Wind Power: Only When the Wind Blows and the Subsidies Flow

The Heritage Foundation ^ | August 6, 2013 | Nicolas Loris

[thackney]

Wind turbines produce power only when the wind is blowing. But perhaps more importantly, wind production builds only when the subsidies are flowing.

The wind industry is experiencing slow growth through the first half of the year and blaming uncertainty over a massive subsidy as a reason why. Alex Guillen of Politico reported last week that the United States added only 1.6 megawatts of wind power in the first half of 2013, which is far less than the 13 gigawatts installed last year and significantly smaller than the 3 gigawatts of new power installed over the first half of 2012.

The fact that the wind production experiences significant declines when the subsidy expires is not a good reason to extend it; in fact, it’s a good reason to permanently remove it.

The wind industry is confident that installation will pick up towards the end of year and that the uncertainty over the extension of the tax credit created the lag in production for the year. But what is most important, however, is just how dependent wind production is upon subsidies, as well as state mandates for renewable electricity generation.

Congress first passed the wind production tax credit (PTC) in 1992 but allowed it to expire several times. The PTC expired in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and annual wind installation decreased by 93 percent, 73 percent, and 77 percent, respectively. Wind energy advocates call this a boom-and-bust cycle created by unstable policy, but it is more likely a case of the wind PTC’s oversupplying a market and artificially propping up a large portion of wind production.

The complaint from wind advocates is that there’s no business certainty. While there may be uncertainty as to whether politicians cave and extend the PTC another year or two, the wind industry knew the expiration was coming for years. If they wanted policy certainty, they should have stopped lobbying for an extension.

Removing the energy subsidies would eradicate the near-term dependence but also promote long-term growth within the industry. The part of the wind industry that doesn’t depend on the PTC would be the more robust, competitive part and would provide consumers with affordable energy. Until the training wheels are taken off, however, the industry will not have the strongest incentive to innovate and lower costs to become economically viable and instead will concentrate efforts on lobbying for handouts.

Even Patrick Jenevein, CEO of the clean energy firm Tang Energy Group, affirmed in The Wall Street Journal the problems with his own industry’s dependence on subsidies: Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing costs. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn’t as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development.

The wind PTC is again set to expire at the end of the year. To provide certainty, save taxpayers billions of dollars, and promote healthy competition in the energy sector, Congress should let it expire and work to remove all energy subsidies for all sources.

[DoughtyOne]

Bird down..., people!

Ethanol didn't pan out.  Wind hasn't panned out.  Solar arrays are iffy over the long haul.

Solar collectors producing steam may be a good bet.  Over time I think this could be meaningful.  Other than that, we're not really getting anywhere.


Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 08/07/2013: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.

FOLKS, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, PLEASE CLICK HERE AND PENCIL IN YOUR DONATION TO HELP END THIS FREEPATHON.  THANK YOU!
...this is a general all purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

CAN WE PULL TOGETHER TO HIT 55% BY FRIDAY EVENING? HOW ABOUT IT...

[detective]

“the industry produces a product that isn’t as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development.”

The so called “alternative fuels industry” does not produce a product that anyone wants or needs. The use political connections to take money from taxpayers and get agreements to sell energy to utilities at several times the cost of the traditional energy that they displace.

It is just a corrupt scheme for the politically connected to take money from taxpayers.

[thackney]

Chevron’s unique demonstration project is testing the viability of using solar energy to improve oil production at one of America’s oldest oil fields. More than 7,600 mirrors focus the sun’s rays onto a boiler that generates steam used to help recover more oil from the Coalinga Field.

http://www.chevron.com/stories/#/allstories/solartosteam/

[DoughtyOne]

Very good.

At the home level, steam can generate power to charge a large battery system. Thus a home can have power at night and even for a few days when the sun doesn’t break through.

A pipe system can be utilized to bring heat into the home too. If that can be used for twenty-30 days per month, it can greatly reduce furnace costs.

Water can also be channeled into the kitchen or bathroom, saving the cost of heating water there.

I’m not a big green freak, but these kinds of things appeal to me.

I’m more of a site generation supporting person, rather than a large utility supporting person.

If we each took care of our own power needs, there would be no large blackout situations. No more than one home would generally have power problems.

If you’re generating your own power, you could charge your vehicle on the system too.

People can say what they want, but I grow very tired of having a big utility dictate to me what new regulations I’m going to have to abide by, while they busy themselves thinking of the next layer of regulations.

Screw that...

[The Great RJ]

Wind power like ethanol exists solely due to government subsidies and mandates. These both could not exist in the market.

[thackney]

At the home level, steam can generate power to charge a large battery system. Thus a home can have power at night and even for a few days when the sun doesn’t break through.

I don't think that would be efficient enough (read economic) to be cheaper than photo-voltaic. You are adding multiple components including rotating machinery that take more space and maintenance. Modern Solar Cells have made a lot of gains in the past decade.

A pipe system can be utilized to bring heat into the home too. If that can be used for twenty-30 days per month, it can greatly reduce furnace costs.

In some of the cold climates, but the system needs to run all year if there is a chance of being economic. Now you have even more waste heat to find a way to reject. Speaking of, you need more than a steam generator, you need a condenser to cool the other end of the loop, or you need a huge water supply to less efficiently release to the atmosphere.

People can say what they want, but I grow very tired of having a big utility dictate to me what new regulations I’m going to have to abide by, while they busy themselves thinking of the next layer of regulations.

You can do without them, but you cannot begin to do it as cheaply and reliably as they do. I am an electrical engineer, specialized in power system. I have remote property that I have tried for years to come up with an economical design for power.

It remains far cheaper to build more than a mile of power line twisting and turning through the trees and ravines than anything I could begin to do myself for a full size home.

[twistedwrench]

A little historical trivia how Coalinga got its name.
Southern Pacific railroad established the area as a coal station in the late 1800.
It was called Coaling station A.

[DoughtyOne]

At the home level, steam can generate power to charge a large battery system. Thus a home can have power at night and even for a few days when the sun doesn’t break through.

I don't think that would be efficient enough (read economic) to be cheaper than photo-voltaic. You are adding multiple components including rotating machinery that take more space and maintenance. Modern Solar Cells have made a lot of gains in the past decade.

My problem with solar cells is that they tend to lose a lot of their output over a period of time.  What may look great in the first few years, often fades away as you move into the 5-10 year out and over years.  Then you need to replace your panels starting over again.  If it is your contention this is no longer a concern with the improvements you mentioned, that would be good.

As you state, there would be a need for tracking

A pipe system can be utilized to bring heat into the home too. If that can be used for twenty-30 days per month, it can greatly reduce furnace costs.

In some of the cold climates, but the system needs to run all year if there is a chance of being economic. Now you have even more waste heat to find a way to reject. Speaking of, you need more than a steam generator, you need a condenser to cool the other end of the loop, or you need a huge water supply to less efficiently release to the atmosphere.

If we're talking a more arid area like the desert, it would seem this system wouldn't be ideal.  If we're talking about a more moderate area, the cooling becomes less important.  I have a very broad comfort zone.  I can be comfortable from 60 to 100 degrees.  I would rather have the low end about 70-72, but I can endure lower.  My plan would not totally eliminate gas alternatives.  I would be fine with augmenting with gas when the sitaution called for it.  The point is, to minimize the exposure.This also depends on the price of utilities in the area in question.  I'm paying about $20.00 per month for gas right now.  In the winter it can move up to over $100 per month.  That could be reduced if a solar system were to be incorporated into the overall mix.

Obviously, if we're talking $20.00 per month, an alternative system isn't going to pay for itself.  If it were a new build, and the cost wasn't prohibitive, it might be worth putting in the steam water conduits.  Otherwise, a retrofit, probably not.

People can say what they want, but I grow very tired of having a big utility dictate to me what new regulations I’m going to have to abide by, while they busy themselves thinking of the next layer of regulations.

You can do without them, but you cannot begin to do it as cheaply and reliably as they do. I am an electrical engineer, specialized in power system. I have remote property that I have tried for years to come up with an economical design for power.

It remains far cheaper to build more than a mile of power line twisting and turning through the trees and ravines than anything I could begin to do myself for a full size home.

You're the expert, so I'm not going to challenge you on this.  It sounds like you've been trying to do exactly what I would like to do.  Your experience seems to indicate it's not possible to produce a major portion of your own energy needs, in an economical enough manner.  That's rather disconcerting to hear, but I have no reason to not believe you or challenge your conclusions.

[Hardastarboard]

Wind turbines produce power only when the wind is blowing.

Saw "Moby Dick" on TCM the other night, the part where they are becalmed at the equator. That reminded me of why we don't use wind as a regular energy source - it's unreliable.

[thackney]

I can be comfortable from 60 to 100 degrees.

If that is acceptable to you, why not do that and save a lot with your current set up?

xposure.This also depends on the price of utilities in the area in question. I'm paying about $20.00 per month for gas right now. In the winter it can move up to over $100 per month.

I have a hard time imagining anything you could build and not take a decade or two before you broke even. That is relatively very little money.

It sounds like you've been trying to do exactly what I would like to do.

For now, we have a camping trailer and plan on a weekend cabin. Nothing for the occasional use makes economic sense besides a generator and a small battery system, probably supplemented with small solar. Battery for minimal lighting needs and a generator for AC or any other real power. But the future retirement home, boat house, etc isn't going to run of a generator if I'm buying fuel.

[DoughtyOne]

I can be comfortable from 60 to 100 degrees.

If that is acceptable to you, why not do that and save a lot with your current set up?

I do.  That's why my gas is so low.  I also save on electricity by leaving the lights off at night.  Doesn't bother me at all walking around in the home on existing light.  I use my iphone for a flashlight.  Bought myself a new energy efficient television, and I lopped off over $100 dollars off my bill.  My wife used to use an hold hair drier in the mornings for an extended period of time.  Those two items really sucked the juice..

xposure.This also depends on the price of utilities in the area in question. I'm paying about $20.00 per month for gas right now. In the winter it can move up to over $100 per month.

I have a hard time imagining anything you could build and not take a decade or two before you broke even. That is relatively very little money.

I recognize that it is.  I'm renting now, and wouldn't change things here.  If I were to set up a retirement home, I might do something then.  It would have to make sense though.

It sounds like you've been trying to do exactly what I would like to do.

For now, we have a camping trailer and plan on a weekend cabin. Nothing for the occasional use makes economic sense besides a generator and a small battery system, probably supplemented with small solar. Battery for minimal lighting needs and a generator for AC or any other real power. But the future retirement home, boat house, etc isn't going to run of a generator if I'm buying fuel.I agree.  I wouldn't be tied down to a generator and fuel.

Thanks for the comments.

[thackney]

I wouldn't be tied down to a generator and fuel.

It is mostly cost, especially cost to be as reliable as the power company, even in a rural area full of trees.

But I recognize when I reach retirement, I'm not likely to want to be doing generator maintenance to maintain a system sized for peak summer but running 24/7 at a fraction of that year round.

Even if we get a gas well, I have my doubts.

[DoughtyOne]

The generator plan is something I would avoid if at all possible. Nice to have in an emergency, but day to day on a regular basis, I couldn’t see that as being the way to go.

[Lady Jag]

My generator is a convert to propane and a little goes a long way.




Support FR