your wind friends publish the US v offshore labor content of major components.  A lot of the “merry handful” you reference seem concerned that the taxes they pay are going overseas in the form of subsidies and material purchases to enrich foreign manufacturers such as Mitsubishi, who at last report were to supply the turbines for Pinnacle.

Yes, I know it, as you say, “remains hard to believe” that some folks continue to wonder how our neighbors can be taken in to believe that such an inefficient, costly and antiquated product like industrial wind will benefit the United States demand for a cost-effective, secure, reliable, on-demand energy future.

But then, the “merry handful” can’t fathom how effective a “skilled media specialist” can be.  I mean … you’ve got to have a pretty sharp tool in your shed to convince an educated educator to publicly promote the ill-conceived and financially disastrous Escrow Agreement signed by our current batch of Commissioners is on par with the “Bill of Rights.”  Yes, that Bill of Rights!

I’ve got to admit that I was shocked when you said that “no one — except the tried and true opponents — has ever claimed that wind would supplant coal or nuclear.”  Not that we “merry handful” don’t agree with you.   Heck, with industrial wind being so unreliable and intermittent, how could it put a dent in fossil fuel use?  We could, of course, live with the rationed electricity supply resulting from industrial wind’s proliferation, but I doubt most folks in the US would be pleased with that scenario.

I had the sense all along that this wind replacing coal thing was bogus.  But I gotta tell you … it was good to finally hear it from a “wind expert.”  But if, as you say, wind “won’t supplant coal or nuclear,” how does it, in your words, improve our environment?”

You see, the component fabrication process generates tons of carbon emissions; the turbine “farm” requires literal “mountain top removal” and there is no benefit to wildlife, unless you consider trimming the species a benefit.  A lot of folks are concerned that, industrial wind is actually harmful to the environment, especially when you consider that industrial wind fossil plants to ramp up and back to support its variability, resulting in overall increases in emissions.

Am I missing something here?

I know you’re ticked that Doc keeps bringing up the subsidy and consumer price issues.  He’s such a pain in the ass with all his concern for spending taxpayer money wisely.  Finish him off once and for all, I say!  Demand true transparency from your industry and publish how much it receives in subsidies, grants and other incentive programs.  Publish the true cost of electricity to consumers and how much is pocketed as profits by the developers and operators.

One sure fired way to get rid of a skeptic is to provide them with the facts.  You might start by telling folks who you are.  Since you were so eager to portray Dr. Spiggle’s past life by mentioning his elected position several times, why did the editor have to slip in a tiny note to let folks know you’re a wind lobbyist?  That is your job, is it not?  Oh, and maybe the folks would be interested in your efforts before becoming the wind guru – Frank Maisano is the former spin-meister behind the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) – a front group for the oil and coal industries, which was created to thwart US ratification of the Kyoto Accords. For all your current interest in curbing greenhouse gas emissions now, this little tid-bit about the group you lobbied for might be interesting to more than just the “merry handful” – The GCC has been dubbed by Kevin Grandia, Operations Manager for DeSmogBlog, as “one of the most aggressive industry-funded climate science attack groups the world ever saw”

Finally, Mr. Maisano, maybe it’s not Dr. Spiggle or the “merry handful” you’re concerned with after all.  I’m beginning to believe it’s the growing number of citizen groups mounting an education campaign to inform the public of the ills of industrial wind that will become your larger problem.

You have to know that Congress is finally catching on to the scheme and the funds will soon dry up.  Lacking government hand-outs to wind, investors will look elsewhere and the developers your hawking will move on to another adventure.

But, not to worry … you’re “a skilled media specialist with a track record of success.”  You’ll be just fine!

As for me, I’m happy being one of the “merry handful” simply because it doesn’t align me with folks from your side of the business like Gabriel Alonso, who, according to the Wall Street Journal, runs one of America’s biggest wind-farm developers, (and) often reminds his employees their goal isn’t to stage a renewable-energy revolution. “This is about making money,” the chief executive of Horizon Wind Energy LLC tells his troops.

That, dear sir, is not one of the “Bill of Rights” my parents taught me to respect!

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Appalachian Mountains, Environment, Glenn Schleede, John Droz, Jon Boone, Wind Energy Shenanigans, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Courtesy of the wind: power blackouts.

Posted on March 26, 2011 by morgan

This is interesting:  “Germany faces frequent power blackouts because too much ‘green electricity’ is being pumped onto the grid.”

Yep!  According to Deutsche Welle,  “in extreme cases, wind turbines and conventional power plants in eastern Germany produce three to four times the total amount of electricity actually being used.”

No, don’t get carried away thinking this proves the power of wind energy.  It’s simply a matter of not being able to control industrial wind as you can fossil fuels and nuclear.  When the wind is howling you get electricity, when it’s not … you don’t!  It’s a Mother Nature thing and a reason why industrial wind is such a foolish option for reliable electricity generation.  Remember the UK Grid leader speaking of how you can expect poor service once wind is the major contributor?  Remember that he said lifestyles would have to change?  Welcome to the jungle!

The article reminds us that when “on demand” sources of electricity generation were utilized before subsidies made wind the darling of the snake oil set, electricity generation was based on demand.  You need it they made it!

Of course, just as the astoundingly ignorant politicians and bureaucrats here in the US have done, the Germans have set goals for renewables that they feel they must meet, even if it corrupts the grid, blasts consumer costs into the sky or brings manufacturing to its knees.

Read the full article here – Wind energy surplus threatens eastern German power grid

Posted in Alternative Energy, Electricity baseload, industrial wind v fossil fuel, Wind Power Reliability Factor | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Industrial wind and the grid

Posted on March 25, 2011 by morgan

A recent post at EPAW (European Platform Against Windfarms) reminded me of this excellent presentation from our friends at Wind Concerns Ontario.

Industrial Wind Turbines and the Grid:  A Bad Fit:

Posted in industrial wind failure, Wind Concerns Ontario, Wind Power Reliability Factor, Wind v Coal | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Incentives: the wind industry’s Happy Hour

Posted on March 23, 2011 by morgan

“Happy Hour” is a marketing ploy used to draw new patrons to your bar and, obviously, to keep your loyals loyal.  One dollar beers, a few pigs in a blanket and extra special pretzels (the kind with lots of salt to make you thirsty) and you can hopefully create a demand that will benefit you in the long run if folks stick around for your premium hours.

The concept becomes a problem if, when prices go back to normal, the newbies duck out for their favorite watering hole and your left with the loyals you had in the beginning.  The loyals might have had their fill at the reduced prices and not hang around long into the night, so there is risk that overall revenue will fall.  There is also a risk that the newbies will convince your loyals that their regular bar is cooler and worth a try.

It’s a big decision whether to risk starting a Happy Hour.  If it goes well, you end up with increased business.  If, however, you only gather up moochers who have no interest in paying their fair share, you’ll lose money.  If the bar owner ends up with scenario number two, there is only one choice … shut down Happy Hour.

Of course, the moochers will threaten to take their business elsewhere and tell everyone how chintzy you are and the loyals, who will have grown to enjoy the discount rate, might see you as now chiseling them.  All in all, not a good scenario.

Anyway, you might be asking what this has to do with industrial wind?  One word – INCENTIVES … the wind developer’s version of Happy Hour.  Lay out a platter of tax credits and grants and the moochers of the energy business will be drooling at your door.

Case in point is Idaho.  According to the Idaho Reporter, the wind turbine moratorium was killed in committee.  The bill was intended to implement a 2 year moratorium  on industrial wind development.  But it seems the moratorium would be the equivalent of shutting down the Happy Hour.

Take the comment from Rep. Ken Andrus who voted to kill the bill, even though he thinks there are things wrong with the wind industry, “I cannot in good conscience shut off people who have come here and invested millions of dollars after we encouraged them to do so.”

Sounds reasonable on the surface, but what how were they encouraged?  Why, incentives, of course!  Idaho’s Happy Hour was open for business.

And now, it seems, the folks seem to want to reel in the freebies.  Rep. Andrus said, “I think the solution is to do away with the incentives and let the free market take care of itself. We’ve encouraged these people to come to Idaho offering these incentives. Getting rid of the incentives is the answer.”

Likewise, Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise said, “I’m concerned we have severely skewed the market with these incentives and subsidies,” adding, “This market is out of control, and I do think we need a pause.”

Further, according to the article a representative of Avista said his company doesn’t need any wind energy until 2018 and the flap is purely based on the incentives issue.  Neil Colwell noted that a wind project investing $60 million would receive $18 million back from the government.

Darn, that’s a lot of pretzels and pigs in a blanket, don’t you think?

Anyway, cutting off incentives for the wind industry gets the same reaction as you expect from the moochers upon hearing that the Happy Hour is being stopped:  Threats!  Yep, they’re going to take their business elsewhere.

Gary Allen, an attorney representing the wind turbine folks threatened with this:  “I don’t like to rattle my saber but I believe my clients will have a powerful regulatory takings claim.” Allen said his clients’ $250 million project would come to a “screeching halt.”

Well, Mr. Allen, I’m not a math whiz, but from the example Mr. Colwell gave, that would mean the government puts about $72 Million  back in the taxpayers pocket.  And, based on that alone, I’d be showing you and your truckload of high cost low performing tinker toys the door.

Ann Dietrich bought her dream home some years ago and is very concerned that the wind turbines will destroy her way of life.  From the comment she made, sees the fight against wind as an uphill battle.  “Gov. Otter wants Idaho to be the ‘Wind Capital of the West,” she noted.

Well, Ms. Dietrich, that’s the problem we have when elected officials have agendas driven by ego.  All reasonable logic gets in the way of their mission.  Believe me, I know!

By the way, Govenor Otter … was he once placed on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION in college?

Posted in Energy Subsidies, Industrial Wind and Local Governments, Wind Energy Legislation, Wind Energy Shenanigans, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Maryland’s O’Malley selects winners and losers with taxpayer money.

Posted on March 22, 2011 by morgan

From the Washington Examiner:  “It is true, as O’Malley spokesman Adamec stated, that incentivizing cost-efficient energy sources is not consistent with the governor’s policies.  However, those policies are inconsistent with the campaign promises of lowering utility rates, which first propelled O’Malley to the governor’s mansion.”

Of course, the Governor doesn’t have a corner energy ignorance.  Remember this little exchange with University of Maryland Chancellor William E. Kirwan? – Breaking! U of MD Chancellor punt might be a new Allegheny Treasures record!

Posted in industrial wind cost, Politicians and Wind Energy, Save Western Maryland, Wind Power subsidies, Wind v Coal | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Industrial wind’s gift to our children – a century of blight.

Posted on March 21, 2011 by morgan

Jon Boone recently sent the following letter to the Board of Garrett County (Maryland) Commissioners.  Every resident of the Appalachian mountains should heed his words.

Letter begins:

Dear Messers Raley, Crawford, and Gatto:

Consider these words from the county’s Development Plan. County Government should:

  • encourage patterns of compatible land uses that provide for variety while respecting each site’s important natural features;
  • “protect rural areas, preserving open space, retaining the rural character of the countryside;  and
  • guard against development destructive to scenic views “by orienting uses to enhance natural views, matching the scale and character of any buildings and other uses with the scale and character of the site and surrounding environs, avoiding placing buildings on cleared ridgelines and minimizing the height of proposed structures, especially on ridgelines and in very visible locations.”

And consider these words from the Heritage Plan, which promotes “the entire county as a single identity known as the state’s Western Maryland Frontier Heritage Area”:

This Plan identifies “specific natural…resources worthy of protection, such as the state forests, the entire Backbone Mountain range, Eagle Rock,” and, more generally, the county’s “rugged topography” as a “significant feature when compared to other parts of Maryland, as well as specified “scenic routes,” which the county should preserve by minimizing the size and number of commercial signs, maintaining adequate building setbacks, …[softening] incompatible development, and working with adjacent property owners.” Perhaps it’s worth noting that real mountains—elevations above 2000 feet—are one of Maryland’s rarest resources, for they constitute less than one-tenth of one percent of the state’s total land area. They also harbor some of the state’s most threatened wildlife.

Now consider the words of our state’s motto, the only one in Italian: Fatti Maschii; Parole Femine—literally, manly deeds, womanly words—but, in its modern translation, strong deeds that stem from straight talk. In Garrett County, this means—TALK IS CHEAP. Words, even good and gentle words, mean little if they aren’t accompanied my right and meaningful actions.

Thank you for—at long last—beginning to address the hypocrisy that exists between the gentle words of our Development and Heritage plans and recent dastardly deeds, done dirt cheap—incompatible development encouraged by county government completely at odds with its charge.

Hear the words of Harry Caudill, written more than forty years ago in his book, Appalachian Wilderness: “The hill people have a strange relationship to their land.  They have prostituted the land they love.  Their relationship to their hills has been much like that of a man who sells his wife into prostitution:  adoring her while pocketing her tawdry earnings. Industry has always treated the mountains with extreme contempt….”

All laws, all ordinances, express a community’s values, preserving what people hold dear. It’s too late to salvage the southern end of the county—but not to preserve the remainder. Let’s recount some of the reasons, beyond what I’ve stated already, why ridgetop protection is so important and consistent with our basic values:

  • The Alleghenies are older than the Atlantic Ocean, formed in violence 220 million years ago and, for much of that time, were taller than the Himalayas. The relatively accessible slopes of our mountains today give powerful testimony about the effects of 200 million years of erosion.
  • Their antiquity is what endures—and what defines the county’s character; our lakes and farms are of very recent vintage, and Deep Creek Lake seeks always to return to what it once was—a series of meandering streams.
  • The ridges symbolize our heritage, to be sure, but they also are the reason many people choose to live here—and not elsewhere. This choice has rippling economic consequences for the services necessary to maintain quality of life—and implies strong stewardship responsibilities.

An enforceable ridgeline protection measure would clarify what we value, setting rules for doing business—developers would know beforehand what they couldn’t do. Which is very good business. It’s not that development can’t take place but rather that any development must be compatible with the look and feel of the mountains; it must not radically alter how they appear, as is now the case along the entirety of Backbone Mountain, with moving structures rising higher above the ridgelines than the mountains reach above the valley floor, taking away the view of the mountain itself.

This blight will remain for a century, perhaps more, in sight of our posterity, requiring children here to grow up in full view of what ignorance, greed, and a far too casual distain for civility can achieve. These wind projects will long be a source of humiliation for this region, and their existence should make every decent adult deeply ashamed. They embody the worst aspects of an exploitative Appalachian culture that maintains we must accept, endure, do business with such awfulness.

With your leadership, I trust that our practices will be at one with our values, that your words will match your deeds, that ridgetop protection will not only acknowledge the importance, if not the sacredness, of our mountains—but will also thwart those who would defile them.

Sincerely,

Jon Boone, Oakland, MD

March 7, 2011

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Appalachian Mountains, Environment, Jon Boone | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Night and day on Capitol Hill

Posted on March 20, 2011 by morgan

A few of us visited our West Virginia Senators in Washington last week for a little discussion on renewable energy.  Our focus was industrial wind since, at least in West Virginia and the Appalachian Mountains, that’s the major thorn in our paw.

We promised we wouldn’t consume their time repeating the laundry list of issues they may have come to expect from industrial wind opponents, but instead provide facts to better inform the Senators to specific dangers and failures of industrial wind.  While most so called “NIMBY” concerns are valid, we didn’t want to experience the immediate eye-glazing that seems to take over when a politician suspects such issues will be raised.

I’m happy to report that we held pretty much true to our oath.  In fact, thanks to Lisa Linowes, the substance of the meeting with Senator Joe Manchin’s folks exceeded my expectations.  Ms. Linowes discussed in detail an evolving critical issue which, it appears from the discussion with staff, may have been flying under the Senator’s radar, so to speak.  This is, by no means, a reflection on Senator Manchin for it appears this issue may not be widely known.  Ms. Linowes will remedy that very soon, and we’ll link you to her commentary.

But, the focus of this post is really about style, and what other folks from West Virginia might expect should they venture to DC to discuss issues.

The gentlemen who met with us during our visit to Senator Joe Manchin’s office were cordial and attentive.  There was ample time for each of us to speak, however our interest was to focus on the critical issue Ms. Linowes sought to bring to the attention of legislators.  While professional and courteous, Senator Manchin’s staff played excellent poker, as you would expect from individuals who hear from hundreds or thousands of folks each representing their side of every conceivable issue.

While not committing to take our statements and immediately mount the cavalry charge on our behalf, I felt reassured that they would, at least, convey the message to Senator Manchin.  I felt certain the issue raised by Ms. Linowes, which seems to us to deserve the attention of a Senate Committee on which he serves, would reach Senator Manchin.  In addition, we offered our future assistance and walked away with hope this discussion would be the beginning of discourse about industrial wind issues.  Time will tell.

Overall, I was very pleased with our visit to Senator Manchin’s office and felt welcomed.

Our visit to Senator Jay Rockefeller’s office was less rewarding.  The time was necessarily short, but we knew that restriction going in.  The gentleman explained when we made the appointment that we were placed between critical meetings.  Not a problem, we focused immediately on Ms. Linowes’ critical issue.  While courteous, I didn’t sense the same level of interest.  Whether the gentleman had his mind on the prior meeting or the one following, I felt we were simply going through the motions.

To wrap up, Senator Rockefeller’s assistant explained his energy position, to paraphrase – ‘we need them all.’  When we attempted to venture beyond this boilerplate, we again received the exact statement.  It was not a surprise, but the ease in which it was quoted led one of our members to suggest that perhaps this gentleman may have written the position statement for the Senator.  All in all, I felt the visit to Senator Rockefeller’s office was a waste of time.  I would like to think the issue raised by Ms. Linowes raised the hair on the back of the gentleman’s neck and that he would move this to the top ten of discussion issues with Senator Rockefeller, but frankly, I didn’t go away with the feeling that would happen.

But, only time will tell how seriously each Senate team will take our visit and, in particular, the serious issue presented by Ms. Linowes.  Maybe each Senator will ignore what was presented and the issue, which should be led by them, will surface in a manner lacking their leadership.  We won’t know until we know.

I’d like to be proven wrong, but I don’t believe Senator Rockefeller looks to his constituents for advice.  The past responses I’ve received from his office bear this out.

And sure, some of my friends insist Senator Manchin is wearing sheep’s clothing in preparation of the 2012 election and, if successful, will fall in lock step behind Senator Rockefeller’s policies.  I hope not.  He has a golden opportunity and, many of us believe, the talent to greatly benefit his constituents in West Virginia and the entire Country.  To do so, he must remain as independent as he has so forcefully demonstrated he can be.

I can’t speak for my traveling companions, but I saw in these two meetings the night and day of Washington.  Senator Manchin’s staff demonstrated a spirit of sincere interest in constituent concerns.  Senator Rockefeller’s staff gave a sense of the rigid, set in its ways, politics of the past.

We’ll keep you posted!

Posted in Appalachian Mountains, Energy Subsidies, industrial wind failure, US energy policy | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Reason.tv: Tilting at Wind Turbines – Should the Government Subsidize Renewable Energy?

Posted on March 11, 2011 by morgan

Superb!  This is why they’re called Reason TV:

 

Posted in Industrial wind jobs, Industrial wind lobby, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Invest in wind energy? You’re kidding, right?

Posted on March 11, 2011 by morgan

So, if private investors are finding that wind and solar are lousy investments, even with all the subsidies and credits, when will the politicians spending your tax dollars figure it out?  Of course, we already know the answer … politicians will stop funding wind and solar with your tax dollars as soon as the wind and solar lobby stops funding the campaigns of politicians with your tax dollars.

Have a look at this article by G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christian Science Monitor Correspondent, at MinnPost.com.

According to Mr. MacDonald, renewables, particularly wind and solar are failing to generate adequate returns in the so called “mutual funds driven to make money by fighting global warming.”

Mr. MacDonald says, “Investors have reason to complain. Funds focused on renewable energy have been in the cellar, posting three-year returns in the bottom fifth percentile of their respective categories, according to fund tracker Morningstar. Those with the greatest exposure to wind and solar stocks have had the poorest returns of all.”

So, what’s an investment group to do?  The “DWS Climate Change Fund, based in Kansas City, Mo., which lost 10.7 percent over the three years ending Dec. 31,” chose to remove from its Top 10 holdings “the three solar and wind stocks that made up 12.5 percent of the portfolio in July,” according to the article.

Other companies are following suit.  But, according to the article, “some funds appear to be as zealous as ever for the clean-energy cause. The Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy Fund has 80 percent of its holdings in wind and solar. Down a painful 29 percent over the past three years, the London-based fund ranks dead last among energy-sector funds, according to Morningstar.”

One thing for sure, in spite of subsidies now, the wind and solar business will ultimately live or die based on performance.  My bet is they go under and, unfortunately, all the folks who signed agreements and fully expected the developers and owners to decommission and remove the massive clutter from their communities at the sooner, rather than later, end of their useful life will have to explain why the community is suffering further financial loss.

Read the full text of the article here:  ‘Green’ funds, in the red, now buying not-so-green stocks

Posted in Alternative Energy, industrial wind poor performance, Solar Energy, Wind Power subsidies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment