Wind Mills: Not Spinning, Not Creating Jobs

The Heritage Foundation ^ | February 2, 2010 | Nick Loris

[myknowledge]

The cold weather is creating a number of unintended consequences for new energy designs. First, snow accumulating on LED traffic light bulbs wouldn’t melt because the lights failed to heat up resulting in car accidents, and in some instances, death. In Minnesota, the weather resulted in wind turbines freezing and thus not turning even if it is windy. This local news story has the details:

But that’s not the only problem with wind power. It’s not the economic savior the government thought it would be. The stimulus money is failing to create the clean energy jobs the White House said it would:

America’s wind energy industry enjoyed a banner year in 2009, thanks largely to tax credits and other incentives packed into the $787-billion economic stimulus bill. But even though a record 10,000 megawatts of new generating capacity came on line, few jobs were created overall and wind power manufacturing employment, in particular, fell — a setback for President Obama’s pledge to create millions of green jobs. In the wind industry, the bill saved about 40,000 factory, installation and maintenance jobs, according to the American Wind Energy Assn. The industry had gained as many as 2,000 installation and maintenance jobs in producing the record megawatts of new capacity, but wind power manufacturing lost just as many jobs, the trade group said.

Clean-energy leaders and many outside analysts added that green companies won’t begin hiring in large numbers until the federal government mandates renewable power consumption nationwide and dramatically upgrades the nation’s electric grid.”

The fact that tax credits and handouts in the stimulus, along with other handouts in previous energy bills, still can’t produce a viable wind industry should be a telling sign that it is not economically viable. If a federal mandate that says we have to include renewable energy in our electricity consumption is the only way to trigger companies to build wind power, maybe it’s time to take a second look.

Yet Senior Advisor at the Department of Energy Matt Rogers says, “We are not in the business of picking winners” but instead “creating competition among innovative approaches in the marketplace.” But when certain energy sources enjoy preferential treatment, it comes at the expense of others. By including some energy sources in a renewable electricity mandate but not others is explicitly picking winners and losers. A renewable electricity standard itself picks winners and losers. There’s no other way around it.

And the reason the government has to pick winners is because the losers (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) supply electricity at a much cheaper rate. So not only do Americans have to fund the construction of windmills as taxpayers, they’ll also have to pay as energy consumers for pricier electricity. This is not creating competition; it’s market distortion. Selling it any other way is spinning the story, which is much more spinning than the wind turbines in Minnesota are doing.

[myknowledge]

[familyop]

There’s obviously not much analytical thought or honest speech going on between the big wind turbine corporations and gas-electric company mafia (both using their precious governments and both lazy).

Meanwhile, some independent families are doing fine with home-built wind turbines in the mountains (large alternators, strong construction), and the corporate-government morons are violating property rights by outlawing them (building heights, licensing particular manufacturers, etc.).

[Persevero]

ANY energy plan to requires subsidy is doomed in my opinion.

If there is money to be made, power companies will figure it out, and build it, if they are allowed.

[The Cajun]

Seems like a couple of fuses somewhere in that big sucker would have been money well spent.

[TexasTransplant]

From a different Thread ...

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved

(Wish I remembered who I stole the above from)

TT

[TexasTransplant]

Sorry my point was “Government” is the problem...

Next year they will want to TAX our Great Great Great Grandkids cause we need to invest everything NOW to reverse the Rotation of the Earth or we shall all surely all perish or for the Polar Bears whichever is selling that day.

TT

[Pikachu_Dad]

Now I am in no way defending the stupid cash for clunkers, but the financial analysis you present is a bit askew.

There is at least one major flaw in it.

The money saved is ‘per year’. So the savings is $350 million per year.

or $700 million every two years.

or $1,400 million every four years

or $2,800 million every eight years.

or $3,500 million every ten years.

Now a ten year return on investment is not a very good return, but it is not as bad as the $8.57 for $1.00 that the post claims.

[ari-freedom]

still chasing windmills after all these years

just no Sophia Loren this time

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Well, the problem is this: Why should we taxpayers have to subsidize the buying of other people's cars? I didn't get a subsidy. Why should I have to pay for someone else to get one? The cash-for-clunkers is a one-time program. What would happen if the government kept this going, say, annually? The fuel savings over time would never add up before the government was completely bankrupt from the program.

Further, why is it my responsibility to reduce another person's gasoline consumption if he or she is paying for his/her own gasoline?

Why can't I keep more of my own money and use it as I see fit instead of giving it to others for their good for some collective (communist) good?

It's like saying taxpayers should pay for every home to receive more insulation and new, better-insulated windows. In the long run, it would save energy but in the long run, we'd all be dead broke chasing our economic tails and dead from old age.

If it makes sense for one individual to shell out a chunk of money to save operating costs over time, LET THE ONE PERSON SHELL OUT HIS OWN CASH.

He realizes the recovery of operating expense over time by his own individual, lump-sum investment.

[Pikachu_Dad]

I agree with you.

‘Cash for Clunkers’ was a stupid program.

It also put a ‘spike’ in car sales in one month; and a ‘death valley’ in car sales for the months before and after the program.

The above math showed exactly why ‘we’ had to shell out for this program.

Clearly trading in an old car for a new car just for the gas savings is not a good investment.

That is why the ‘we’ are not doing it their own money.