Posted on 04/01/2002 8:47:46 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Supporters of wind power call it "part of the future" and insist government subsidies like those lavished on the now-bankrupt Enron Corporation during the 1990s, are a key component in developing alternative energy sources.
But an energy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. calls those subsidies "a total waste of time."
During the year 2000, the latest year records are available, wind power represented 13/100 of one percent of all electricity produced in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy.
Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the CATO Institute, said despite the fact that wind power production is so low, it received $900 million worth of federal subsidies between 1978 and 1996. Taylor noted that the natural gas industry received $778 million in subsidies during the same period, but produces 33 percent of U.S. electricity.
Last month, U.S. producers of wind power also saw their federal tax credits of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour extended for another two years. And the $900 million in subsidies is an incomplete picture, according to Taylor, because it does not count government mandates regarding wind turbine plants.
"States mandate certain percentages from renewable [energy.] How can you put a number on 'thou shalt build wind?" he asked.
Companies dealing in wind power were among the top beneficiaries of a 1994 executive order signed by then-President Bill Clinton, which called for "green energy sources" to be prioritized by the federal government.
Frederick Palmer, former CEO of Western Fuels Association, Inc., a coal advocacy group, blames the recent electrical shortages in California on the Clinton administration's reliance on alternative fuel sources like wind instead of coal-fired power plants.
"The problem of electricity supply, at base, is that we are using up the capacity of existing power plants, including those that are coal fired," he told the Internet site, National Anxiety Center.
In marking Earth Day 2000, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson also directed his department to purchase a portion of its electricity from so called "green power sources" derived from wind, solar and water.
An exclusive series of reports recently published by CNSNews.com, showed how Clinton's energy department gave tax credits and subsidies to a wide range of wind power projects, including several operated by Enron Wind Corporation.
Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) calls the federal subsidies "an unnecessary expenditure."
"Wind power is a good thing, but is not cost competitive," Ebell stated. He believes it has evolved into another "special interest that needs a hand out."
However, Christine Real de Azua of the American Wind Energy Association, the wind industry's trade association, maintains wind power is a great alternative source of energy. She does acknowledge that wind power has a lot of room for growth. "It's still very small," she conceded.
Real de Azua envisions wind power turbines as "part of the future" of energy in the U.S.
"There is a huge potential in the U.S., it is barely being tapped. There is no reason that wind can't step up to six percent [of total U.S. electricity produced] by 2020. It is very achievable," she said.
Real de Azua points to Denmark, where currently 15 percent of the nation's electricity comes from wind turbines. She believes the U.S. should follow Denmark's example and develop a "renewable energy goal" because there is "no reason why it should not work in the U.S."
While stressing that wind power deserves continued government subsidies, even Real de Azua acknowledges, "We are still a little more expensive."
She adds, "But at least we're competitive."
"If all subsidies ended, we would still do well, just not as well as with subsidies," Real de Azua said.
Mary McCann of Enron Wind in Tehachapi, California, stated, "Wind power is incredible right now, it is growing leaps and bounds." Enron Wind, which bills itself as "a world leader" in wind energy production, is a subsidiary of the now bankrupt Enron Corporation.
Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says taxpayers have failed to get their money's worth from government wind subsidies because of the inherent limitations of the technology.
"It only works intermittently when the wind blows ... wind power has to be subsidized for even the small amounts we have now," Singer said.
He admits that the cost of wind power generation has gone down with new turbine technologies but believes the cost is not likely to continue dropping.
"Turbine development has reached a plateau and increasing the strength of wind cannot be achieved through government subsidies," Singer said.
Singer believes that if wind power is to ever play a significant role in U. S. energy production, it will have to survive without subsidies.
"There are alternatives to wind. I am sure we can get along without it. If we were to discontinue wind power now, it would hardly be noticed," he said.
As of today, this administration is unfortunately still blocking energy matters including cold fusion,
and blocking the issuing of patents, despite the US Constitution encouraging
inventions, and the importance to US security.
All of these should be encouraged.
I believe the answer's blowing in the, well, er... never mind.
The problem with this logic is that natural gas was already an established method of generating electricity. Wind wasn’t. You’d expect to get a better return if you can spend money looking for new sources rather than try to start essentially from scratch on a new technology.
Further, since natural gas had been established for 100 years +, they weren’t almost totally reliant on Federal grants for their funding. They had a revenue stream already in place. Comparing those two figures would give a more complete (although as mentioned above still skewed) picture of the situation.
"It only works intermittently when the wind blows ... wind power has to be subsidized for even the small amounts we have now,"
This statement seems based on the conclusion that technology is at its furthest limits. That logic would have led one to the belief that computers were useless since they were so big, expensive and relied on those punch cards.
An exclusive series of reports recently published by CNSNews.com, showed how Clinton's energy department gave tax credits and subsidies to a wide range of wind power projects, including several operated by Enron Wind Corporation.
The continued referencing of Klinton and Enron attempts to smear alternative fuel technology the same way the left does us when they make tenuous (at best) ties between the Right and the nazi party or Timothy McVeigh. It’s a faulty, pathos induced, technique.
I don’t know if wind, hydro-electric, hydro-thermal, photo-electric technology will ever be the solution. I do know that hoping to rely on the arabs is incredibly counter productive. Each dollar we spend on arab owned oil is another dollar they can funnel into terrorism.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
How on earth did you come up with that figure?
The way to go is nuclear. We wast time and resources $$$ on the attempt to develop other forms for large scale use. The next and best step is right over our heads every day, nuclear fusion.
Those who resist the fission to fusion energy evolution are 21st. century Luddites.
I suppose it's possible to come up with such a number by including every income tax deduction that oil companies might take, like the salaries of their employees or capitalized expenses. Of course, every other business in America takes similar deductions, so it's not really a subsidy.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Support energy independence NOW.
A novelty? Tell them that in Germany, Denmark and Spain. Tell them that in Texas and northwest Iowa. How many GW of installed power would take it out of the novelty zone for you?
I understand your doubt and I'd love to know more about that number myself.
I suppose it's possible to come up with such a number by including every income tax deduction that oil companies might take, like the salaries of their employees or capitalized expenses. Of course, every other business in America takes similar deductions, so it's not really a subsidy.
There are a lot of ways that we subsidize other forms of energy though. How many military efforts and how much politics is involved with keeping the oil flowing from the mideast? There is a commercial on TV that says that if you do drugs you may be subsidizing terrorists. That same commercial could easily be done showing that if you use gasoline you are subsidizing terrorists.
Natural gas and coal seem to be the only ones that don't get subsidized very much.
It's an interesting question, and I've seen it raised several times here. It doesn't have a rational answer, though, because you can't allocate a specific percentage to those efforts. Additionally, everyone benefits from an abundant oil supply, so I suppose one could argue that consumers are having their gasoline purchases subsidized, or that it's really a subsidy to the airline industry. That line of thinking simply doesn't lead to a conclusion that's worth anything for comparative purposes.
An Arctic drilling tax credit (which doesn't exist) would be something that is easily measured, just like the farm subsidies, or even the duties imposed on Canadian timber. But the $36 billion number is mighty suspicious.
Rational, yes, easy to derive, no. We have to defend our oil interests in the middle east all the time. We even seem to sell our souls for oil. We buy oil from people who hate us.
Additionally, everyone benefits from an abundant oil supply, so I suppose one could argue that consumers are having their gasoline purchases subsidized, or that it's really a subsidy to the airline industry.
If a subsidy is ok when someone benefits from it then there should be no problem subsidizing wind power. It is clean, abundant and ours. I'd like to see a gas tax used to subsidize wind power myself.
That line of thinking simply doesn't lead to a conclusion that's worth anything for comparative purposes.
I think that if one US soldier is guarding spent nuclear fuel 24 hrs/day we are looking at about 300K/yr for his salary and benefits. I suspect that rather than one soldier there are entire units employed in safeguarding all aspects of nuclear power. How about the entire NRC? How much does this little organization cost? It wouldn't exist if we didn't have nuclear power so the entire cost of the NRC must viewed as a subsidy.
The government doesn't need to be funding this; the companies should convince investors to put up the money. Having government involved only leads to delays (having to write grant proposals, etc.) and waste! If the company is using its OWN money, it has an incentive to get the job done and put the product on the market at a price the public can afford.
Well, they have some east of here. You will usually see at least ¾ of them not operating on a given day. I talked to a guy whose job it was to repair them once. He told me that not only are they expensive to construct, they are a maintenance nightmare as well. He could have been lying, I guess.
I do remember a newspaper article where the windmills were shut down for some period of time last year because they were afraid migratory birds would be killed or spooked by them. That's comforting to know, on top of everything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.