FINALLY we are getting some more people on the right side of the aisle who actually get it when it comes to energy. Here is one of them:
FINALLY we are getting some more people on the right side of the aisle who actually get it when it comes to energy. Here is one of them:
There never was a good war or a bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin





I am not aware of any conservatives who are anti-wind farm. Wind farms would be great but that does not mean we shouldn't continue to explore for oil in ANWR. BTW, I don't know if this made national news, but they wanted to build a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts and guess who squashed it? Ted Kennedy. He didn't want those windmills 20 miles offshore from the Kennedy Compound.
"never trust a big butt and a smile"-- Bell Biv DeVoe
If you're in your twenties and aren't a liberal, you have no heart. If you're in you're forties and aren't a conservative, you have no brain - Winston Churchill





unfortunately, there are quite a few details about wind power which are 'inconvenient truths' ...
For example, did you know that Wind Farms kill fish ?
(snip)" [the] surge of wind last Monday afternoon jumped far beyond levels forecast by operators of Oregon's burgeoning wind-farm industry, sending more power into the regional grid than it could handle.
The Bonneville Power Administration is responsible for adjusting hydropower generation levels to accommodate the power from wind turbines so the system isn't overloaded.
It realized by Monday evening that it could no longer handle the surge without increasing spills of water through hydroelectric dams to levels dangerous to fish. Spilling the water keeps it from the hydropower generators.
Generally, spills are needed to help juvenile salmon make their way downriver, although too much water can prove lethal.
So, for the first time, BPA power managers began calling wind-farm operators with orders to curtail power generation.
But calls to some wind farms reached only answering machines, and at another the operators misunderstood and kept generation steady. One wind-farm, which BPA wouldn't name, did reduce generation. "(snip)
In a nutshell, wind power is unreliable ... it always requires another spinning generator to 'cover' for lost electrical output when the wind stops, and always requires another loaded generator to throttle back when the wind gusts. In the case of Oregon, it was hydro generators (the absolute lowest cost and absolute lowest environmental impact generation type) which had to be dumped to prevent wind farm electricity from overloading the northwestern power grid - which was not only counterproductive it also potentially harmed fish due to the sudden 'flood' of bypassed hydro generator water !
Obviously, the REAL value of wind farms, as well as solar power, is the generation of tax credits for investors. Without those tax credits, which allow investors to save money they would otherwise owe in taxes on other sources of income, the straight-up economics of wind and solar are a joke. This is what is driving T. Boone Pickens' support of wind power ... with his mulitmillion dollar income tax rate and Social Security taxes likely to be greatly increased after the november election, he needs a new tax loophole !
In fact, the wind / solar tax credit boondoggle has now gotten so bad that some regional utilities are suing state and local governments over the issue ...
(snip)"Oregon’s solar boom — a cornerstone of hope for renewable energy — may go bust over concerns raised by utility Pacific Power.
Solar developments have multiplied throughout the Northwest because they receive government tax breaks. But now Pacific Power questions the roles played by participants in solar energy deals.
If state utility regulators decide that the solar deals run afoul of utility law, as much as 80 percent of the commercial solar projects in the works could be in jeopardy.
“It could stop projects cold,” said Kacia Brockman, solar program manager for the Energy Trust of Oregon, which promotes renewable energy through grants and other aid.
The challenge has thrown the solar-energy community into a state of high anxiety and put intense pressure on the Oregon Public Utility Commission to rule as quickly as possible. It also has exposed the volatile nature of an emerging industry fed by a mix of tax subsidies, public sentiment, politics and market demand.
Here’s the core of the problem: Cities and counties, because they do not pay taxes, cannot enjoy the tax breaks offered by federal and state government for renewable energy development. But there’s no shortage of eager partners among private businesses that want to shave their payments to the IRS.
And that’s the match that concerns Pacific Power. It’s called the “third party” deal — where a private company generates power a city couldn’t and sells it to the city for distribution to customers.
Such tax incentives are behind the surge in solar installations. The tax breaks, along with grants from the Energy Trust, can cut payback periods for multimillion-dollar projects to five years, even less.
Third-party deals have allowed tax-exempt entities to put in solar panels — on rooftops or on the ground — and transfer the tax credits to outside parties. These deals come in a variety of forms, but under the most-used arrangement, the investor builds and owns the project, then sells the power to the public entity at a negotiated rate similar to the rate charged by the utility. Typically, the contract is good for 20 years.
The investor gets all the tax credits and the public entity gets clean energy at a predictable rate.
Utility raises concerns
Pacific Power has supported the state’s push into renewable energy. Earlier this year, it backed an expansion of utility rules that allowed commercial-scale solar projects to receive credit for any surplus energy fed into the grid.
Yet, the utility is now questioning whether projects associated with third-party deals can take advantage of the grid linkup, known as “net metering.” That’s because the law assumes the entity that owns and generates the power is also the entity using the power.
“We hate to be seen as the bad guy in all this,” said Scott Bolton, a PacifiCorp lobbyist. “We need clarity on how to treat our customers.”
Pacific Power’s questions are outlined in a petition submitted to the Public Utility Commission last month. The commission is expected to rule in one to two months.
Solar energy advocates say the uncertainty couldn’t come at a worse time. Federal tax credits will expire at year’s end, and pending projects need to be completed by then to qualify for the write-offs."(snip)
^^^
Utility management problem, not a technology problem.
And a little bit of a "I'm selling my power motherfuckers - go unplug your generator shorty."
Now we all know it is the democrats who are against wind power - just go ask Teddy Kennedy about wind power ideas in his backyard. He thinks wind power is a bad bad idea. You know how those liberals are.





another 'inconvenient truth' about wind power and solar power is that the gov't has mandated 'green energy price levels' which are significantly higher than the wholesale price levels paid to hydro / nuclear / oil & gas generators. In the case of the Pacific Power lawsuit story, the 'net metering' laws allow for solar generators to effectively get paid residential retail prices for all power they pump back into the power grid ... probably something in the 10 cent+ per kWh ballpark. This 'net metered' power displaces wholesale power from hydro / nuckear / oil & gas generators priced at 3-4-5 cents/kWh. And who pays for the 5-6-7 cents/kWh price difference which makes solar power profitable for its investors ? ... all of Pacific Power's other electricity customers !And a little bit of a "I'm selling my power motherfuckers - go unplug your generator shorty."
He didn't want it in his backyard which stinks for sure but that doesn't mean he is against it in the wide open, non residential areas such as is suggested by Pickens. And his selfishness about his backyard certainly doesn't represent the entire Democratic party. Not even close!
There never was a good war or a bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin
How come we can shrug off trillions of tons in the air from burning hydrocarbons for energy, ravaged coastlines and grounds from spills, and that's all acceptable collateral damage - but when we talk about wind power, there's suddenly this sharp environmental focus? Yes, there will be drawbacks. Nothing comes for free. I acknowledge the problems. On the whole, wind presents far fewer problems than coal/natural gas power production.
Not reliable? Ever been to Wyoming? The wind doesn't shut down. Neither do the coal trains.





wonderful for Wyoming, but 99.99% of the country's energy consumption is located elsewhere.
Please understand that I am not knocking wind power per se. What I am knocking are the blatant subsidies, the 'stealth' subsidies, the involuntary diversion of huge amounts of tax money, the involuntary increases in electric bills, the huge tax credits for uber-rich investors etc. which are necessary to artificially stimulate and sustain a technology that is NOT economically viable in and of itself. Had the same amount of money been spent on additional nuclear power plants, we would have far more total additional electrical generating capacity - with an even lower environmental impact (barring a replay of Chernobyl at any rate) - and at a much lower 'break even' production cost per kWh (meaning that no ongoing subsidies would be necessary) !
1. Power generated in Wyoming gets sent out of Wyoming.
2. Wind power costs more than coal/gas power right now, but people still sign on for it.
3. Oil and gas companies are subsidized, too.
4. I would like to see wider use of safe nuclear power. No argument there.
5. I don't care for the title of the thread, either. I know lots of conservatives and liberals with a clue, particularly the ones that can see past their ideology as defined by others.





it probably does, but the only two nearby 'concentrated' centers of electrical demand, Salt Lake City and Denver, are still some 200 miles away. So the tranmission energy losses and transmission line maintenance costs make Wyoming windpower even less price competitive !1. Power generated in Wyoming gets sent out of Wyoming.
another 'inconvenient truth' rears its ugly head. New York also has the option of utilities selling electricity customers 'green power' generated by solar and wind at a premium price, which individual customers can then choose to pay or NOT to pay. A handful of customers do choose to pay the premium ... governments are the largest 'green power' customers of course, since they are paying the electric bills for schools, city/state offices, police stations etc. with tax money !2. Wind power costs more than coal/gas power right now, but people still sign on for it.
However, those electricity customers that choose NOT to pay the 'green power' premium are still required to pay a premium price for their 'non-green' electricity as a result of 'net metering' wind and solar power buyback guarantees imposed upon the state's utilities by the state Public Service Commission (same deal as in Oregon) to cover the cost difference between 3-4-5 cents/kWh nuclear or coal power and 10-11-12 cents/kWh solar or wind power. Granted that while solar and wind only make up 1-2% of the state's total power that the cost effects are small, but nonetheless the price of 'non-green' power has been increased for every electricity customer ... customers who were not given a choice about having to pay a 1/4-1/2 cent/kWh higher electricity bill to subsidize solar and wind power, and customers who weren't even told that their electric bill includes these solar and wind power subsidy costs.
Arguably, that depends on how you define a subsidy. At the very least, the relative size of subsidies (actually tax deductions) for oil and gas companies is tiny compared to those for solar and wind companies. And non-arguably, oil and gas companies will remain profitable without future subsidies, whereas solar and wind companies will not !3. Oil and gas companies are subsidized, too.
Again, in principle I have no problem whatsoever with the concepts of solar and wind power, or with the people who choose to purchase the same. What I do have a problem with is that purchase being heavily subsidized by other state residents who were not given a choice about subsidizing solar or wind power via their federal / state income taxes or by their utility bill being increased 5%. What I have a bigger problem with is gov't not telling these other state residents the degree to which their federal / state income tax payments and utility bill payments have increased in order to subsidize solar or wind power. What I have a huge problem with is gov't not telling these other state residents about the HUGE tax breaks (production tax credits) being handed out to uber-rich solar and wind farm investors which in turn allows those uber-rich investors to cancel out other tax obligations thus being able to pay a much lower de-facto total tax rate than the working people who are subsidizing the solar and wind power !
Last edited by Melonie; 07-10-2008 at 09:58 AM.
Not probably. It does. And the wind farms in Colorado also serve Colorado, and it's windy out on the plains there, too.
I agree that the ultimate goal is self-sustained power generation. Personally, unlike you, I think that can be done as the technology improves. There's a public benefit to be gained, a big one, by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reducing hydrocarbon emissions.
Well, that doesn't strike me as fair. But I don't see a reason to abandon wind power because some entities are being that way. Change the behavior of the entities.However, those electricity customers that choose NOT to pay the 'green power' premium are still required to pay a premium price ...
But also non-arguably (to me), oil and gas companies are at a long-term dead-end with environmental damage as the ultimate legacy, whereas solar, wind, nuclear, and hydrogen offer much cleaner and beneficial returns over that long term.And non-arguably, oil and gas companies will remain profitable without future subsidies, whereas solar and wind companies will not !





Total agreement on this issue. Nuclear power would do this on a much greater scale than wind or solar, at a much more affordable price, and without the need for ongoing gov't subsidies or increased taxes / electricity prices to pay for those subsidies.There's a public benefit to be gained, a big one, by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reducing hydrocarbon emissions
well THIS is the whole point !!!!!! If you change the behavior of the entities, that means that the TRUE costs of supporting solar and wind power would need to be borne by those installing solar and wind power and by those purchasing solar and wind power ... rather than forcing other electricity customers and taxpayers to subsidize these costs ( knowingly or otherwise ).Well, that doesn't strike me as fair. But I don't see a reason to abandon wind power because some entities are being that way. Change the behavior of the entities.
If solar and wind investors are faced with the true costs of installation (instead of having 30-50-70% of the installed costs paid for via gov't grant money), and are paid the true 'market price' of wholesale grid electricity (instead of being paid the full residential retail price for electricity ), and are denied the super-generous production tax credits which currently are used to offset taxes due on other (non solar non wind) investment income, the obvious result will be no investment in solar or wind power ! Even in Colorado !
Bookmarks