New Haven Independent

posted by: robn on August 7, 2012  5:46pm

Germany (the healthiest economy in Europe) went in the last decade from 6% renewable energy to 25%. 40% of that is wind.

posted by: stuckinNH on August 7, 2012  5:54pm

like the windmill—-politicans blow into town and stay as long as the wind blows…..........

posted by: Christopher Schaefer on August 7, 2012  6:14pm

“a federal wind energy production tax credit, which gives companies a break on federal income tax based on capital investment in wind energy. Murphy called for continuing that tax—as well as a companion tax credit that subsidizes companies based on their renewable energy output.” When are politicians—and voters—going to wake up to the fact that “tax credits” simply replace free markets with political influence and cronyism. Ultimately other businesses—and their customers—have to pay the cost of covering tax credits given to a chosen business. And “green energy” isn’t green when it’s so expensive that it has to be subsidized. 
Government subsidies shift power to government,  increase cronyism, make political power more important and increase the competition for that political power. The way to reduce or end cronyism is to reduce or end that government power. And the way to end that power is to GET RID OF self-serving crony politicians—LIKE VIRTUALLY ALL OF OUR PRESENT INCUMBENTS.
“ At Phoenix, the turbine…saves the company $29,000 per year”—which the rest of us ultimately are paying for—due to the tax credit given to Phoenix!  Why should industry bother to develop innovations that reduce the cost of green energy such as wind and solar—if your tax dollars subsidize its installation? We demand better smart phones—and industry creates them. And enough companies make them, that they constantly make “special offers”, sales, etc. to get people to buy their latest, innovative product. Government interference stifles the innovation that competition and demand create. Are there any readers old enough to remember appliances made in the Soviet Union in the 1980s? They looked like something out of the 1950s. Because government had total control of market and production.
So let innovators create a better, cheaper solar panel. And customers will come.

posted by: Walt on August 7, 2012  6:21pm

At $500,000 original cost and $29,000 savings per year (ignoring operating and maintenance   and financing and other costs)  it would take over 17 years to pay back just the basic costs

Way back I think I could come close to deciding whether or not this would be a good investment, but that was long ago.

I guess we can assume that the taxpayers share of 50%  of the original cost goes down the drain.

Is there   a cost accountant here who can compute the real value?

posted by: robn on August 7, 2012  6:42pm

WALT and CS,

Everything is subsidized and most tech has sprung from govt investment ( Internet, highways, power generation, electrical infrastructure) The private market shies away from major infrastructure because it’s long ball and they like short term profitability. Given that weve been dying overseas since 1941 for strategic petroleum rights and we’ve been dying here from asthma , wind sounds like a good investment to me. The wind is cheaper than oil or coal after all.

posted by: Walt on August 7, 2012  8:20pm

robn

Easy for both of us to post without any knowledge of the true figures.

If   , as you say, “wind is cheaper than oil or coal”  it would seem the Printer would have paid for its own power production.

It is like saying water is free and not expecting an invoice from the Water Authority

posted by: HhE on August 7, 2012  9:12pm

I rather agree with robn.  Of course, Germans are using wind power:  they are full of hot air.  (Sorry, but my inner celt had to get that in there.0

posted by: Christopher Schaefer on August 7, 2012  9:52pm

Germany is the healthiest economy in Europe because its deficit is only o.9% of GDP—and that’s not just a bunch of wind: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-22/merkel-to-balance-budget-three-years-early-in-euro-area-signal
Why can’t our own elected-for-life politicians manage the same?

posted by: robn on August 8, 2012  8:23am

We have knowledge of the general nature of oil subsidies going back 100 years and it all points to a massive public investment. I’ll give some examples:

1) Military bases worldwide focused on strategic mineral rights
2) Health related costs you can research at National Academy of Sciences and the CDC
3) $1.6 trillion dollars spent annually on maintenance, new vehicles and fuel.
4) Climate change costs (how many billions of insurance claims this year from Hurricanes and Derechos)
5) Zero cost leases for drilling on public land ($50B alone in the Gulf of Mexico)

I could go on and on but nevertheless, equipment and infrastructure costs aside, the wind arrives at our doorstep for free; oil and coal doesn’t. (I consider this to be a conservative viewpoint)

posted by: Walt on August 8, 2012  10:00am

Robn

—-and what does that worldwide “wind”  from you re Germany, foreign military bases and the Gulf of Mexico   have to do with a windmill in little New Haven,CT?

You have already “gone on and on”,

Sheds no light on whether the local project was really worthwhile, justifiable, or just another boondoggle

I just asked a question, and obviously do not claim to know the answer

Looks interesting though

posted by: robn on August 8, 2012  10:10am

WALT,

You complained about the 50% govt subsidy for the equipment cost of a wind turbine. My point about is that, when you look at the true costs, hydrocarbon fuels have a profoundly greater govt subsidy.

posted by: Walt on August 8, 2012  11:16am

Robn

I see no complaint in my posts, just questions and some skepticism.

posted by: Christopher Schaefer on August 8, 2012  12:50pm

“Heather Zichal, the White House deputy assistant for energy and climate change, praised the DOD’s [Dept. of Defense’s] ‘extraordinary work’ to promote renewable energy usage…She also lauded the Navy’s July demonstration of its ‘Great Green Fleet’ aircraft carrier strike group. That Pacific Rim exercise tested a fuel that combined a $26-per-gallon biofuel with conventional petroleum.” Another example “fake green”. $26 per gallon?! So we can invade other countries to get the real stuff? When gas hits $10/gal., industry will come up with an alternative—that is actually cheaper, and not subsidized by the green stuff in taxpayers wallets.  http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/242593-army-announces-renewable-energy-contracts-as-white-house-continues-green-push

posted by: HhE on August 8, 2012  1:19pm

Ah, the problem with all things environmental, is whom do you believe?  The topic is so politicalized, and there is so much bad information out there, that it becomes problematic to know what is true.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate what I mean.  My Grandfather had a degree in Chemistry from Harvard.  Before he became an administrator and later a professor, he taught science.  So he had the education to evaluate science and environmental issues.  He was a socialist Republican who lived simply so others could simply live.  Along with my Grandmother, he was an avid gardener.  He was also very involved in local environmental issues.  So he gives a toss, and he knows what he is talking about.

One day, while I was visiting, a young man from NYPIRG came to his house to lecture him on the importance of the environment and to seek is support.  My Grandfather, politely yet firmly told him how he was misinformed as he showed him the door. 

So we have two well-intentioned, eco friendly people, but only one knows what he is talking about – and he is not the one spreading the word that night.  There is a lot of “green” stuff out there that is not doing the environment any good.  There are a lot of people who will tell you that global warming is a myth as they turn up the AC. 

Buy all the squiggly light bulbs you want.  20 years ago, 100-amp service for a new house was cutting edge.  Now 200 amps is very minimal.  Earth will survive us – she got another five billion years to go, with or with out us.  Yet, unless we can make real systemic changes to have we live and how the word works (and I don’t think we can), we are going to be hurting.

posted by: robn on August 8, 2012  1:34pm

WALT,

Whats, “I guess we can assume that the taxpayers share of 50%  of the original cost goes down the drain” if not a complaint about subsidies?

posted by: Christopher Schaefer on August 8, 2012  1:58pm

Good point, HhE. I think everyone wants a cleaner environment. The politicized question is how to get there. The cultural and moral issue is that Americans don’t want to give up their cozy lifestyle.  So, for example, even though ethanol replaces some of our use of fossil fuel, its production has contributed to food shortages in those countries that rely on corn as a food staple. http://www.trust.org/alertnet/blogs/climate-conversations/how-to-avoid-another-food-crisis
Neither GOP nor Dems are going to tell Americans to consume less—because our economic system requires that people buy more stuff to get the economy moving and therefore create more jobs. So as a “consumer of government services” the best we can hope for (and vote for) are political leaders who don’t waste our money on” green” scams that only fill the pockets of chosen “green industries”—who, in turn, fill the campaign coffers of the politicians who give them contracts.

posted by: Walt on August 9, 2012  7:22am

Robn

Just an assumption, not a complaint.  The assumption is valid whether you favor this subsidy or do not,

Would still like a sensible explanation of the facts,if available, with all the costs and benefits of the windmill considered, but apparently no one here knows the real pluses or minuses any more than I do,

Unfortunately,more gobbledygook about projects thousands of miles from here would be of no help

posted by: Bruce on August 9, 2012  12:07pm

Just want to make a couple quick points here (haven’t read all responses, so sorry if this is redundant).

There are lots of cases where subsidies make sense.  Technologies often need a kick start of support until they are sufficiently developed to compete on their own with existing technologies.  Technological inertia provides no incentive for a change that will eventually benefit us in the long run.  Wind has been shown to be cost competitive with traditional technologies, even without subsidies—but only at sufficient production volumes and at certain installation sites.

Unfortunately, not all subsidy programs are well constructed so certainly there are times when they do end up as a burden to taxpayers. Some subsidy programs actually end up being a savings to taxpayers (energy efficiency funds, for example). Others have a less measurable benefit, but benefit nonetheless (i.e. less pollution/asthma, quieter operation, etc).

Actually $26/gallon is not bad for a small batch process and the cost will come way down with large quantities.  And they’re mixing it 50/50 with JP-8.  Production cost of the blend would be about $15/gal.  Still high (again, in small quantities), but consider that the field-delivered cost for military fuel ranges anywhere from $10 to $400 per gallon.  So even if the fuel ends up costing a buck or two more per gallon, the overall impact is not as shocking.

posted by: Doogie on August 9, 2012  12:10pm

There is no power plant anywhere that isn’t heavily subsidized. Every power plant in Connecticut has required gov’t-mandated subsidies to get built. Ratepayers were left on the hook for over three decades for billions of dollars in subsidies for the Millstone Nuclear plant. (In addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars in Millstone’s costs subsidized by federal taxpayers!)  By comparison, 17 years to pay off the $500,000 cost for a wind turbine seems like a great deal.

posted by: Christopher Schaefer on August 9, 2012  2:24pm

A terrific deal, actually. For Phoenix Press.