Wind is big business. As a government-preferred renewable energy source, there is an enduring mix of federal and local subsidies blowing billions of greed-energy dollars into wind developers’ pockets. These subsidies include production and investment tax credits, special depreciation allowances, and “stimulus” funds—all of which help to ensure that the wind industry will continue to grow, albeit at the expense of the taxpayers. Based on the production tax credit alone, wind subsidies are 200 times greater than those for gas and oil. Additionally, federal regulations set exorbitant wind power prices based on complex and inordinate “avoided cost” rate calculations, while state-mandated RPS requirements force utilities to buy wind power despite the extortionate price. These government-mandated high costs procurement requirements ensure that existing wind power producers will continue to profit regardless of market volatility—albeit at the expense of the ratepayers. At ten times the cost of conventionally-produced power, wind simply cannot compete in the electricity market without the government’s help. If the subsidies and favorable regulations stop, so will new investments in wind energy. Denmark, Germany, and Spain have already been here and done this, and their excessive wind subsidies have bought them the highest priced power in Europe. Nowadays, those countries have stopped tossing money to the wind. Some argue it is only a matter of time before wind is discontinued in the U.S. in favor of more sustainable alternatives. If or when that happens, future ratepayers will be stuck with the stranded costs of decommissioned turbine fields reduced to eyesore relics of an idealistic, illusionary, and bygone energy policy. The inclusive economic cost of wind is astronomical.
Mounting evidence of climate change may warrant substantial economic sacrifice, but the growing wind industry might not be delivering any net reduction in GHGs. First of all, wind farms require an enormous amount of scarce and environmentally-harmful inputs. For example, in addition to large quantities of concrete, fiberglass, steel and copper, modern wind turbines require rare earth minerals. Ninety-five percent of these rare minerals come from China and Mongolia and are extracted using coal-fired facilities under the environmentally-unfriendly practices of those countries. Moreover, projections indicate that these rare earth minerals will run out long before the fossil fuels they replace. In addition, wind turbines only produce energy when the wind blows. Therefore, traditional fossil-fuel generation facilities are necessary to back up wind farms, and the stop-and-go operation needed to supplement intermittent wind gusts often burns more fuel and emits more pollutants than continuous operation. Wind energy also tends to displace power from natural gas rather than coal, and greater strides in reducing GHGs and other pollutants would be achieved by replacing coal-fired power plants with the highly efficient sources of modern “co-gen” gas plants or nuclear power. Even green-energy enthusiasts like Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation have warned policy makers that wind energy is extraordinarily expensive, ineffective at reducing GHGs, and may actually increase emissions. Some sources even claim that operation of large wind farms may be adding to global warming by causing changes to atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, new fracking technologies resulting in plentiful natural gas reserves have substantially reduced the need for energy independence via renewable power sources. Since no substantial reductions in GHGs are being realized from wind energy, it is hard not to question why we are paying such high premiums for wind power.
Tags: bats, birds, energy, health hazards, wind
