Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wind power

  • Global warming alarmism: coming to a faith-based organization near you

    Has global warming alarmism become a religious issue? Judging by a recent op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, it seems so. (Moti Rieber and Connie Pace-Adair: Make clean-energy generation a priority, February 22, 2009 Wichita Eagle. Link is to article at the Eagle, or see Eagle op-ed: Clean energy is a faith issue at Rieber’s blog.)

    As always, we must recognize that the science behind global warming alarmism is not a settled issue. What else is there in this op-ed to be concerned about?

    Mr. Rieber speaks of “free and abundant wind.” Readers of his op-ed may be excused for believing that wind power generation is free of cost, as that’s the message that comes through. But wind power, we are finding out, is quite expensive. My post A Reasoned Look at Wind Power reports on a study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation that examines the entire picture of wind power in Texas.

    Or, as a piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal stated: “Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful, reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government subsidizes them.”

    These expensive alternative energy programs make electricity more expensive, as evidenced by Westar’s recent rate increase request. It makes it more difficult for poor people — a group Rieber seems to care for — to pay their utility bills. This was the case last September when Westar asked for a rate increase that would amount to about $10 a month for the average homeowner. In Wichita Eagle reporting, Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, was quoted as saying “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.”

    This directly contradicts Rieber when he writes “A clean-energy future … alleviates the burdens that our energy policies place on the poor and vulnerable among us.” Unless, of course, someone else pays for this expensive energy.

    Rieber also advocates programs that give “Kansans access to programs such as programmable thermostats and weatherization rebates.” This gives us another clue as to Rieber’s political goals: expansive government programs that subsidize one group at the expense of another. These subsidies might be one-time, as in the case of helping someone buy a thermostat, or ongoing, helping them to pay for expensive power.

    In a few follow-up email conversations with Mr. Rieber, some of which are available for reading on his blog, it became clear to me that he is quite comfortable with using the coercive power and force of government to achieve his personal political goals.

    Both authors of this op-ed are members of the steering committee of Kansas Interfaith Power and Light, an organization that works with faith communities. Its steering committee is largely composed of religious leaders. It’s always puzzling to me how leaders like these are willing to use the force of government — and that’s what government is — to achieve their political goals. Always from the moral high horse, of course.

  • A Cautionary Note for Kansas Wind Power

    A piece in the Wall Street Journal contains some useful information that we should keep in mind as we consider the future of energy in Kansas, even though the focus of the column is the debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound. (Blowhards, January 24, 2009).

    One thing is the hypocrisy of “green” power proponents:

    Bill Delahunt, the windy Cape Democrat, also denounced the action as “a $2 billion project that depends on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs for the region.” … Good to see the Congressman now recognizes the limitations of green tech, such as its tendency to boost consumer electricity prices — but his makeover as taxpayer champion is a bit belated. Green energy has been on the subsidy take for years, including in 2005 when Mr. Delahunt was calling for “an Apollo project for alternative energy sources, for hybrid engines, for biodiesel, for wind and solar and everything else.” The reality is that all such projects are only commercially viable because of political patronage.

    This column informs us of the subsidy that wind power receives.

    Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is minus 163.8%. In other words, every dollar a wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government. The Energy Information Administration estimates that wind receives $23.37 in government benefits per megawatt hour — compared to, say, 44 cents for coal.

    This directly contradicts an incoherent comment left on this blog a while ago, which claimed that coal power received huge subsidies compare to wind.

    Background: The subsidy report referred to is TAXING ENERGY IN THE UNITED STATES: Which Fuels Does the Tax Code Favor?

  • Wind power: look at costs of “boom”

    There’s been a lot of investment in Nolan County, Texas. Things are booming.

    That’s pretty much the entire point of an op-ed piece in the Wichita Eagle by Scott Allegrucci. (Money Blowing in the Wind in Texas, January 16, 2009)

    He’s the director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Topeka. This organization’s website states that “GPACE seeks to correct an imbalance in the information citizens and their elected representatives have received regarding the critical and complex energy policy decisions facing our state.”

    If that’s really GPACE’s goal, Mr. Allegrucci didn’t advance it in this piece. That’s because he promotes the benefits of spending on wind energy without considering the true cost of wind energy. Further, he ignores the tremendous subsidy poured into wind energy production.

    Last year the Texas Public Policy Foundation released a report titled Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future. This report contains information about the realities of wind power. It provides the balance that GPACE says it seeks to provide but fails to deliver in Mr. Allegrucci’s op-ed.

    For example, did you know that every bit of wind power that’s produced receives a subsidy? Last year, as the subsidy was about to expire, wind power advocates warned that without the subsidy, wind power production would cease. No new plants would be built. It’s these subsidies that have created the growth in Nolan County that Allegrucci writes about. These subsidies produce some peculiar incentives. From page 25 of TPPF’s report:

    The financial handouts available to wind developers are so generous that, in Texas, many wind-energy producers “will offer wind power at no cost or even pay to have their electricity moved on the grid, a response commonly referred to as ‘negative pricing.’ Wind providers have an incentive to sell power even at negative prices because they still receive the federal production tax (PTC) credit and renewable energy credits.”

    Directing subsidies of any type into a concentrated area produces the results described by Allegrucci in this county. There’s nothing remarkable about that. But what about the rest of Texas? From the executive summary of the TPPF report:

    The distinction between wind and wind energy is critical. The wind itself is free, but wind energy is anything but. Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs — transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation — that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers. Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025.

    It’s a common error, assuming that since no one owns the wind, wind power is free once the turbines are built. That’s far from the case, though. Page 23 tells us this:

    The true cost of electricity from wind is much higher than wind advocates admit. Wind energy advocates ignore key elements of the true cost of electricity from wind, including: (i) The cost of tax breaks and subsidies which shift tax burden and costs from “wind farm” owners to ordinary taxpayers and electricity customers. (ii) The cost of providing backup power to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines. (iii) The full, true cost of transmitting electricity from “wind farms” to electricity customers and the extra burden on grid management.

    The reality is that the boom in Nolan County is being paid for by electricity customers throughout Texas. Not by their choice, too.

    When considering wind power, balance requires us to consider these factors. The illustration that a concentrated area experiences a boom from a subsidized, expensive, and unreliable source of power doesn’t paint a picture of sound public policy.

  • Not All Agree With New Kansas Energy Plan

    Currie Meyers of the Kansas Federalist has a few issues with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius‘ energy plan. I can’t link directly to Meyers’ article, so I’ll reproduce it in its entirety here.

    Sebelius New Energy Plan Lacks Energy

    Governor Kathleen Sebelius unveiled weak and pathetic energy proposals that she hopes will help Kansas capitalize on renewable energy. Standing beside her at the major news event was Lt.Gov. Mark Parkinson, whom has already announced he is not running for running for office. The Sebelius four-point legislative plan calls for:

    Net Metering! Which would allow Kansas consumers to generate their own electricity, then sell the surplus they create back to the power companies. (The only energy I can produce on my own is Methane and she wants to tax that one! Maybe I can capture all the squirrels in my yard and place them in the wheel cage for energy. There is plenty since we can’t hunt varmints in the city. Oh, by the way, they tried this “Net Metering” idea in Missouri but consumers could not get insurance to cover liability of producing their own energy.) Next!

    Setting into law the state’s existing voluntary renewable portfolio standard! The standard initially called for 10 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2010, a goal the state has already met. (If we have already met it and we are in a billion dollar deficient then what’s the benefit of making this into law? Except that liberals like laws, regulations and portfolios.) Next!

    Requiring all new state buildings or leases meet energy-efficiency standards! (Which will actually cost more to taxpayers due to the capital improvements that will have to be done in order to change energy systems. And there also is a difference between energy efficient and green. Green is not always efficient.) Next!

    Creating energy bond programs! So Kansas can attract solar and wind manufacturing jobs to our state. (How about tax abatements, low business taxes, low capital gains taxes and less business regulation instead? How about Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Bio-Fuels?) Next!

    This is the best energy proposal that our liberal government leaders can come up with? You have got to be kidding me! “It’s time we take the next step toward a clean energy future,” said Sebelius. No Governor, it’s time to lead! And this ain’t it!

    Lead, follow or get out of the way! The citizens are waiting!

  • A reasoned look at wind power

    The Texas Public Policy Foundation has released a report titled Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future. It doesn’t have a catchy title, but the report is full of useful information about wind energy. Here’s a little bit from the executive summary:

    The distinction between wind and wind energy is critical. The wind itself is free, but wind energy is anything but. Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs—transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation—that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers. Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025.

    Wind, like every other energy resource, has its pros and cons, and there is no doubt that wind power should be part of Texas’ energy supply. Texas needs a variety of fuel sources, plus concerted efforts at conservation and efficiency, in order to meet its energy needs. However, wind energy should only be employed to the extent it passes economic cost-benefit muster. Instead of subsidizing private wind development and imposing billions of dollars in new transmission costs upon retail electric customers, Texas policymakers should step back and allow the energy marketplace to bring wind power online when the market is ready. Texas electricity consumers will reap the benefits of such a prudent path.

  • Rhonda Holman’s Kansas Energy Policy: Not Good for Kansas

    Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman writes “[Kansas Governor Kathleen] Sebelius gets it. Too bad the Kansas Chamber does not.”

    This is the end of her lead editorial from today titled Kansas Chamber protecting past. In it, she claims that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is out of touch with the reality of global warming, and by extension, that our governor isn’t.

    Ms. Holman cites a study showing that green investment in Kansas could add many jobs to our economy. That’s no doubt true. But these jobs have all the characteristics of public works jobs, meaning that for each job created, one is lost somewhere else. That’s because these jobs don’t add to the wealth of Kansas, as we already are producing electricity. These new jobs simply shift Kansas to using a different form of power generation, one that Ms. Holman prefers.

    Now if this shift was necessary to save our planet, that might be one thing. But the consensus behind man-made global warming is not as strong as Ms. Holman claims. And even if true, it might be best to learn to deal with the changing climate rather than try to stop the change.

    Even if global warming is due to man’s activity, there’s very little we in Kansas can do to stop it. As illustrated in the article KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, Kansas is just a tiny speck on the Earth. Other countries overwhelm anything we can do in Kansas:

    So even if Kansas stopped producing all carbon emissions, the effect would be overcome in about 16 months of just the growth in China’s emissions. This doesn’t take into account the huge emissions China already produces, or the rapid growth in other countries.

    That’s right. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions in Kansas, the growth of emissions in China would very quickly negate our extreme sacrifice.

    That’s the reality of the arithmetic of carbon emissions. But Ms. Holman thinks this is okay.

    One of the comments left in response to Ms. Holman’s editorial argued in favor of solar and wind power and stated “Zero energy cost forever and zero drawdown of the Ogallala [sic] aquifer — what’s not to like?” This comment writer might want to take notice of impending expiration of the wind production tax credit, which gives money to subsidize the production of these two types of power. Without this subsidy, supporters of wind and solar power concede that investment in these forms of energy will likely cease. Furthermore, our local electric utility is asking for a rate increase, in part due to the expensive cost of wind power. See Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire and Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.

  • Kansas electric rates increase because of wind power generation

    Electric rates may be increasing for many Kansas consumers. Why? To pay for a new coal-fired plant?

    According to Notice of Public Hearings & Comment Period available at the Kansas Corporation Commission, the reasons Westar Energy cites as creating the need for a rate increase are repair costs from a recent ice storm, investments in new natural gas plants, and investments in wind energy.

    It turns out that electricity generated by wind is expensive, even though the federal government pays producers $.015 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by wind. (This payment, made through a tax credit, is set to expire at the end of this year unless the United States Congress extends it.)

    In the Wichita Eagle article Residents bash Westar rate plan, we learn that people are angry over the proposed rate increase. Some are suffering a hardship with present rates. According to Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, presently running for the Kansas Senate, “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.” A rate increase won’t help these people.

    As our state, under the leadership of Governor Kathleen Sebelius, moves towards using even more wind power plus other expensive forms of energy, rates will have to increase further. At that time I would not be surprised to see programs put in place where taxpayers subsidize expensive energy costs for low-income households.

  • Analysis of Kansas Wind Power Prospects

    In the post Is Sebelius’ call for more wind-power all hot air? Kansas Liberty reporter Holly Smith provides excellent analysis of the current situation regarding additional wind power generation in Kansas.

    Some important findings:

    With more wind power, electricity bills will be higher. Wind power generation is costly, and costs are rising rapidly.

    There aren’t enough transmission lines from where the wind farms are located.

    There is no scientific basis for associating emissions with public health risks.

    T. Boone Pickens says “I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly.”

    The Wall Street Journal editorial Wind Jammers sums up part of the problem: “In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.”