• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

REAL Subsidies.

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.
 

jigs

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
8,440
Reaction score
0
Location
KANSAS
ostriches, emu, potbellied pigs, and now wind farms....fads and scams...
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
backhoeboogie said:
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.

Some of those concerns can be worked out, backhoe. The thing is that as long as we have a world as we know it, we will have wind continually. Fossil fuels will be used up and put more carbon in the atmosphere.

I agree with you that fossil fuels are somewhat easier to work with because you can control them and move concentrated energy pretty easily.

I would rather see money going to wind programs than to the Mideast for oil although I know it isn't that simple.

Some of the issues you bring up need to be addressed, but believe me, the shale gas has many of the same problems.

Tex
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Tex said:
backhoeboogie said:
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.

Some of those concerns can be worked out, backhoe. The thing is that as long as we have a world as we know it, we will have wind continually. Fossil fuels will be used up and put more carbon in the atmosphere.

I agree with you that fossil fuels are somewhat easier to work with because you can control them and move concentrated energy pretty easily.

I would rather see money going to wind programs than to the Mideast for oil although I know it isn't that simple.

Some of the issues you bring up need to be addressed, but believe me, the shale gas has many of the same problems.

Tex


A. Prove to me this whole carbon story..... Would love to see some actual data proving this. You'll need something besides the original computer model that has been shown false. This is where the train runs off the track for too many that are uneducated in real science.

Can you also explain to me what a cycle is? How the carbon cycle works? How much carbon/evil greenhouse gases are released with each volcano eruption? How much carbon is released with forest fires per square mile? What was average number of acres burned by wild fires in the world per year prior to modern times? Then how much true carbon is estimated being released by our current population? And then lets compare one volcanic erpution vs a yearly carbon emission by the world's industrialization.

B. I believe the man stated natural gas.... what arab country is suppling us with natural gas? If your answer is none, then how would this support an arab country? How many US jobs would be created by using natural gas? How many land owners would benefit?

C. When will the natural gas be used up- how many hundreds of years?

Thanks for playing! You may want to go preach the "good" word where there are more suckers that don't understand the purpose behind Carbon banking or the liberal agenda.

You really need to change your username to something more fitting and less offensive to the state of Texas- maybe goingbacktocali, dazedandconfused, bronxrocks, algoregetsmehot, nature'smyreligion, iliketotalkaboutdatabutdontunderstandit, anobamanation, liesrokiftheyagreewithmyviews, itainteasybeinggreen-whilegoingtobroadwayshows, iluvwealthdistrubution.

Please tell me that the ozone layer is shrinking as well.... :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
backhoeboogie said:
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.

I think we all need to remember that the largest subs for wind are going to GE who just happens to be a company that shipped thousands of jobs over seas, pays no taxes, and has a CEO who is advising the President who is picking and choosing the winners and losers of the US economy. Seems if you back Obama, you are on the short list to being a winner, no matter your record with job creation and tax payments. :x

BTW If an energy source can't support itself should the government be "INVESTING" tax payer money in it?
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
okfarmer said:
Tex said:
backhoeboogie said:
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.

Some of those concerns can be worked out, backhoe. The thing is that as long as we have a world as we know it, we will have wind continually. Fossil fuels will be used up and put more carbon in the atmosphere.

I agree with you that fossil fuels are somewhat easier to work with because you can control them and move concentrated energy pretty easily.

I would rather see money going to wind programs than to the Mideast for oil although I know it isn't that simple.

Some of the issues you bring up need to be addressed, but believe me, the shale gas has many of the same problems.

Tex


A. Prove to me this whole carbon story..... Would love to see some actual data proving this. You'll need something besides the original computer model that has been shown false. This is where the train runs off the track for too many that are uneducated in real science.

Can you also explain to me what a cycle is? How the carbon cycle works? How much carbon/evil greenhouse gases are released with each volcano eruption? How much carbon is released with forest fires per square mile? What was average number of acres burned by wild fires in the world per year prior to modern times? Then how much true carbon is estimated being released by our current population? And then lets compare one volcanic erpution vs a yearly carbon emission by the world's industrialization.

B. I believe the man stated natural gas.... what arab country is suppling us with natural gas? If your answer is none, then how would this support an arab country? How many US jobs would be created by using natural gas? How many land owners would benefit?

C. When will the natural gas be used up- how many hundreds of years?

Thanks for playing! You may want to go preach the "good" word where there are more suckers that don't understand the purpose behind Carbon banking or the liberal agenda.

You really need to change your username to something more fitting and less offensive to the state of Texas- maybe goingbacktocali, dazedandconfused, bronxrocks, algoregetsmehot, nature'smyreligion, iliketotalkaboutdatabutdontunderstandit, anobamanation, liesrokiftheyagreewithmyviews, itainteasybeinggreen-whilegoingtobroadwayshows, iluvwealthdistrubution.

Please tell me that the ozone layer is shrinking as well.... :roll:


Hey, hold on there, buster. you are traveling a little too far with that information I posted. The difference between wind and natural gas as a use for energy is carbon. That is the only difference that I meant by the statement you highlighted.

Natural gas is a whole lot cleaner source of fuel than the oil that comes out of the middle east or coal that is used in electrical generation. It is still generates carbon and wind turbines do not.

I am not into "proving" the whole carbon thing that has turned more into a religion for some people as the ferocity of your post seems to point to.

Natural gas does get used up although the new horizontal drilling and fracking in the shale has been a tremendous and unexpected find, it still gets used up. It is known as a fossil fuel because there is not a very fast process that is still putting what was once live mass into the ground to be cooked into "fossil" fuels. The earth is still making fossil fuels but not at the rate we are consuming them. The wind is a different story. It is renewable as long as the sun shines and there are differences in air densities because of it.

To answer your other question Qatar and Egypt were supplying us with LNG which is liquified natural gas--at least up until 2009 when we "found" the shale gas. We actually knew the shale gas was there but it wasn't coming in through the normal vertical type wells we had. There wasn't enough production sometimes to push the water out ahead of it in many cases. I know because I logged some of those vertical wells in the shale. Our horizontal wells into the same formation knocked the socks off of that older type of production and were longer lasting wells. The price of natural gas was hitting at the 17 dollar mark when there was a rush to commodities and oil hit its high. The big money was making a run to the commodities. Now natural gas is around the 3 something range which a HUGE difference. That is the oil and gas business-- boom and bust, boom and bust. I have lived it all my life being from Texas and all.

On your question of how this supports arab countries-- it doesn't. Even before the big find in natural gas we were getting more from Canada and Mexico through pipelines. They were just starting the LNG biz and building the facilities to off load it. Now it seems we aren't hard up for that with our "proven reserves" via the shale.

I think we need to get off of all the Arab oil. We need to use LNG or whatever new technologies there are to us natural gas to fuel our vehicles and get off of foreign oil. I like Picken's strategy and see this as the best viable alternative to our current situation.

I am not a carbon hater. I think coal is dirtier than oil and oil is riskier because of where the known reserves left in the world are (easy oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq) but I do know that we have more oil here in the U.S.-- just not cheap and easy oil. Canada uses a heck of a lot of natural gas to make oil out of its oil sands.

I don't know who put the burr under your saddle on this issue or volcanos or whatever, but I tend to agree with you more than you might think.

I have answered most of your important questions now you answer this one for me:

Why do the trees on the Texas/OK border all look like they are leaning towards Oklahoma?

Tex
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,693
Reaction score
16
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 3:04 PM


As prices continue to rise on all our goods and services please read below
Important and verifiable information :




The writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.



The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:




The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion.






"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.



"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches fromNorthern Montana , through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500

billion

barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!




That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!



U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World



Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006



Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. OnAugust 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?



They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:



- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia




- 18-times as much oil as Iraq

- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait

- 22-times as much oil as Iran

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen

- and it's all right here in the Western United States .



HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?



James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?



Got your attention yet? Now, while you're thinking about it, do this:



Pass this along. If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices - by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain.



Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.



By the way...this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!

GOOGLE it, or follow this link. It will blow your mind.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
UK-based BP and Netherlands-based Shell — are investing heavily in “wind energy” in the US,

Shell and BP hope their investments in “wind energy” will enhance their “green” image. In fact, these investments are also permitting the two companies to avoid tens or hundreds of millions in federal and state income tax on their profits, including oil profits.

Tax breaks for “wind farms” apparently have helped at least one large corporation avoid paying any federal income tax for at least two years on over two billion dollars in profit Lucrative tax breaks for “wind energy” permit BP and Shell to avoid paying hundreds of millions in federal and state taxes.

BP and Shell are able to take advantage of at least five very generous federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy and be able to use those tax breaks to avoid paying federal and state corporate income tax on hundreds of millions in profit, including profit from their oil.

Detailed information on the two companies’ financial situation would be needed to make precise estimates of the amount of income that each company will be able to shelter from federal and state corporate income taxes. However, rough estimates of taxes that the companies would be able to avoid can be made by making a few conservative assumptions.

1. Federal Production Tax Credit for electricity from wind (PTC). First, BP and Shell would each receive the federal wind PTC, currently $0.02 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity produced during the 1st 10 years of operation. Congress is expected to extend this tax shelter beyond its current December 31, 2008, expiration date. By itself, this tax credit would reduce each company’s federal income tax liability over 10 years by $526,100,000, [vii] effectively shifting that amount of tax burden to taxpayers who don’t enjoy such tax shelters.

2. Accelerated Depreciation. Second, each oil company’s (i.e., BP and Shell) $2 billion [viii] in “wind farm” capital investments would qualify for the exceedingly generous 5-year, double declining balance accelerated depreciation for federal income tax purposes. [ix] Assuming that $2 billion is the full cost of each company’s “wind farms” in 2009, the following amounts could be deducted from each company’s otherwise taxable income and further reduce each company’s federal income tax liability; specifically:

Deduction from taxable income Further reduction in federal income
tax liability (in addition to PTC)
Tax Year % of Capital investment Amount
1st 20% $400,000,000 $140,000,000
2nd 32% $640,000,000 $224,000,000
3rd 19.2% $384,000,000 $134,400,000
4th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 80,640,000
5th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 80,640,000
6th 5.76% $115,200,000 $ 40,320,000
Totals 100% $2,000,000,000 $700,000,000

Note that these deductions from otherwise taxable income and from federal income tax liability could be taken regardless of whether the “wind farm” investment is financed with debt or equity. [x] So, if each company were to put up only $1 billion of equity and finance the other $1 billion with borrowing (to hold down the cost of their capital investment), the deductions from income and reduced tax liability would still be based on the full $2 billion shown in the table above.

Note also that, in addition to the further reduction in tax liability, this generous accelerated depreciation deduction for federal income tax purposes has two other huge benefits; specifically:

a. Prompt recovery of each company’s equity investment. The example above, conservatively assumes that the entire “wind farm” capital investment would be equity, rather than debt. If the equity investment was only half the capital cost and the remainder borrowed, (i.e., $1 billion), the table above shows that BP and Shell would each recover through depreciation deductions all of its equity investment in less than 2 years and in just over 1 year if the project(s) begin operation late in the first tax year. With no remaining equity investment, each company’s return on equity would be infinite.

b. A large interest free loan. The depreciation deduction continues even though all equity has been recovered. Thus, each company would, in effect, be receiving an interest free loan, courtesy of US taxpayers for an amount equal to the debt financing.

In the unlike case that either company was unable to use all the tax deductions in 2009, part of the allowable deduction could be deferred or, alternatively, schemes are available to “sell” tax credits to other firms that have tax liabilities that they wish to avoid.

3. Avoiding State Corporate Taxes. Tax breaks for “wind farms” are not limited to those provided by the federal government. Most states also allow a corporation to take advantage of 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable corporate income. Therefore, each company could be able to take deductions like those shown above when calculating their state corporate tax liability. Assuming a 6.5% state corporate tax rate, each company’s $2 billion “wind farm” capital investment would permit the following deductions from state level taxable income and reductions in each oil company’s tax liability:

Deduction from taxable income Reduction in State Corporate
tax liability (assuming 6.5% rate)
Tax Year % of Capital investment Amount
1st 20% $400,000,000 $ 26,000,000
2nd 32% $640,000,000 $ 41,600,000
3rd 19.2% $384,000,000 $ 24,960,000
4th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 14,976,000
5th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 14,976,000
6th 5.76% $115,200,000 $ 7,488,000
Totals 100% $2,000,000,000 $130,000,000

4. State Production Tax Credits or Subsidies for “Wind Farm” Owners. Several states have adopted their own “production tax credits,” and other states provide a direct subsidy. If BP or Shell were to build their “wind farms” in states with such subsidies they would enjoy still another tax break or income stream. State programs vary widely. If the tax break or subsidy were worth $15 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced — which is equal to $0.015 cents per kWh, the tax break or subsidy would be $39,420,000 per year and $394,420,000 over 10 years. [xi]

5. State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). In addition to the above tax breaks and subsidies, several states have virtually assured big profits for “wind farm” owners by requiring that a growing percentage of the electricity sold in their state must come from “renewable” energy, which, in most states is now expected to be mostly from wind. By dictating that a large portion of electricity must be produced from “renewable” energy, owners of facilities that produce electricity from wind and other “renewables” are likely to be able to demand higher prices for their electricity than would be paid under normal market conditions. The higher costs of electricity from renewables that electric distribution companies are forced to pay are passed along to electric customers in their monthly bills.

6. Other Tax Breaks and Subsidies. “Wind Farms” enjoy a variety of other federal and state financial, market and regulatory subsidies. For example, in some states, “wind farms” are eligible for exemption from all or a part of their property taxes or sales taxes on wind farm equipment. In some regions “wind farm” owners receive a variety of regulatory subsidies; e.g., being awarded an artificially high “capacity credit” by an Independent System Operator (ISO), or being excused from penalties for not delivering electricity to an electric grid at the time called for in contracts. In some states (e.g., Texas), state utility commissions are counting on the construction of transmission lines to serve “wind farms” that will cost billions of dollars, with the costs passed along to electric customers in their monthly bills.

dang.. big oil using big windy to make more money off the backs of Americans.. (big foreign oil at that) .. say it ain't so..
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Tam said:
backhoeboogie said:
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.

I think we all need to remember that the largest subs for wind are going to GE who just happens to be a company that shipped thousands of jobs over seas, pays no taxes, and has a CEO who is advising the President who is picking and choosing the winners and losers of the US economy. Seems if you back Obama, you are on the short list to being a winner, no matter your record with job creation and tax payments. :x

BTW If an energy source can't support itself should the government be "INVESTING" tax payer money in it?

Tam, I agree with you on the GE points.

We do have strategic reasons for investing in U.S. sources of energy.

Germany, prior and during WW2 had the same reasons. They didn't have the oil they needed to run their war machine and had to get it from the coal they had. They didn't make their strategic moves to the oil sources during the war to secure their energy needs and it impacted them greatly. Sometimes investments have a cost that has to be paid for a return in the future. Getting off of or reducing the need for Mideast, Venezuelan, or Nigerian oil is a good reason in my opinion.

Tex
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Steve said:
UK-based BP and Netherlands-based Shell — are investing heavily in “wind energy” in the US,

Shell and BP hope their investments in “wind energy” will enhance their “green” image. In fact, these investments are also permitting the two companies to avoid tens or hundreds of millions in federal and state income tax on their profits, including oil profits.

Tax breaks for “wind farms” apparently have helped at least one large corporation avoid paying any federal income tax for at least two years on over two billion dollars in profit Lucrative tax breaks for “wind energy” permit BP and Shell to avoid paying hundreds of millions in federal and state taxes.

BP and Shell are able to take advantage of at least five very generous federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy and be able to use those tax breaks to avoid paying federal and state corporate income tax on hundreds of millions in profit, including profit from their oil.

Detailed information on the two companies’ financial situation would be needed to make precise estimates of the amount of income that each company will be able to shelter from federal and state corporate income taxes. However, rough estimates of taxes that the companies would be able to avoid can be made by making a few conservative assumptions.

1. Federal Production Tax Credit for electricity from wind (PTC). First, BP and Shell would each receive the federal wind PTC, currently $0.02 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity produced during the 1st 10 years of operation. Congress is expected to extend this tax shelter beyond its current December 31, 2008, expiration date. By itself, this tax credit would reduce each company’s federal income tax liability over 10 years by $526,100,000, [vii] effectively shifting that amount of tax burden to taxpayers who don’t enjoy such tax shelters.

2. Accelerated Depreciation. Second, each oil company’s (i.e., BP and Shell) $2 billion [viii] in “wind farm” capital investments would qualify for the exceedingly generous 5-year, double declining balance accelerated depreciation for federal income tax purposes. [ix] Assuming that $2 billion is the full cost of each company’s “wind farms” in 2009, the following amounts could be deducted from each company’s otherwise taxable income and further reduce each company’s federal income tax liability; specifically:

Deduction from taxable income Further reduction in federal income
tax liability (in addition to PTC)
Tax Year % of Capital investment Amount
1st 20% $400,000,000 $140,000,000
2nd 32% $640,000,000 $224,000,000
3rd 19.2% $384,000,000 $134,400,000
4th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 80,640,000
5th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 80,640,000
6th 5.76% $115,200,000 $ 40,320,000
Totals 100% $2,000,000,000 $700,000,000

Note that these deductions from otherwise taxable income and from federal income tax liability could be taken regardless of whether the “wind farm” investment is financed with debt or equity. [x] So, if each company were to put up only $1 billion of equity and finance the other $1 billion with borrowing (to hold down the cost of their capital investment), the deductions from income and reduced tax liability would still be based on the full $2 billion shown in the table above.

Note also that, in addition to the further reduction in tax liability, this generous accelerated depreciation deduction for federal income tax purposes has two other huge benefits; specifically:

a. Prompt recovery of each company’s equity investment. The example above, conservatively assumes that the entire “wind farm” capital investment would be equity, rather than debt. If the equity investment was only half the capital cost and the remainder borrowed, (i.e., $1 billion), the table above shows that BP and Shell would each recover through depreciation deductions all of its equity investment in less than 2 years and in just over 1 year if the project(s) begin operation late in the first tax year. With no remaining equity investment, each company’s return on equity would be infinite.

b. A large interest free loan. The depreciation deduction continues even though all equity has been recovered. Thus, each company would, in effect, be receiving an interest free loan, courtesy of US taxpayers for an amount equal to the debt financing.

In the unlike case that either company was unable to use all the tax deductions in 2009, part of the allowable deduction could be deferred or, alternatively, schemes are available to “sell” tax credits to other firms that have tax liabilities that they wish to avoid.

3. Avoiding State Corporate Taxes. Tax breaks for “wind farms” are not limited to those provided by the federal government. Most states also allow a corporation to take advantage of 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation deductions from otherwise taxable corporate income. Therefore, each company could be able to take deductions like those shown above when calculating their state corporate tax liability. Assuming a 6.5% state corporate tax rate, each company’s $2 billion “wind farm” capital investment would permit the following deductions from state level taxable income and reductions in each oil company’s tax liability:

Deduction from taxable income Reduction in State Corporate
tax liability (assuming 6.5% rate)
Tax Year % of Capital investment Amount
1st 20% $400,000,000 $ 26,000,000
2nd 32% $640,000,000 $ 41,600,000
3rd 19.2% $384,000,000 $ 24,960,000
4th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 14,976,000
5th 11.52% $230,400,000 $ 14,976,000
6th 5.76% $115,200,000 $ 7,488,000
Totals 100% $2,000,000,000 $130,000,000

4. State Production Tax Credits or Subsidies for “Wind Farm” Owners. Several states have adopted their own “production tax credits,” and other states provide a direct subsidy. If BP or Shell were to build their “wind farms” in states with such subsidies they would enjoy still another tax break or income stream. State programs vary widely. If the tax break or subsidy were worth $15 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced — which is equal to $0.015 cents per kWh, the tax break or subsidy would be $39,420,000 per year and $394,420,000 over 10 years. [xi]

5. State Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). In addition to the above tax breaks and subsidies, several states have virtually assured big profits for “wind farm” owners by requiring that a growing percentage of the electricity sold in their state must come from “renewable” energy, which, in most states is now expected to be mostly from wind. By dictating that a large portion of electricity must be produced from “renewable” energy, owners of facilities that produce electricity from wind and other “renewables” are likely to be able to demand higher prices for their electricity than would be paid under normal market conditions. The higher costs of electricity from renewables that electric distribution companies are forced to pay are passed along to electric customers in their monthly bills.

6. Other Tax Breaks and Subsidies. “Wind Farms” enjoy a variety of other federal and state financial, market and regulatory subsidies. For example, in some states, “wind farms” are eligible for exemption from all or a part of their property taxes or sales taxes on wind farm equipment. In some regions “wind farm” owners receive a variety of regulatory subsidies; e.g., being awarded an artificially high “capacity credit” by an Independent System Operator (ISO), or being excused from penalties for not delivering electricity to an electric grid at the time called for in contracts. In some states (e.g., Texas), state utility commissions are counting on the construction of transmission lines to serve “wind farms” that will cost billions of dollars, with the costs passed along to electric customers in their monthly bills.

dang.. big oil using big windy to make more money off the backs of Americans.. (big foreign oil at that) .. say it ain't so..

Steve. you make some major points here that should not go unnoticed. While I think we need to employ strategic plans for our future, I don't like the idea of a handful of super powerful and wealthy corporations capturing the opportunities-- especially the govt. created ones. I really believe that local communities should capture these kind of opportunities instead of super big corps or foreign corps. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you should be able to capture the opportunities in someone else's back yard. These big corps know the play and grab it because they have their eyes and ears in D.C. night and day.

Tex
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Tex said:
Steve said:
UK-based BP and Netherlands-based Shell — are investing heavily in “wind energy” in the US,

Shell and BP hope their investments in “wind energy” will enhance their “green” image. In fact, these investments are also permitting the two companies to avoid tens or hundreds of millions in federal and state income tax on their profits, including oil profits.

Tax breaks for “wind farms” apparently have helped at least one large corporation avoid paying any federal income tax for at least two years on over two billion dollars in profit Lucrative tax breaks for “wind energy” permit BP and Shell to avoid paying hundreds of millions in federal and state taxes.

BP and Shell are able to take advantage of at least five very generous federal and state tax breaks and subsidies for wind energy and be able to use those tax breaks to avoid paying federal and state corporate income tax on hundreds of millions in profit, including profit from their oil.

Detailed information on the two companies’ financial situation would be needed to make precise estimates of the amount of income that each company will be able to shelter from federal and state corporate income taxes. However, rough estimates of taxes that the companies would be able to avoid can be made by making a few conservative assumptions.

dang.. big oil using big windy to make more money off the backs of Americans.. (big foreign oil at that) .. say it ain't so..

Steve. you make some major points here that should not go unnoticed. While I think we need to employ strategic plans for our future, I don't like the idea of a handful of super powerful and wealthy corporations capturing the opportunities-- especially the govt. created ones. I really believe that local communities should capture these kind of opportunities instead of super big corps or foreign corps. Just because you have more money doesn't mean you should be able to capture the opportunities in someone else's back yard. These big corps know the play and grab it because they have their eyes and ears in D.C. night and day.

Tex


Local communities do not have the resources to make the capital investments that are needed for the alternative energy, which you are promoting the subsidies to be re-directed towards Tex.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Tex said:
okfarmer said:
Tex said:
Some of those concerns can be worked out, backhoe. The thing is that as long as we have a world as we know it, we will have wind continually. Fossil fuels will be used up and put more carbon in the atmosphere.

I agree with you that fossil fuels are somewhat easier to work with because you can control them and move concentrated energy pretty easily.

I would rather see money going to wind programs than to the Mideast for oil although I know it isn't that simple.

Some of the issues you bring up need to be addressed, but believe me, the shale gas has many of the same problems.

Tex


A. Prove to me this whole carbon story..... Would love to see some actual data proving this. You'll need something besides the original computer model that has been shown false. This is where the train runs off the track for too many that are uneducated in real science.

Can you also explain to me what a cycle is? How the carbon cycle works? How much carbon/evil greenhouse gases are released with each volcano eruption? How much carbon is released with forest fires per square mile? What was average number of acres burned by wild fires in the world per year prior to modern times? Then how much true carbon is estimated being released by our current population? And then lets compare one volcanic erpution vs a yearly carbon emission by the world's industrialization.

B. I believe the man stated natural gas.... what arab country is suppling us with natural gas? If your answer is none, then how would this support an arab country? How many US jobs would be created by using natural gas? How many land owners would benefit?

C. When will the natural gas be used up- how many hundreds of years?

Thanks for playing! You may want to go preach the "good" word where there are more suckers that don't understand the purpose behind Carbon banking or the liberal agenda.

You really need to change your username to something more fitting and less offensive to the state of Texas- maybe goingbacktocali, dazedandconfused, bronxrocks, algoregetsmehot, nature'smyreligion, iliketotalkaboutdatabutdontunderstandit, anobamanation, liesrokiftheyagreewithmyviews, itainteasybeinggreen-whilegoingtobroadwayshows, iluvwealthdistrubution.

Please tell me that the ozone layer is shrinking as well.... :roll:


Hey, hold on there, buster. you are traveling a little too far with that information I posted. The difference between wind and natural gas as a use for energy is carbon. That is the only difference that I meant by the statement you highlighted.

Natural gas is a whole lot cleaner source of fuel than the oil that comes out of the middle east or coal that is used in electrical generation. It is still generates carbon and wind turbines do not.

I am not into "proving" the whole carbon thing that has turned more into a religion for some people as the ferocity of your post seems to point to.

Natural gas does get used up although the new horizontal drilling and fracking in the shale has been a tremendous and unexpected find, it still gets used up. It is known as a fossil fuel because there is not a very fast process that is still putting what was once live mass into the ground to be cooked into "fossil" fuels. The earth is still making fossil fuels but not at the rate we are consuming them. The wind is a different story. It is renewable as long as the sun shines and there are differences in air densities because of it.

To answer your other question Qatar and Egypt were supplying us with LNG which is liquified natural gas--at least up until 2009 when we "found" the shale gas. We actually knew the shale gas was there but it wasn't coming in through the normal vertical type wells we had. There wasn't enough production sometimes to push the water out ahead of it in many cases. I know because I logged some of those vertical wells in the shale. Our horizontal wells into the same formation knocked the socks off of that older type of production and were longer lasting wells. The price of natural gas was hitting at the 17 dollar mark when there was a rush to commodities and oil hit its high. The big money was making a run to the commodities. Now natural gas is around the 3 something range which a HUGE difference. That is the oil and gas business-- boom and bust, boom and bust. I have lived it all my life being from Texas and all.

On your question of how this supports arab countries-- it doesn't. Even before the big find in natural gas we were getting more from Canada and Mexico through pipelines. They were just starting the LNG biz and building the facilities to off load it. Now it seems we aren't hard up for that with our "proven reserves" via the shale.

I think we need to get off of all the Arab oil. We need to use LNG or whatever new technologies there are to us natural gas to fuel our vehicles and get off of foreign oil. I like Picken's strategy and see this as the best viable alternative to our current situation.

I am not a carbon hater. I think coal is dirtier than oil and oil is riskier because of where the known reserves left in the world are (easy oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq) but I do know that we have more oil here in the U.S.-- just not cheap and easy oil. Canada uses a heck of a lot of natural gas to make oil out of its oil sands.

I don't know who put the burr under your saddle on this issue or volcanos or whatever, but I tend to agree with you more than you might think.

I have answered most of your important questions now you answer this one for me:

Why do the trees on the Texas/OK border all look like they are leaning towards Oklahoma?

Tex

That's easy, Texas Blows... :oops:

What gets under my saddle is the accepted use of words such as "clean" or "carbon emissions", that you brought up. If you are going to use this as a basis for making a decision, you should be ready to defend why carbon is bad. If it is not possible, then any argument based on "clean" is lost before it is even get started.

The purpose of my questions about natural phenomena, are that a little research will tell you that our industrialization does not touch levels produced by natural events that have been occuring since time began. A little more reasoning will tell you then that all the green movement is hocus pocus.

The only reason we have an energy crisis is due to the amount of made up regulations for the green movement. Why is the green movement so big? Not enough people have taken a stance to combat the politics and lies. So I am a little passionate about uncovering the misinformation.

The fact that we are in a recession going broke and we have ample amount of cheap easy to access energy sources that will employ Americans, and people are focusing on spending more money we don't have to support an industry we don't need- Why? If this doesn't tick you off as well, then something is wrong.

Boom and bust and restructuring for the next boom is economics. If you think your experiencing bust where you are now, then you don't want to travel any.

I will leave it at that for tonight. And I really don't think Texas blows. Actually, it is a great example of what limiting taxes will do to attract business and consumers.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Tex said:
Tam said:
backhoeboogie said:
Wind generation causes massive perturbations to the electrical grid. So much instability that measures have to be taken to protect turbines on conventional power plants such that we do not get the black-outs that the north east experienced a few years back.

Natural gas is so cheap now with all the shale technology that nuke power may be put on the back burner. Yet we are throwing out huge sums of money for wind generation subsidies. HUGE, plus causing conventional power to reduce generation and add VARS for stability. Customers pay for that too outside of the subsidy program.

If you want to see the real waste of subsidy dollars, look at wind. There are a whole lot of big time money grubbers sticking their fingers into the cookie jar.

I think we all need to remember that the largest subs for wind are going to GE who just happens to be a company that shipped thousands of jobs over seas, pays no taxes, and has a CEO who is advising the President who is picking and choosing the winners and losers of the US economy. Seems if you back Obama, you are on the short list to being a winner, no matter your record with job creation and tax payments. :x

BTW If an energy source can't support itself should the government be "INVESTING" tax payer money in it?

Tam, I agree with you on the GE points.

We do have strategic reasons for investing in U.S. sources of energy.

Germany, prior and during WW2 had the same reasons. They didn't have the oil they needed to run their war machine and had to get it from the coal they had. They didn't make their strategic moves to the oil sources during the war to secure their energy needs and it impacted them greatly. Sometimes investments have a cost that has to be paid for a return in the future. Getting off of or reducing the need for Mideast, Venezuelan, or Nigerian oil is a good reason in my opinion.

Tex

funny you should mention Germany Tex.

German Government Study Questions Value of Wind Power
Environment & Climate News > June 2005
Energy > Renewable: Wind

Email a Friend
Written By: Iain Murray and Myron Ebell
Published In: Environment & Climate News > June 2005
Publication date: 06/01/2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The German government’s energy agency has released a study that concludes wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy.
The study, released in February, suggests that joining Germany’s existing wind farm to the national supply grid in order to meet the government’s target of producing 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2015 would cost €1.1 billion ($1.3 billion). About 800 miles of cables would need to be laid or modified. Power plants would have to be upgraded or replaced so the system would be able to cope with the large fluctuations associated with wind-based energy.

Wind Power Called Impractical

The report concludes, “Instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient.” Opposition spokesmen such as Klaus Lippold MP agreed. Lippold told the Guardian, “The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don’t need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else. There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape.”

Environment Minister Juergen Trittin of the Green Party disagreed, telling the Guardian the “central parts” of the report supported his claim that wind energy could be expanded quickly and cheaply. “There are no grounds for pessimism,” he said. Nevertheless, the head of the environment agency, Stephan Kohler, admitted, “Wind energy is expensive. That’s true. You can’t dispute it. Conventional methods are cheaper.”


Intermittent Power Untenable

One revealing comment on the German study came from Greenpeace UK chief executive Stephen Tindale, who acknowledged problems in those parts of Germany where wind power is already supplying 20 percent of the electricity. “Everyone accepts that when you get to that level it is much more of a problem because of the fact that wind is intermittent,” conceded Tindale. The UK government aims to provide 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

“There is simply no getting around the intermittency problem of wind power,” Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said. “The wind does not always blow, and its variability cannot be predicted on even a minute-by-minute basis. Even after constructing large wind-turbine complexes, one must have sufficient backup power generated by conventional power plants. This redundancy raises overall electricity prices. Moreover, wind farms harm the environment in their own right, and are horribly prolific killers of aviary wildlife.”
Germany Learning the Hard Way

“Unfortunately, most governments look through rose-colored glasses at these ‘green power’ projects that are supposed to provide power and improve the environment,” said Burnett. “Initial opponents to such projects are immediately labeled shills for industry. But once governments start implementing these plans, problems appear.

“It is not surprising that the German government is finally learning, the hard way, about problems with so-called green power, and is finally beginning to take its blinders off,” said Burnett.

“The German study sheds light on the European illusion that the so-called ‘renewables’ may be a viable alternative to fossil fuels,” Carlo Stagnaro, director of Italy’s Istituto Bruno Leoni, said. “In fact, the wind lobby has been able so far to push a lot of programs all across the Old Continent. The result? Expensive, unreliable energy, waste of taxpayers’ money, and environmental degradation due to wind farms and miles and miles of cables to move electricity from windy zones to the places where real people live. At the present state of knowledge, wind power, as well as solar power, is unsustainable.”

Looks like Germany learned an expensive lesson on the fact the wind is not a reliable source of power as it doesn't always blow. AND just so you know the sun doesn't always shine either. :wink:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Tam said:
Tex said:
Tam said:
I think we all need to remember that the largest subs for wind are going to GE who just happens to be a company that shipped thousands of jobs over seas, pays no taxes, and has a CEO who is advising the President who is picking and choosing the winners and losers of the US economy. Seems if you back Obama, you are on the short list to being a winner, no matter your record with job creation and tax payments. :x

BTW If an energy source can't support itself should the government be "INVESTING" tax payer money in it?

Tam, I agree with you on the GE points.

We do have strategic reasons for investing in U.S. sources of energy.

Germany, prior and during WW2 had the same reasons. They didn't have the oil they needed to run their war machine and had to get it from the coal they had. They didn't make their strategic moves to the oil sources during the war to secure their energy needs and it impacted them greatly. Sometimes investments have a cost that has to be paid for a return in the future. Getting off of or reducing the need for Mideast, Venezuelan, or Nigerian oil is a good reason in my opinion.

Tex

funny you should mention Germany Tex.

German Government Study Questions Value of Wind Power
Environment & Climate News > June 2005
Energy > Renewable: Wind

Email a Friend
Written By: Iain Murray and Myron Ebell
Published In: Environment & Climate News > June 2005
Publication date: 06/01/2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The German government’s energy agency has released a study that concludes wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy.
The study, released in February, suggests that joining Germany’s existing wind farm to the national supply grid in order to meet the government’s target of producing 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2015 would cost €1.1 billion ($1.3 billion). About 800 miles of cables would need to be laid or modified. Power plants would have to be upgraded or replaced so the system would be able to cope with the large fluctuations associated with wind-based energy.

Wind Power Called Impractical

The report concludes, “Instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient.” Opposition spokesmen such as Klaus Lippold MP agreed. Lippold told the Guardian, “The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don’t need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else. There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape.”

Environment Minister Juergen Trittin of the Green Party disagreed, telling the Guardian the “central parts” of the report supported his claim that wind energy could be expanded quickly and cheaply. “There are no grounds for pessimism,” he said. Nevertheless, the head of the environment agency, Stephan Kohler, admitted, “Wind energy is expensive. That’s true. You can’t dispute it. Conventional methods are cheaper.”


Intermittent Power Untenable

One revealing comment on the German study came from Greenpeace UK chief executive Stephen Tindale, who acknowledged problems in those parts of Germany where wind power is already supplying 20 percent of the electricity. “Everyone accepts that when you get to that level it is much more of a problem because of the fact that wind is intermittent,” conceded Tindale. The UK government aims to provide 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

“There is simply no getting around the intermittency problem of wind power,” Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said. “The wind does not always blow, and its variability cannot be predicted on even a minute-by-minute basis. Even after constructing large wind-turbine complexes, one must have sufficient backup power generated by conventional power plants. This redundancy raises overall electricity prices. Moreover, wind farms harm the environment in their own right, and are horribly prolific killers of aviary wildlife.”
Germany Learning the Hard Way

“Unfortunately, most governments look through rose-colored glasses at these ‘green power’ projects that are supposed to provide power and improve the environment,” said Burnett. “Initial opponents to such projects are immediately labeled shills for industry. But once governments start implementing these plans, problems appear.

“It is not surprising that the German government is finally learning, the hard way, about problems with so-called green power, and is finally beginning to take its blinders off,” said Burnett.

“The German study sheds light on the European illusion that the so-called ‘renewables’ may be a viable alternative to fossil fuels,” Carlo Stagnaro, director of Italy’s Istituto Bruno Leoni, said. “In fact, the wind lobby has been able so far to push a lot of programs all across the Old Continent. The result? Expensive, unreliable energy, waste of taxpayers’ money, and environmental degradation due to wind farms and miles and miles of cables to move electricity from windy zones to the places where real people live. At the present state of knowledge, wind power, as well as solar power, is unsustainable.”

Looks like Germany learned an expensive lesson on the fact the wind is not a reliable source of power as it doesn't always blow. AND just so you know the sun doesn't always shine either. :wink:

Tam, I don't know about Germany's wind situation. I do know that we have better wind resources here in the U.S. that can complement our energy needs, not replace them. It is renewable where our other sources of energy from fossil fuels is not renewable except on the longer time scale.

I don't think Kentucky has as profitable a potential for wind energy as N. Texas does, just as Germany might not where the Netherlands might.

The author of the article complains about "miles and miles of cables to move electricity from windy zones to the places where real people live. " and environmental degradation.

Just what does the oil and gas industry do? They have pipelines everywhere and they cause environmental degradation. They have ships crossing the oceans doing the same thing and gas stations everywhere. This is a one sided argument by the oil industry.



The report concludes, “Instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient.” Opposition spokesmen such as Klaus Lippold MP agreed. Lippold told the Guardian, “The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don’t need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else. There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape.”


They are right about the need to make houses more energy efficient. We have houses that were built on the relative cheap costs of energy that are energy drains. It is a real problem now that energy isn't as cheap.

This isn't an "either or" deal, it is "both and" deal.

Again, some good points.

Tex
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Tex said:
Tam said:
Tex said:
Tam, I agree with you on the GE points.

We do have strategic reasons for investing in U.S. sources of energy.

Germany, prior and during WW2 had the same reasons. They didn't have the oil they needed to run their war machine and had to get it from the coal they had. They didn't make their strategic moves to the oil sources during the war to secure their energy needs and it impacted them greatly. Sometimes investments have a cost that has to be paid for a return in the future. Getting off of or reducing the need for Mideast, Venezuelan, or Nigerian oil is a good reason in my opinion.

Tex

funny you should mention Germany Tex.

German Government Study Questions Value of Wind Power
Environment & Climate News > June 2005
Energy > Renewable: Wind

Email a Friend
Written By: Iain Murray and Myron Ebell
Published In: Environment & Climate News > June 2005
Publication date: 06/01/2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The German government’s energy agency has released a study that concludes wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy.
The study, released in February, suggests that joining Germany’s existing wind farm to the national supply grid in order to meet the government’s target of producing 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2015 would cost €1.1 billion ($1.3 billion). About 800 miles of cables would need to be laid or modified. Power plants would have to be upgraded or replaced so the system would be able to cope with the large fluctuations associated with wind-based energy.

Wind Power Called Impractical

The report concludes, “Instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient.” Opposition spokesmen such as Klaus Lippold MP agreed. Lippold told the Guardian, “The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don’t need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else. There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape.”

Environment Minister Juergen Trittin of the Green Party disagreed, telling the Guardian the “central parts” of the report supported his claim that wind energy could be expanded quickly and cheaply. “There are no grounds for pessimism,” he said. Nevertheless, the head of the environment agency, Stephan Kohler, admitted, “Wind energy is expensive. That’s true. You can’t dispute it. Conventional methods are cheaper.”


Intermittent Power Untenable

One revealing comment on the German study came from Greenpeace UK chief executive Stephen Tindale, who acknowledged problems in those parts of Germany where wind power is already supplying 20 percent of the electricity. “Everyone accepts that when you get to that level it is much more of a problem because of the fact that wind is intermittent,” conceded Tindale. The UK government aims to provide 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

“There is simply no getting around the intermittency problem of wind power,” Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said. “The wind does not always blow, and its variability cannot be predicted on even a minute-by-minute basis. Even after constructing large wind-turbine complexes, one must have sufficient backup power generated by conventional power plants. This redundancy raises overall electricity prices. Moreover, wind farms harm the environment in their own right, and are horribly prolific killers of aviary wildlife.”
Germany Learning the Hard Way

“Unfortunately, most governments look through rose-colored glasses at these ‘green power’ projects that are supposed to provide power and improve the environment,” said Burnett. “Initial opponents to such projects are immediately labeled shills for industry. But once governments start implementing these plans, problems appear.

“It is not surprising that the German government is finally learning, the hard way, about problems with so-called green power, and is finally beginning to take its blinders off,” said Burnett.

“The German study sheds light on the European illusion that the so-called ‘renewables’ may be a viable alternative to fossil fuels,” Carlo Stagnaro, director of Italy’s Istituto Bruno Leoni, said. “In fact, the wind lobby has been able so far to push a lot of programs all across the Old Continent. The result? Expensive, unreliable energy, waste of taxpayers’ money, and environmental degradation due to wind farms and miles and miles of cables to move electricity from windy zones to the places where real people live. At the present state of knowledge, wind power, as well as solar power, is unsustainable.”

Looks like Germany learned an expensive lesson on the fact the wind is not a reliable source of power as it doesn't always blow. AND just so you know the sun doesn't always shine either. :wink:

Tam, I don't know about Germany's wind situation. I do know that we have better wind resources here in the U.S. that can complement our energy needs, not replace them. It is renewable where our other sources of energy from fossil fuels is not renewable except on the longer time scale.

I don't think Kentucky has as profitable a potential for wind energy as N. Texas does, just as Germany might not where the Netherlands might.

The author of the article complains about "miles and miles of cables to move electricity from windy zones to the places where real people live. " and environmental degradation.

Just what does the oil and gas industry do? They have pipelines everywhere and they cause environmental degradation. They have ships crossing the oceans doing the same thing and gas stations everywhere. This is a one sided argument by the oil industry.



The report concludes, “Instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient.” Opposition spokesmen such as Klaus Lippold MP agreed. Lippold told the Guardian, “The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don’t need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else. There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape.”


They are right about the need to make houses more energy efficient. We have houses that were built on the relative cheap costs of energy that are energy drains. It is a real problem now that energy isn't as cheap.

This isn't an "either or" deal, it is "both and" deal.

Again, some good points.

Tex

If you don't know about Germany then why try use them to make your point? :?

Think of it this way, you are a rancher if you hired a ranchhand and provided him with a home to live in and he doesn't come to work when there is no breeze to keep him cool and goes into lock down if the wind gets up to high or god forbid it gets to cold he freezes up and quits work until it warms up, would you not fire him and hire a more reliable man that will work in all conditions. Or would you just keep him on and hire a second ranchhand to take up the slack? What makes me think most ranchers would fire the first guy and save the expense of keeping him around eating up their limited profits?


The Facts are if you have to build a conventional power plant to compensate for your expensive tax payer subsidized power source then the Germans are right it is too expensive.

Sask has wind turbines too and we have our greenies telling our Conservative government to build more as they are the answer to all our energy woos BUT the studies have shown the same thing Germany's did. Wind Turbines are NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE of energy They are an EXPENSIVE system that have to have an conventional back up system to compensate for their short falls. Not only do they take up for more real estate to build than a conventional power plant, they don't work if the wind doesn't blow , if the wind blows to hard they don't work and ask Minnisota what happens when you put the wrong oil in them and the temps hit 40 below, hint THEY DON"T WORK.

Save the expense and put it towards a RELIABLE SOURCE of energy!!!!!



BTW ever wonder if any of these urban greenies that want these wind farms would want to look out their windows and see a wind turbine setting in their front yard? Some how I doubt they would but they don't seem to mind fields of them eating up Agriculture land that could be used to grow food for a starving world.


While we are at it we should stop the ethinol too. We are using limited Agriculture acres to produce something to burn in our trucks and cars instead of pumping oil out of a smaller patch of ground and using our Agriculture lands to produce FOOD. :roll:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Tam said:
Tex said:
Tam said:
funny you should mention Germany Tex.



Looks like Germany learned an expensive lesson on the fact the wind is not a reliable source of power as it doesn't always blow. AND just so you know the sun doesn't always shine either. :wink:

Tam, I don't know about Germany's wind situation. I do know that we have better wind resources here in the U.S. that can complement our energy needs, not replace them. It is renewable where our other sources of energy from fossil fuels is not renewable except on the longer time scale.

I don't think Kentucky has as profitable a potential for wind energy as N. Texas does, just as Germany might not where the Netherlands might.

The author of the article complains about "miles and miles of cables to move electricity from windy zones to the places where real people live. " and environmental degradation.

Just what does the oil and gas industry do? They have pipelines everywhere and they cause environmental degradation. They have ships crossing the oceans doing the same thing and gas stations everywhere. This is a one sided argument by the oil industry.



The report concludes, “Instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient.” Opposition spokesmen such as Klaus Lippold MP agreed. Lippold told the Guardian, “The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don’t need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else. There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape.”


They are right about the need to make houses more energy efficient. We have houses that were built on the relative cheap costs of energy that are energy drains. It is a real problem now that energy isn't as cheap.

This isn't an "either or" deal, it is "both and" deal.

Again, some good points.

Tex

If you don't know about Germany then why try use them to make your point? :?

Think of it this way, you are a rancher if you hired a ranchhand and provided him with a home to live in and he doesn't come to work when there is no breeze to keep him cool and goes into lock down if the wind gets up to high or god forbid it gets to cold he freezes up and quits work until it warms up, would you not fire him and hire a more reliable man that will work in all conditions. Or would you just keep him on and hire a second ranchhand to take up the slack? What makes me think most ranchers would fire the first guy and save the expense of keeping him around eating up their limited profits?


The Facts are if you have to build a conventional power plant to compensate for your expensive tax payer subsidized power source then the Germans are right it is too expensive.

Sask has wind turbines too and we have our greenies telling our Conservative government to build more as they are the answer to all our energy woos BUT the studies have shown the same thing Germany's did. Wind Turbines are NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE of energy They are an EXPENSIVE system that have to have an conventional back up system to compensate for their short falls. Not only do they take up for more real estate to build than a conventional power plant, they don't work if the wind doesn't blow , if the wind blows to hard they don't work and ask Minnisota what happens when you put the wrong oil in them and the temps hit 40 below, hint THEY DON"T WORK.

Save the expense and put it towards a RELIABLE SOURCE of energy!!!!!



BTW ever wonder if any of these urban greenies that want these wind farms would want to look out their windows and see a wind turbine setting in their front yard? Some how I doubt they would but they don't seem to mind fields of them eating up Agriculture land that could be used to grow food for a starving world.


While we are at it we should stop the ethinol too. We are using limited Agriculture acres to produce something to burn in our trucks and cars instead of pumping oil out of a smaller patch of ground and using our Agriculture lands to produce FOOD. :roll:

Tam, my example with Germany was their situation during WW2 when they were cut off from the flow of oil. It wasn't meant to be a comparison with their wind energy situation at this time, as you made it out to be.

The Mid East oil and that from Nigeria and Venezuela are very much at risk as every spike in prices when there is a problem with those supply lines show.

The nature of electricity is that there is at this time no real good storage. This being said, oil and gas can be stored or not tapped as hard. Oil and gas should fill in when wind doesn't blow. Electrical customers don't care where their electricity comes from as much as they care to have it on when they need it. Even fluctuations in consumption of electricity taxes the grid without even considering wind.

As for your views on ethanol, this is your view and not the view of corn farmers. They want their product sold at the highest price and if energy consumption is more important to consumers than eating corn or feeding it through cattle, pigs, or chicken, they don't care. They came through a time of over production where they weren't getting their costs covered without govt. help. The govt. helped by developing another market for their corn and helping lessen dependency on largely foreign oil.

These things are all trade offs. I think we all need to be informed on the tradeoffs. In addition, the trade offs change almost every year. That makes the trade offs hard to judge. I grew up in Texas where there was boom bust, boom bust in the energy field. I remember Jimmy Carter gas shortages and other years when the price of energy was so low that small competitors were weeded out and bought by bigger guys who weren't necessarily better, they just had deeper pockets, better diversification or a play on Alaska oil, a refinery or some other deal that pulled them through. It wasn't pretty.

As far as your example of a wind turbine not being in a greenie's yard because it doesn't look good, I can show you oil fields with grasshoppers (the things that pump oil out of the ground) in people's yards and just about everywhere else. We had windmills on our N. Texas land because the wind was consistent enough to pump water out for the cows. My grandmother didn't use the clothes dryer in the summer because she liked the clothes line dried clothes instead of the convenient dryer in her house. Then again, she didn't buy chickens from the store--she just went to the chicken house when she wanted a chicken. They tasted a whole lot better than the ones we have today that never see a blade of grass in their lives.


Tex
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Speaking to a someone today that had a lease offer for wind turbine on his property, said that he believes there was more to the wind energy than face value.

He said that the contract that was offered him had some unusual wording which made him concerned. After checking into it a little further (with some state political connections), he believes that these organizations are renting the land for the purpose of wind turbines, but are then taking advantage of lease terms and are using the whole acreages (usually quarter sections here) that the turbines are constructed on, to then subcontract and sell carbon credits tied to the land for a nice heifty "under the cover" profit.

I read a contract a couple years ago and found some wording about ability to sublease the entire acreage and some other terms odd myself. But, I can't remember the entirety of it all.


Oh, as far as using wind mills, we used then growing up as well. But there is a reason we have electric or solar pumps on every well we own now. We farm in a category 5 wind region, which is
why you can see the wind turbines all to the north, south, east, and being constructed to the west of us. However, there are still many days each year when a leaf can fall straight down. This inconsistency in wind is why we don't use wind mills.
 

redrobin

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
1,145
Reaction score
4
Location
arkansas
Tex said:
I am not into "proving" the whole carbon thing that has turned more into a religion for some people as the ferocity of your post seems to point to.
... It is known as a fossil fuel because there is not a very fast process that is still putting what was once live mass into the ground to be cooked into "fossil" fuels.
You're repeating a lie out of ignorance or to promote your liberal theology. Since you're taking the position that "fossil fuel" as you call it comes from living sources, why (or how) is there methane on saturns moon titan? You really should educate yourself and not just repeat something because your fifth grade teacher said it was so.
 

Latest posts

Top