Replies

Thanks for the link. Many of the arguments are obviously biased against renewables (use of the word "insidious" several times), rely on several "if/then" arguments and assume the initial "if" is true, don't take into account that current sources of fossil fuels are finite (and have costs to deliver and/dispose of), and production tax credits received by wind farms are based on energy generated which requires wind farms to work as efficiently as possible (if the wind don't blow or the turbines are prone to problems, nobody will invest in it and it won't get built).

Another thing is the bonus depreciation are "losses" the investor applies against tax liabilities over the life of the wind farm investment, generally 20 years. I have never heard of an investor who takes the tax benefits (5 year depreciation or 10 year production tax credits) and then abandons the project. That happened in the 1980s when wind farms paid the tax credit up front, regardless of performance, but doesn't apply now.

Plus the link ignores recent charades in the US energy market with "traditional" sources of electricity, unlike wind which has long-term purchase agreements at agreed prices (regardless of market shenanagins, and sometimes inflation).

Offshore wind generally has stonger and steadier winds, resulting in higher capacity factors, and much lower costs of energy to the purchasing utility (3~4 cents per kWh), despite the higher offshore capital costs.

You are correct, abandonment is a less likely scenario today. More likely, the sites are sold outright to a power company. Again, the power companies are required to buy into these wind plants (or trade the green tags) in order to satisfy laws in the States where they sell their product.

The investment companies that build wind sites are more like venture firms. They raise the money for the projects, outsource construction, do a nice sales job on rural communities on why they are doing right by the world and how their taxes will drop with the revenue stream, and then dissolve when the project is sold. Folks in the view shed are left to deal with the noise, the blade flicker, the impacts to migratory birds and other wildlife habitats, the limits on access to the area, and probably higher electricity rates.

While I understand that fossil fuels are finite, I do not believe renewables will make a difference - Unless we are willing to sacrifice huge regions of the US.

In the case of Colorado, the Platt River Power Authority, which supplies 5% of the electricity in the state, would need to build a wind facility that covers 8000 acres in order to meet the 10% requirement should the constitutional amendment pass. I do wonder whether the folks in Colorado realize this fact.

(I will reread the report again and look for the bias. Since I agreed with the premise, I am afraid I didn't notice words like "insidious". :)