Renewable Energy - We Pay, they profit.

[Susan Rose]

Wind Jammers at the White House
A Larry Summers memo exposes the high cost of energy corporate welfare.
President Obama continues to advertise the $814 billion stimulus and its green energy subsidy programs in particular as unqualified successes. But a remarkable memo from Mr. Obama's own advisers tells the real story, neatly illustrating what happens when his anticarbon agenda meets the political allocation of capital. The eight-page October 25 memorandum to the President was written by soon-to-depart chief
economic aide Larry Summers and senior policy aides Carol Browner and Ron Klain, and it's been kicking around Capitol Hill and industry circles for the last week. The trio walks through an interagency dispute about Energy Department subsidies for wind, solar and other forms of "renewable" power, which DOE claimed were being held up by the joint Treasury and White House budget office (OMB) reviews. Recall that the stimulus transformed the government into the world's largest private equity firm.
The many tools now at DOE's disposal include $6 billion to guarantee loans and another
dispensation so that the department can convert an energy investment tax credit equal to 30% of a project's cost into a direct cash grant to green developers.
The Summers memo notes that these two provisions alone reduce "the cost of a new wind farm by about 55% and solar technologies by about half relative to a no-subsidy case." So taxpayers are more than majority partners in these private projects, except they get no upside. DOE wanted the White House to cut OMB and Treasury out of deal-by-deal approval oversight so it could get the money out the door quicker. The department was coming under political attack "from Hill supporters and stakeholders for slow implementation," according to the memo, and impatient Democrats had already raided the $6 billion fund to pay for cash for clunkers. But OMB and Treasury found severe problems with "the economic integrity of government support for renewables." Developers had almost no "skin in the game," meaning that their equity in projects was well below ordinary standards in the private market. They were also "double dipping," obtaining loan guarantees for projects that "would appear likely to move forward without the credit support" in the stimulus because of other subsidy programs. The reason for the roadblock was "an insufficient number of financially and technically viable projects." Treasury and OMB singled out an 845-megawatt wind farm that the Energy Department had guaranteed in Oregon called Shepherds Flat, a $1.9 billion installation of 338 General Electric turbines. Combining the stimulus and other federal and state subsidies, the total taxpayer cost is about $1.2 billion, while sponsors GE and Caithness Energy LLC had invested equity of merely about 11%. The memo also notes the wind farm could sell power at "above-market rates" because of 11/11/2010 Review & Outlook: Wind Jammers at the Oregon's renewable portfolio standard mandate, which requires utilities to buy a certain annual amount of wind, solar, etc. But then GE said it was considering "going to the private market for financing out of frustration with
the review process." Anything but that. The memo dryly observes that "the alternative of private financing would not make the project financially non-viable."
Oh, and while Shepherds Flat might result in about 18 million fewer tons of carbon through 2033, "reductions would have to be valued at nearly $130 per ton CO2 for the climate benefits to equal the subsidies (more than 6 times the primary estimate used by the government in evaluating rules)."
So here we have the government already paying for 65% of a project that doesn't even meet its normal cost-benefit test, and then the White House has to referee when one of the largest corporations in the world (GE) importunes the Administration to move faster by threatening to find a private financial substitute like any other business. Remind us again why taxpayers should pay for this kind of corporate welfare? The memo's tone suggests that Messrs. Summers and Klain and Ms. Browner are on the side of the adults at Treasury and the budget office, and they propose several reforms. But they also say that "Failing to make progress on renewables loan guarantees could upset the Hill ([New Mexico] Sen.
[Jeff] Bingaman, Speaker Pelosi)" and changes could "signal the failure of a Recovery Act program that has been featured prominently by the Administration." Well, that answers our question. Meanwhile, the loan guarantee program continues apace.

[AQUAMAN]

No Charlie, Pennsylvania is not Transylvania, nor in Michigan. Did yur Guvner back home not have Geography in the K-6 grades? Hardy har. Good luck Guido, sounds like it's nice out there, and has benefits many other states are lacking now. Yeah, I stopped going for ice cream cones when the double-dip ebbed over $2, not it's $3+ I heard. And don't even think about a pig's dinner, what, about $8-10? For Fudgies Only imho.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

LOL AQUA!!

 

Don't get me wrong I will miss the view of the sunset over Lake MI. That is until those wind towers end up impeding the view and the local Boat traffic...

 

Where I am now I only see the cooling towers of the Nuclear plant that employs nearly 1500 persons full time and many more seasonally. The wind towers are about 25 miles away on a ridge overlooking Scranton. I still need to get pictures of both up here so you can decide which is the worse compromise for clean power.

[Alan Flint]

Regarding so-called subsidies, communities generally have been paying the hidden costs of unclean fossil fuel generation for many years, and the best evidence and consensus of scientific opinion suggests we are now starting to see strong environmental effects of global warming from the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These are likely to impose extreme weather events /climate changes and greatly increased costs on economies generally. Generally speaking it seems fair to say that up-to-date the fossil fuel industry has had an unfair advantage thus far of not having the costs of these damaging activities factored into its prices and accordingly has not been required to recoup those costs from customers.
The need for reducing dependence on CO2 producing power generation is urgent. It is unlikely to happen soon enough without significant government intervention and direction. Appropriate design and placement of wind generation facilities has been proven to effectively assist in reducing CO2 emissions. So campaign for better management of incentive programs all you like, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater on the basis of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) concerns, the climate and fossil fuel shortages are everywhere!

[Willy]

Alan

Can you give an estimate on how many coal/gas operated power plants will be taken off line and eliminated when we start producing wind generated electricity? I would also like to see some information on how scientists determined what would happen if global warming continues. I'm not talking about speculation but actual consequences of temperature increase by geographical areas. Also would you be willing to relocate to an area where you would be living next to a 400 ft. wind turbine?

[Alan Flint]

I don't expect FFPP fossil fuel Power Plant elimination except in the longer term but I do expect GG gas reductions from equivalent power generation levels.

 

Toora Wind  Farm , privatelt owned and operated  gives a useful comparison/ starting point. See

http://www.tsinfrastructurefund.com/page/Infrastructure_Assets/Toor...

 

Construction of Toora Wind Farm commenced in 2001. It was one of the first commercial wind farms in Victoria.

The wind turbines were supplied by Danish company Vestas.

The Farm will reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by up to 48,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.

Number of turbines

12

Energy produced

21 megawatts.

The site

The site is owned by five farmers who lease access to TSI Fund. The farms continue to be used for dairy and cattle farming, and farm activities are unaffected by the turbines.

Environmental benefits

The Toora Wind Farm produces enough energy to supply more than 6,600 homes and will abate the equivalent of up to 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent during its forecast 25 year operating life. This is achieved by replacing coal or gas in energy production processes through harnessing the natural resource of wind.

 

On Climate change and its causes and effects you can refer to

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/ which contains these headnotes: 

Technical Report
Climate Change in Australia
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report, concluding that:
•Warming of the climate system is unequivocal
•Humans are very likely to be causing most of the warming that has been experienced since 1950
•It is very likely that changes in the global climate system will continue well into the future, and that they will be larger than those seen in the recent past.
These changes have the potential to have a major impact on human and natural systems throughout the world including Australia.

The site contains some details of effects and links. Would I live next to a 400 ft turbine? Yes, outside the safety buffer zone. But I would probably never feel comfortable living near a nuclear plant.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Why do I need a buffer zone to live near safe reliable energy?

 

Your intergovernmental report is made up of very few science types and very many agenda driven types Alan. However for the sake of discussion I will use the one you site for your view.  I come up with a completely differing view than you using the same document however.

 

 

Also in your technical report you site as being authoritative for the purpose of debate it also carries the following disclaimer at the bottom of the author situation page warning against using the report for ( accuracy interpretations or deductions).

I hadn't heard of a couple of those listed as global warming (believers),so I took the very first man listed. And read much of his work to respond to your assumptions. The following are excerpts from Professor Wenju Cai's recent studies.

"The study centred on the contribution to rainfall by naturally occurring events such as El Niño and La Niña, as well as a longer-lasting feature called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and how these events may be influenced by future climate change."

 

The El Niño-La Niña relationship oscillates over several decades, in tandem with the IPO, which has a somewhat similar pattern to the El Niño-La Niña cycle but on a longer time scale. 

"Since 1980, the IPO has been in a phase similar to El Niño – limiting the rainfall that La Niña brings to SEQ as a major rain-generating mechanism,” Dr Cai said.

“This is largely responsible for the recent drought.” 

 

Taking the average of results from a set of climate models is the most effective way of ‘distilling’ a climate change signal. The science team assessed the role of climate change by using the same 24 models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Their results show that the recent drought in SEQ is not consistent with climate change projected by the models.

Note the words "not consistent with the climate change models" You will be seeing more and more of those words with the projections not coming true as man made climate change myth's are ( Challenged) and thrown out for the junk science they really are.

If your going to throw a web link up as the authority in the area your siting, at least pick a link where most of those who are being mis-cited agree on what is happening to our planet.

I did figure A nuclear plant was out the window for you my friend, however other than Three mile island, the Nuclear industry here has never had a release of any notable radioactive material and the resulting release basically created hysteria that has prevented any further nuclear production in the US. In retrospect France is 80% Nuclear and has not built a coal or gas driven power plant for more than 40 years.

Irony upon irony is, AU seems to supply the second largest amount of Uranium. But yet only has reactor for experimentation not production.

 

[Alan Flint]

I posted links to a site that refers to several more authoritative studies.

I'm not going to pick apart selective regional climate data with you. I'm not qualified to do so, and neither, I suspect are you, and in any case it it is not data that proves or disproves the argument of global warming. But when your own country's pre-eminent scientists and a global consensus of weather scientists have accepted there is convincing evidence of warming on a global scale (and not local scale where local cycles and variations can mask overall, global trends as you have pointed to) , I think perhaps you should be very wary of accepting arguments and a viewpoint that has so far failed to convince them or your government. The ozone layer still recovers slowly. Climate change is not so readily treatable. If the predictions are correct, climate change could devastate large areas including the Prairies. The choice appears to be between acting in caution now or risking disater later.

 

As for "intermitttent" wind generation you can't simply "shut down" a nuclear plant either, but generally wind forecasting is accurate. So power from wind can be predicted and other base/peak load supply readily adjusted. This already happens elsewhere in countries where the grid is majority wind powered. Further, excess wind power can be used for recycling hydroelectric storages to increase peak load capacity. Studies show no loss of value of properties near windfarms so I don't see your argument about costs of paying to live there is valid. I could suggest it equates to perhaps paying people to live next to nuclear plants. And sure the nuclear accidents are infrequent but they can be devastating. Imagine if  Al-Quaeda had hit a nuclear power plant. Not pretty.

Many people do not trust nuclear companies and also object to their producing waste that has to be confined for 10,000 years. That is their right and until you can convince them your nuclear power program will probably remain democratically frozen, especially as you still don't have a working waste repository despite a huge taxpayer contribution for Yucca Mountain which Nevada still opposes.

[Willy]

In my opinion humans do affect the environment the problem is that noone knows what is going to happen. It is very possible that a warming could be positive not negative. Scientist don't know what is going to happen so they are speculating. Another thing that bothers me is calling industrial generator towers "wind farms" or "wind parks". This is done purely for propaganda. They want people to visualize a peaceful setting rather than the reality of massive sky scrapers located in rural settings. Let's call them what they are. Clusters of industrial towers. By my reasoning there will be no coal or gas power plants taken off line or shut down. It's obvious that they will be needed when winds do not perform their job. Another thing is that these towers are not self sufficiant, as shown by the need for massive subsidies given to speculators and which we all know that the money for these subsidies is coming out of our pockets from the heavy tax we now pay the Government. One final thing. It is extremely arrogant to adress someones concerns about having these monsters located near their homes as NIMBY's. I would suggest that anyone in favor of these towers should purchase a home from someone who gets stuck near them and in that way the purchaser who likes these towers can put their money where their mouths are and help out their cause by helping those who cannot move because their property values have dropped. Please post a link to any study that shows that real estate does not devalue when tower generators are installed nearby.

[Alan Flint]

Thanks for your comments and request.

I should point out that my comments regarding the potential adverse effects of being too NIMBY about placement of renewables were not to imply that NIMBY concerns are not valid. It's clear for instance that a majority of US citizens prefer not to have a nuclear plant in their neighbourhood.

Here's one link to a report regarding windfarm/industrial tower effects on land values in Australia prepared for the Valuer General's office of New South Wales.

http://www.windfarms.net.au/pdf/NSW%20Valuer%20General%20report%20-...

This report effectively concludes that there is no quantifiable effect on land values where appropriate siting separations are met. I would be surprised if the effects were any different where you are.

6.1 CONCLUSION

From our analysis of previous studies and our own investigations, the majority of wind farms erected in Australia

appear to have had no quantifiable effect on land values. A relatively small number of “lifestyle” type properties located very close (less than 500 metres) to wind farms in Victoria were found to have lower than expected sale prices (based on a statistical analysis), and it is possible that audio and visual aspects of wind farms contributed

to this. Evidence suggests that any such wind farm related impacts on land values can be readily alleviated by ensuring a suitable separation distance between the wind turbines and any nearest residential dwellings.

Generally, the separation distances identified in NSW appear to be sufficient in this regard. It is noted that standard separation distances are not used in NSW in the major project approval process. Instead, each wind farm proposal is assessed individually on its merits.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Thank you for your posting here Alan however as you pointed out your entire situation in AU is far different than many other countries. In fact you are the largest country in Geographical terms that has not resorted to some Nuclear supplies to power the country cleanly.

 

A relatively small number of “lifestyle” type properties located very close (less than 500 metres) to wind farms in Victoria were found to have lower than expected sale prices (based on a statistical analysis), and it is possible that audio and visual aspects of wind farms contributed  

This is the point in Question in our area of the world Alan WE Are a very lifestyle driven area. To the fact that once we loose the lifestyle we lose the reason to even live here. Furthermore If you are following the posts here talking about setback distances and such is the crux of the issues in this forum. I would like to have time to review the (distances) your country or provinces feel are acceptable but I really have too many other more pressing concerns right now in my life like is WW#2 about to take place before our very eyes to review the material right now.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

"I'm not going to pick apart selective regional climate data with you. I'm not qualified to do so, and neither, I suspect are you, and in any case it it is not data that proves or disproves the argument of global warming."

So your basing your beliefs on a subject not on the facts of any given point of contention but on your feelings about it? Your argument is belief the scientists but only the ones who claim we need swift action? If your going to site a study in which (all by the way) of the ones you used have the same flaw. You need to be sure of what your asking the rest of the world to endure in the interim.

Lets say those who want solar and wind to be the whole answer to the power production / climate issue. We can deal with this on a simple physics formula that points out" if you covered the earth with all the solar panels and wind farms it could hold". You would not shut down any of the current fossil fuel plants operating currently as those sources only function part time.  And in essence would not allow for most of the world to even produce crops or expand at all based on the size of scale of the area needed.

http://solarbythewatt.com/2009/03/05/can-solar-replace-fossil-fuels/

Also.. as I stated before every time I and many other people see a reference to the ambiguous counsel on global climate change ( UN) this agency is less than 10% science and 90% political in its scope and purpose. AS RJE expresses below climate change is indisputable. But the current ideas to ( solve) said changes are unsustainable and possible even worse for the ( problem). You simply can not even claim a majority rules approach to how many scientists believe the change is even an issue any human intervention can conquer. 

Out of curiosity Alan ... How did you living in AU according to your profile here run across our little forum about life in the small area of Michigan U.S.A.??? Just curious for future promotional information. Thank you.

[Alan Flint]

I hope I can tie up our discussions with the following answer.

As regards the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change I hope the following will satisfy you of what appears to be the unfortunate reality.
The latest (February 2011) issue of Nature, the premier relevant scientific journal has published two detailed scientific studies verifying a causal anthropogenic link to national level catastrophic weather events by the emission of greenhouse gases. You can read about it online under the headline topic:

”Increased flood risk linked to global warming -Likelihood of extreme rainfall may have been doubled by rising greenhouse-gas levels. “ See:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/full/470316a.html

I would suggest whilst reading the summary you should not misinterpret the statement “may have been doubled by rising greenhouse levels.” That is “professional scientific caution speak” and the authors are talking about a balance of probabilities in which nine out of ten climate models confirmed the effect. If you are going to dispute the findings, I would ask what specific expertise do you have and what level of certainty would it take for you to be satisfied that there is a real effect by greenhouse gas emissions on the climate? Leaving it until the ocean is lapping on New York doorsteps would be a little bit too late.

Throughout our discussions you have been very focused on denying a likely fossil fuel contribution to climate change and contending that no fossil fuel /nuclear plants can or will ever be shut down because solar or wind cannot meet energy needs at all times. Given the now confirmed anthropogenic climate change, I don't believe shutting down is the issue. The issue is whether there will be a comparative reduction in carbon emissions by using renewables, and the answer, yes, is undeniable and it would be patently wrong to claim otherwise.

As to your comments suggesting as fact that we will never be able to provide enough power from wind or solar due to insufficient area being available for that purpose and growing food, I would like you to quote sensible scientific evidence if you could find it that supports such a contention. I don't believe you will find any. The site you linked seems to confirm the opposite.

I would suggest taking a look at http://www.landartgenerator.org/index.html

for calculations and graphics showing the areas required to totally power the Earth by renewables.

And don't forget this is talking about specific installations of generation equipment separated from housing. It is pretty well known that in most climates the average house roof has several times the area required to supply current day photovoltaic generation and multilevel buildings are able to be fitted with photovoltaic glazing to supply most of their electrical needs. The efficiency of photovoltaics is constantly rising and the cost is dropping, so why risk going further nuclear? Again nuclear poses an upstream risk from attacks on supply and a very substantial downstream risk of loss of control of waste in the event of a catastrophe, not to mention potential risk for increasing availability of nuclear materials adding to nuclear weapons proliferation.

And yes I am aware of the fact the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't always blow. But as I noted earlier there are ways to store energy collected by renewable sources for later use, for instance by pumped hydroelectric storage, industrial batteries that exist and are being developed, by compressed gas or air (including underground reservoirs, possibly using depleted oil/gas wells as storages), electrolysis, and especially resistive heat bank storage later recoverable by steam turbine generation. Add to that a potential for renewable biofuels with domestic fuel cells to provide both energy and heat with reduced electrical network transmission losses, in my view it is very hard to see any justification for devoting expenditures on increasing nuclear capacity rather than installing the necessary infrastructure to fully support renewables.

How did I find your forum - when researching wind turbine opposition groups locally I found a link to a Susan Rose's article that appeared "a bit over the top" and I couldn't resist answering some of those myths....LOL

I must say it has been very stimulating discussing these matters with an avowed nuclear advocate like yourself and it has helped me to crystallise some of my own thoughts on the matter and for that I thank you. And finally I hope that Michigan ever remains as beautiful as you obviously find it to be.

 

Kind regards.