A must read by Christopher C. Horner at Big Business, “Meet the New Ethanol: Wind Blows Past Corn as Subsidy King, No end in Sight.”
Mr. Horner describes in detail the massive taxpayer hand-out status achieved by industrial wind, or as Jon Boone has dubbed it, “the energy welfare queen.”
Mr. Horner’s full article can be found here.
Additional excellent discussions of the wind subsidy issue can be found at MasterResource.
Is it considered a Freudian slip when someone connected to the wind industry accidentally tells the truth about wind’s strange bedfellow arrangement with coal? I’ll have to check with my analyst?
Anyway, the title of the post came from Edison Mission Energy manager of federal affairs, Matt Hill. The quote appeared today in a Cumberland MD Times News article about the proposed Pinnacle wind plant in Mineral County WV.
To put Mr. Hill’s comment in context, here is what the article stated: In addition to wind energy, Edison also is involved in the coal business and has operations in Grant Town, W.Va., and in Pennsylvania and Illinois. “It’s a mutual benefit type thing,” said Hill of wind and coal energies.
Since wind proponents have clearly stated that wind plants will eliminate coal plants, you might wonder how there could be a mutual benefit. I’m not sure what benefit Mr. Hill was speaking of, but I know what Jon Boone told me – “Despite the bellyfeel assertion that wind is an environmental savior, it is in fact an environmental wrecking ball. Contrary to the proposition wind can back down the coal industry, in most areas of the country it may actually increase coal consumption.”
Further, in Mr. Boone’s “Overblown,” he states that, “contrary to the carefully cultivated perception that wind is David to coal’s Goliath, the record shows that people and corporations heavily involved with coal, natural gas, and oil are also involved with wind. In the 1990s, Enron’s Ken Lay, helped by then–Texas governor George W. Bush (today a leading wind booster), resurrected wind technology from the tomb to which steam power had consigned it. Giant energy corporations swaddled in coal and oil production, such as Florida Power & Light, General Electric, BP, AES, and Siemens, are all intensely invested in wind. They claim to be “diversifying their energy portfolios.” But do they also expect wind to reduce their fossil fuel market share?”
So, it appears Mr. Hill is correct – coal and wind energies do have a mutually benefitting relationship. Heavy government subsidies and nonsensical “green energy” goals provide profits to the developers of the high cost/low producing wind toys while insuring that the coal producers continue to profit from equal or greater demand. And if the company you work for has investments in both, as does Mr. Hill’s … well … how cool is that?
Oh … another sad note for those of us in the mountains resulting from wind and coal’s “mutual” benefit – along with its many other failings, wind actually adds to the horrors of mountain top-removal.
By the way, for any of you local folks looking for the construction jobs promised, the article says you can contact the Indiana contractor through your local trade union office. That is, I guess, if you’re in the union.
For you folks not in the union also looking for work … well, they didn’t seem to mention you.
The article did say that, “Throughout the meeting, representatives from U.S. Wind Force, Edison and White encouraged citizens to call them with any questions or concerns that they might have.” Unfortunately, they didn’t mention how to do that.
You gotta like the title of the PJ Tatler post: “UK electricity CEO: Get used to not having any electricity, suckas!”
Quoting UK National Grid CEO Steve Holliday, “The government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose” writer Bryan Preston poses this, “And how are citizens going to feel when their power is artificially off because they’re deemed unworthy of having electricity, when the industry across the street, which just happens to be a major donor to whatever party is in power, has all of its lights brightly shining?”
Think it won’t happen here, in the good old USA? Have you been asleep for the past couple of years?
Read the post here!
Thanks to Jon Boone for pointing out this article in the (UK) Daily Mail which leads with this statement: “This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem.”
Full article here.
Readers might recall this post at Allegheny Treasures in December of 2009 – Industrial wind + rare earth = Environmental Hazards, which contained this video:
We thank Joan & John Terry for this video, which is the result of their personal effort to compare the conflicting claims of wind power advocates and wind power detractors. The Terrys describe their trip as “an unofficial, unscientific eleven thousand mile trip visiting numerous wind turbine installations in nine states and Canada (WI, MN, ND, Alberta, OR, WA, WY, NB, IA, IL in that order) in the fall of 2010.”
This video provides a sampling of noisy turbines, some of which were poorly maintained and some apparently wearing due to age. The clips are intentionally long enough to give the viewer a sense of what it might be like to listen to these machines day and night.
Contrary to claims made by the wind developers and the wind lobby, there is clear evidence that the health of residents living close to the turbines may be negatively impacted.
The Terrys offered this comment … “All we know is what our eyes saw, our ears heard and our cameras recorded, informed by conversations we had with individuals whose lives have been changed by the construction of turbine towers close to their homes.”
Recently, at the direction of the WV Public Service Commission, the Mineral County (WV) Commissioners approved a Decommissioning Fund and Escrow Agreement for the purpose of protecting county residents against potential financial harm. It is my opinion that the agreement, as approved, is seriously flawed, and subjects the Citizens of Mineral County to a future obligation of several hundred thousand dollars.
What follows is the text of an email sent to the Leaders of the West Virginia Senate and House requesting their review of this failed process which, if not remedied, could pose serious financial risk for other WV counties as well.
For your convenience, following the email text, I’ve included the Decommission Study and the Escrow Agreement resulting from the Study. I’ve also included my initial cautionary letter to the Mineral County Commissioners which was, for some unknown reason, apparently ignored.
Email begins:
February 25, 2011
To: (Via Email)
Senate President & Acting Governor Earl Ray Tomblin
Speaker of the House of Delegates Richard Thompson
Subject: WV Counties placed in financial jeopardy due to flawed industrial wind decommission/escrow procedure.
Based on the outcome of the Escrow Agreement to fund decommissioning of the Pinnacle wind project in Mineral County, I respectfully request that you review the current process that has, in my opinion, placed my fellow Mineral County residents in financial jeopardy and which, unless remedied, will place counties throughout the state in jeopardy of severe financial losses.
As part of the approval process for the Pinnacle wind plant, the WV Public Service Commission assigned responsibility to the Mineral County Commission to:
It is my opinion that, in carrying out the PSC directive which assigned authority to the County Commission, the propriety of such assignment reasonable citizens have questioned, the Mineral County Commission failed to adequately protect the financial well being of the Citizens of Mineral County.
The failure began when the Mineral County Commission, on a 2 to 1 vote, ignored requests from citizens and a standing Commissioner to even seriously consider other qualified consultants beyond G. L. Garrad Hassan, the consultants recommended by US WindForce. As a result, Hassan was selected to prepare the decommission study.
Not surprising to the skeptics among us, the conclusion of the Hassan study resulted in confirming the claim made by the Developer, that the value of scrap would exceed the cost of dismantling and removing the turbines, thus not requiring funding of the escrow account. The rather hastily prepared Hassan assessment, which seemed to not even require a visit the area, actually estimated that the party undertaking decommission in 20 years or so, would make a “profit” of some $35,000.
With many years experience in domestic and international project logistics (power equipment, large manufactured assemblies), I reviewed the transportation estimate for the major components listed in the Hassan study, on which the Escrow Agreement was based. With no specific weights and dimensions to study, but being quite knowledgeable of comparable cargoes, it was obvious to me that the Hassan study estimates were seriously flawed, to the benefit of US WindForce.
My concerns (Attachment 3) for a potentially large (easily a factor of 5 or more) negative variance to the Hassan study were submitted to the County Clerk (receipt acknowledged) for inclusion in the public record prior to the public meeting to consider such findings and advised by the Clerk that my letter would be included in the public record. Additionally, unable to attend the meeting, I asked a friend to read my letter at the meeting. County President Commissioner Pyle did not allow my concerns to be read to the public.
Further, it appears my concerns were ignored and the Escrow Agreement, based on what I feel is a seriously flawed Decommission Study, was signed by the County Commissioners with no requirement for funding reserves. I was not contacted by anyone to discuss or confirm my concerns and, as apparent by the Commission acceptance of the Decommission Study and subsequent “Zero-Down” Escrow Agreement without adjustment to the major component transportation estimate, no challenge was made to US WindForce or Hassan to confirm or counter my claim.
As stated in my letter to the County Commissioners, the concerns I raised could have been easily verified or discounted in a week’s time with minimal effort and no cost. The County Commissioners apparently had no interest in doing so.
Whatever their reason, the decisions of the Commissioners have potentially left the citizens of Mineral County liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars, all to the benefit of US WindForce.
There is no indication that the Public Service Commission has or will conduct oversight to the financial agreement. Lacking that, the very serious consequence of this mishandled duty becomes a serious liability for the future Citizens of Mineral County.
While it is true that a reassessment is required in five years, I suggest it will be extremely difficult to persuade the new owners, presumably bound, but not signatory to the agreement, having all turbines in place and operational, to agree, without a fight, to adjust the agreement by several hundred thousand dollars.
Further, what is the likelihood the owners at the time of decommission will accept that role, knowing that decommissioning and removal of the obsolete units will cost them several hundred thousand dollars? I suggest that the LLCs established to run this business will disappear.
Unless remedial action to require truly adequate funding for the decommissioning of these projects is held at state level and enforcement for failure to perform is insured, West Virginia Counties will face severe economic stress many years from now, and our children, who must bear the brunt of our failures, will wonder why their leaders failed to protect them.
The State of West Virginia must take control of the issues related to decommission and removal of wind turbines and insure that adequate funds are set aside to remove them, long after the income from power generation ends and the owners depart. The Pinnacle Wind Project Escrow Agreement, as currently structured, places no true burden on the Developer or future Owners to perform. In reality, if it is cheaper to walk from a project than to restore the area to its original condition, they will walk. You and I will be long gone. The mess will be left to our heirs.
The WV PSC delegation of this most critical portion of the project to local politicians must be considered failed policy and must not be repeated. The WV PSC must require adequate financial protections for the Citizens of West Virginia and direct industrial wind developers to fully fund future costs. If the PSC is not empowered to do so, the Legislature must act to create such authority, either with the PSC or an agency qualified to make sound judgments concerning decommission funding.
In considering any remedy, the Legislature must insure all information, pro and con, be given equal review. The Legislature must insure that construction of agreements of such significance and potential financial impact will not be delegated to local/state agencies/commissions unqualified to make the proper decision to protect their citizens.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Morgan
Keyser, WV 26726
Attachment 1: Decommission Study
Attachment 2 Escrow Agreement
Attachment 3 Concerns expressed to the Mineral County Commission
Email ends!
AT Note: We will keep you apprised of developments.
Comment received from Jon Boone: “The basic question to ask anyone involved with this, from the PSC to the MC commissioners, from the legislature to the governor, from the local and state media to the wind developer himself, is: What is the remedy if Hassan’s assessment, which, as you point out, has been lowballed by exponential factors, doesn’t begin to cover the decommissioning costs. The scrap metal argument is utter nonsense, since, if it made sense, the wind LLC wouldn’t be abandoning its equipment.
Without a good answer to this question of remedy, the legislature has failed utterly in its responsibility to protect its constituent polities from the ravages of exploitative development. This is especially egregious in a state where only state government controls local land use decisions.
Does the legislative leadership–and the governor–wish to enhance the reputation of the state as a Banana Republic by trafficking with such carpetbagging riffraff?”
Even CNBC seems to think this has a bit of an odor – Obama Official Leaves Energy Department for Soros Backed Cleantech Fund
They kick off their article with: “Cathy Zoi, who was the Acting Under Secretary for Energy and Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is going to work for a new cleantech private equity fund sponsored by George Soros and a prominent Silicon Valley venture capital firm.
The new fund will invest in…wait for it…”the energy and resource sectors.”
Note the investments of Ms. Zoi and how President Obama gave a shout out to her husband’s company in a 2009 speech.
“the new boss, same as the old boss”
Lest anyone is still under the illusion that we send our best and brightest to govern, there’s this: “Too much ethanol could spark food riots.”
That quote comes from none other than Rhodes Scholar, Ex-President Bill Clinton, who presumably finally realized he’s not exempt from the law of unintended consequences. Oh, sure … he’s a lot smarter than a lot of us, particularly me. But, that makes this ludicrous plea all the more ridiculous.
First, he has to realize that telling folks who benefit from the subsidy created ethanol boom he supports that they should cut back on production – aka, their livelihood, so food riots don’t break out around the world, is beyond silly. I’m surprised he didn’t take it one step further to ask for volunteers to state publicly they don’t want any part of the $5,000,000,000 congress just dumped into the feeding trough on which the subsidy hogs will feast.
It’s times like these that I wish someone would jumped up from their audience seat to ask, “exactly how much can we produce before people die, Mr. President?” Instead, I imagine the audience of “farmers and Agriculture Department employees” just nodded in silent agreement that someone, other than them, should cut back on production. Because, after all, they’ve got bills to pay.
So, I’ll ask President Clinton a few question for them:
See how silly this becomes? Politicians, in their ever-blossoming ignorance, create the environment for this cause and effect disaster to play out and then act surprised that there are consequences.
There is a simple remedy to this question. But none of the folks mentioned in the article will like it. Eliminate subsidies!
You’re Welcome!
While catching up on emails, I found this gem from our friend Fran Kunz: Wind turbines at Boston’s Museum of Science produce less electricity than expected
While we at Allegheny Treasures don’t discuss the home market, this is a telling article worth sharing to inform consumers interested in purchasing a wind turbine for their property.
Here is the opening line from the Boston Globe article: “Experimental wind turbines installed on the rooftop of Boston’s Museum of Science have produced less electricity than predicted, prompting researchers there to urge caution before homeowners mount a turbine on their property.”
It seems four of the five turbines had issues, while all were consistent in one thing – poor performance. The prediction was that “the turbines would collectively produce enough electricity to power almost two average American homes for one year.” The result was that the turbines produced only “60 percent of the electricity used by a single average American home.”
On the positive side, according to the researchers, “the turbines have killed no birds nor has the museum received complaints about noise pollution or view obstruction.”
Impressive, huh? The clunkers don’t produce appreciable electricity, even to their own standards, but, at least they didn’t kill anything in the process of failing to perform. Now that’s the technology we need for our energy future.
Oh, and the cost? While the museum knew that the experimental turbines would not be “cost-efficient,” one of the purposes of the lab was to record “real world” test results, said (Wind Turbine Lab Analyst Marian) Tomusiak.
“There is no hard data on how these turbines perform, and we are willing to release the data to the world,” said Tomusiak.
And we’re happy they did release the data to the world.
But again, our real beef is with industrial wind projects, not what a homeowner wants to do with their property. But if you’re seriously considering purchasing a wind turbine for your home generation of electricity, you might want to have the installing company provide a performance guarantee so that, if your results are similar, at least you can get your money back.
From the Daily Caller: Panel: Green jobs company endorsed by Obama and Biden squandered $535 million in stimulus money
Hot Air has the quote of the day: “Just another object lesson in why government’s role shouldn’t be to pick winners and losers in a market. They’re usually no good at it. And in this case, we had two people — Barack Obama and Joe Biden — with no experience in private investment, management, or even energy production making those choices. That’s a half-billion-dollar lesson that we’d all better heed in the future.”
We can’t afford expensive lessons to continue. Congress needs to put a stop to this lunacy.
Need a reason? Try this:
Allegheny Treasures 