Report: U.S. wind energy sector booming - jobs up 20% in 2 years in Texas

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The Germans have already been down the windmill path and are moving back to coal. The wind thing obviously worked well over there. Ontario is killing jobs as fast as they can by tripling electricity costs because of the "GREEN" debacle. Long after we are freezing to death in the dark some pundits will continue to spout the virtues of wind and solar.

Germany is a pretty small blip on the globe so holding it out as an example of world failure is a tad naive. Renewables technologies will evolve and prosper. Next time you're in California, take a boo at the turbines near Palm Springs.

[hillbillyreefer]

This sums up the wind industry for all you greeniacs. One of the worlds most hated capitalists chimes in on why he builds wind farms. At least he is honest, maybe others should be too.

Personally I find it amusing that the lefty green movement has figured out how to enrich evil capitalists through socialist programs, roflmao.

A subsidiary of the Buffett-owned MidAmerican Energy Holdings owns 1,267 turbines in the US with a capacity of 2,285 MW – eventually when the company’s Wind VIII expansion is finished, MidAmerican will own 1,715 turbines with a capacity of 3,335 MW. Buffett has piled into giant fans for one reason only: to lower the tax rate paid by Berkshire Hathaway.
As Buffett recently put it at his annual investor jamboree in Omaha, Nebraska:
“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
There, Warren Buffett said it, not us.
At least he had the honesty and integrity to explain the only conceivable basis for the greatest rort of all time. And isn’t it so much better when those that profit from it choose not to speak with “forked tongue”. Maybe the CEC and AWEA can take a leaf out of Warren’s book?
lone ranger and tonto

[The Elkster]

So texas went from 4 to 5 wind jobs. LOL Saying it has grown 20% is meaningless without considering the dent it has made to total energy demand. If that 20% growth means it is now providing 0.00003% instead of 0.00002% of total energy demand and that's after using up all the best wind generating areas well then it really doesn't say anything about its long term large scale viability. Just hype really.

Wind will grow until it proves how unviable it is in large scale. I'd like to see a back calculation of just how much of the land would have to be painted with windfarms for wind to take just a 20% of TOTAL world energy demand worldwide. That is what we should be considering first and foremost. I think you'd find its more land than we even have. Certainly more sufficiently windy land than we have. Unfortunately it will have siphoned off significant funds from developing potentially viable new sources in the meantime. I'd far rather see more effort poured into solar, fuel cells etc.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by hal53

Dear Rugatika:
Can you explain to me why, when the socialists increase corporate tax from 10% to 12% they call it a 2% increase, yet when they purport an increase in employment in a "green" industry from say, 10% to 12% they call it a 20% increase?
Signed
Confused....

That's the 'PCCS' (Politically Correct Cypher System) It allows people to do deceptive math so no ones self esteem is damaged.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Germany is a pretty small blip on the globe so holding it out as an example of world failure is a tad naive. Renewables technologies will evolve and prosper. Next time you're in California, take a boo at the turbines near Palm Springs.

You couldn't force me to go to California at gunpoint. I like to spend my capitalist earnings supporting capitalist states. This summer will see Saskatchewan on the list and now most likely Manitoba.

[rugatika]

California's wind power explained.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic..._ghosts_1.html

California's wind farms -- then comprising about 80% of the world's wind generation capacity -- ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.


The City of Palm Springs was forced to enact an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio.


The voices of Kamaoa cry out their warning as a new batch of colonists, having looted the taxpayers of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, seeks to expand upon their multi-billion-dollar foothold half a world away on the shores of the distant Potomac River. European wind developers are fleeing the EU's expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake. But their game is not over. Already they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States.








California is a smaller blip than Germany...but the story remains the same.

Maybe some day, oil will be so expensive that wind and solar are viable in SOME areas.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

In 2013, Germany’s electrical production required a 44 percent rise in coal power. In fact, coal represented 45.5 percent of Germany’s power output, its highest level in 20 years.

Guess you missed this in the Wikipedia article:

In 2014 Germany's coal consumption dropped, for the first time since the 2009 recession.[15]

Just to bring you up to speed, 2014 comes after your 2013.

Expect those numbers to rise, because Germany is building more coal plants, and expanding old mines. Progressive publications have taken notice. Mother Jones recently ran a profile of a German town first settled in Roman times that faced the threat of being bulldozed aside to make room for an open-pit coal mine.

Nope, not rising. See above.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

This sums up the wind industry for all you greeniacs. One of the worlds most hated capitalists chimes in on why he builds wind farms. At least he is honest, maybe others should be too.

Personally I find it amusing that the lefty green movement has figured out how to enrich evil capitalists through socialist programs, roflmao.

A subsidiary of the Buffett-owned MidAmerican Energy Holdings owns 1,267 turbines in the US with a capacity of 2,285 MW – eventually when the company’s Wind VIII expansion is finished, MidAmerican will own 1,715 turbines with a capacity of 3,335 MW. Buffett has piled into giant fans for one reason only: to lower the tax rate paid by Berkshire Hathaway.
As Buffett recently put it at his annual investor jamboree in Omaha, Nebraska:
“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate. For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
There, Warren Buffett said it, not us.
At least he had the honesty and integrity to explain the only conceivable basis for the greatest rort of all time. And isn’t it so much better when those that profit from it choose not to speak with “forked tongue”. Maybe the CEC and AWEA can take a leaf out of Warren’s book?
lone ranger and tonto

Riddle me this.

Is a lower tax rate (tax incentive) on wind a subsidy or incentive?

Is an increased CCA, meaning a lower tax rate, a subsidy or incentive for oil producers?

What is the difference?

Oil tax incentives and subsidies outlined here:

http://www.desmog.ca/2015/11/12/cana...-does-money-go

Tell us again the difference between oil and wind incentives?

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by avb3

Riddle me this.

Is a lower tax rate (tax incentive) on wind a subsidy or incentive?

Is an increased CCA, meaning a lower tax rate, a subsidy or incentive for oil producers?

What is the difference?

Oil tax incentives and subsidies outlined here:

http://www.desmog.ca/2015/11/12/cana...-does-money-go

Tell us again the difference between oil and wind incentives?

The first part is hilarious, greenies saying carbon capture failures are handouts to oil. You guys imagine a problem then create ways to fleece everyone to solve a non issue. I'm sorry I couldn't read anymore of the crap in that.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Riddle me this.

Is a lower tax rate (tax incentive) on wind a subsidy or incentive?

Is an increased CCA, meaning a lower tax rate, a subsidy or incentive for oil producers?

What is the difference?

Oil tax incentives and subsidies outlined here:

http://www.desmog.ca/2015/11/12/cana...-does-money-go

Tell us again the difference between oil and wind incentives?

David Suzuki site. Enough said. Do you also think people that disagree with global warming should be thrown in jail?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

David Suzuki site. Enough said. Do you also think people that disagree with global warming should be thrown in jail?

First of all, it is not a Suzuki site. See for yourself:

http://www.desmogblog.com/about

Although the originator IS on the Suzuki foundation board, so I will grant you that connection.

But even if it was, are you denigrating the site, or the facts outlined? Which of the facts outlined are wrong? Specifically.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

So wind and solar across ALL of the USA with heavy subsidies support about 200,000 jobs.


Solar: According to Environmental Entrepreneurs, the solar industry was the top performer in 2013 for generating clean energy jobs. The Solar Foundation estimated there were close to 143,000 solar jobs in the United States in 2013, including 24,000 new jobs announced that year. The rate at which jobs were added in 2013 was more than 20 percent over 2012 levels.

Wind: In a 2014 report, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) indicated that the wind energy industry directly supported 50,500 full-time-equivalent jobs in 2013. AWEA cited a Navigant Consulting study it commissioned which predicted that if the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) were extended for four more years, it would support 54,000 additional jobs over that period, representing a 33 percent growth rate. The study also predicted a 50 percent cut in wind industry jobs in the absence of a PTC


The Production Tax Credit has been the primary incentive for wind energy and has been essential to the industry’s research and development. Wind Power development in the United States has shown a great dependence on the PTC. The wind industry has experienced growth during the years leading up to the expiration of the PTC and a dramatic decrease in installed wind capacity in years where the PTC has lapsed.


http://www.awea.org/Advocacy/Content...ItemNumber=797


And for the record, I absolutely support wind and solar power. They have their place, but after 40 or 50 years of development, they have yet to show themselves as a viable, broad spectrum replacement for other energy sources.

So in perspective the US oil and gas industry supports about 10,000,000 jobs or 5.6% of the employed population.

The numbers for green energy is likely highly padded and a weak estimate.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

David Suzuki site. Enough said. Do you also think people that disagree with global warming should be thrown in jail?

Wind versus oil subsidy discussion
http://dailysignal.com/2012/02/28/wi...oil-subsidies/

[Sundancefisher]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...sidy-Myth.html

Great article.

Truth about subsidies

Direct subsidies per unit energy to US power generation technologies

Subsidies (million 2013 dollars) TWh $/MWh
Coal/Refined Coal 1085 1572 0.69
Natural Gas/Petroleum Liquids 2346 1033 2.27
Nuclear 1660 789 2.10
Biomass 629 57 11.04
Geothermal. 345 165 2.09
Hydropower 395 266 1.48
Solar 5328 19 280.42
Wind 5936 168 35.33



The $/MWh subsidies belays the true cost of such power and shows clearly WHY Ontario's power bills are skyrocketing.

This should make you wince AVB.

Again...facts can be scary to your position.

Coal subsidy $0.69/MWh

Solar $280.42/MWh

Wind $35.33/MWh

Gas and oil $2.27/MWh.

So AVB. Do you still say solar and wind are competitive with oil, gas and coal.

[fishead]

He will likely not dispute anything factual. He still fails to realize that there is a wide range of people on here and some of us know the industry and how it works.
Will likely just post another link to some useless dribble from the new "Church of the Renewables"

Apologies AVB you actually seem like a good guy but you have to stop posting links that push your absurd agenda.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Wind versus oil subsidy discussion
http://dailysignal.com/2012/02/28/wi...oil-subsidies/

Heritage Foundation.

Enough said. US by the way.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...sidy-Myth.html

Great article.

Truth about subsidies

Direct subsidies per unit energy to US power generation technologies

Subsidies (million 2013 dollars) TWh $/MWh
Coal/Refined Coal 1085 1572 0.69
Natural Gas/Petroleum Liquids 2346 1033 2.27
Nuclear 1660 789 2.10
Biomass 629 57 11.04
Geothermal. 345 165 2.09
Hydropower 395 266 1.48
Solar 5328 19 280.42
Wind 5936 168 35.33



The $/MWh subsidies belays the true cost of such power and shows clearly WHY Ontario's power bills are skyrocketing.

This should make you wince AVB.

Again...facts can be scary to your position.

Coal subsidy $0.69/MWh

Solar $280.42/MWh

Wind $35.33/MWh

Gas and oil $2.27/MWh.

So AVB. Do you still say solar and wind are competitive with oil, gas and coal.

Why are there ANY fossil fuel subsidies? After all, after 150 years one would think that the oil industry has graduated to being a mature one, not in need of any subsidies, doncha think?

Why are tax dollars going to such a mature industry? Why?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by fishead

He will likely not dispute anything factual. He still fails to realize that there is a wide range of people on here and some of us know the industry and how it works.
Will likely just post another link to some useless dribble from the new "Church of the Renewables"

Apologies AVB you actually seem like a good guy but you have to stop posting links that push your absurd agenda.

No apologies required. I recognize that especially in Alberta there are interests deeply invested in fossil fuels. When change affects livelihoods, hackles get raised, I get that.

I also get that change is required. Not in adding carbon taxes like the NDP did, which is really a tax grab, not revenue neutral, and a PR move, but in providing a level playing field for all. No subsidies period would be a good start.

We should be promoting the use of green energy, not railing against it. Or maybe better stated, greener energy, as all sources we have so far have some environmental impact that needs to be mitigated.

The stuff I post is to show what strides are being made in innovation in various parts of the world. For instance, the unit that provides electricity being developed in Denmark was roundly bashed, as opposed to being celebrated as an innovated way of harnessing that energy. Why the negativity, as opposed to cheering the innovation?

Fossil fuels will be required for a long time, and for some applications, maybe always. That doesn't negate us, as a society, of mitigating their impact on the environment, which globally is significant.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Why are there ANY fossil fuel subsidies? After all, after 150 years one would think that the oil industry has graduated to being a mature one, not in need of any subsidies, doncha think?

Why are tax dollars going to such a mature industry? Why?

Why subsidize $280/MWh and jack energy rate up?

You are deflecting the shear difference. Which I expected by the way. Don't talk to the elephant. Focus on the pika.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

No apologies required. I recognize that especially in Alberta there are interests deeply invested in fossil fuels. When change affects livelihoods, hackles get raised, I get that.

I also get that change is required. Not in adding carbon taxes like the NDP did, which is really a tax grab, not revenue neutral, and a PR move, but in providing a level playing field for all. No subsidies period would be a good start.

We should be promoting the use of green energy, not railing against it. Or maybe better stated, greener energy, as all sources we have so far have some environmental impact that needs to be mitigated.

The stuff I post is to show what strides are being made in innovation in various parts of the world. For instance, the unit that provides electricity being developed in Denmark was roundly bashed, as opposed to being celebrated as an innovated way of harnessing that energy. Why the negativity, as opposed to cheering the innovation?

Fossil fuels will be required for a long time, and for some applications, maybe always. That doesn't negate us, as a society, of mitigating their impact on the environment, which globally is significant.

I did not bash wave energy.

People are calling you out on the facts. Solar and wind make up 6% of Alberta's energy grid. Those forms have massive subsidies which are magnitudes greater than anything other sectors see.

You posts are all about global warming. At the same time sea levels are not impacted by man, forests and crops are growing faster and feeding more people and even cod are growing bigger. Yet you keep poking and I don't mind.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by avb3

The stuff I post is to show what strides are being made in innovation in various parts of the world. For instance, the unit that provides electricity being developed in Denmark was roundly bashed, as opposed to being celebrated as an innovated way of harnessing that energy. Why the negativity, as opposed to cheering the innovation?

I disagree with you here. I think the wave generator is actually pretty brilliant. Practically speaking though, its got some issues. BIG issues, I literally mean it is so big for the small amounts of power produced its impractical. The energy and materials put into making it, compared to its output is staggering. I am not bashing it, this is a reality.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by avb3

Why are there ANY fossil fuel subsidies? After all, after 150 years one would think that the oil industry has graduated to being a mature one, not in need of any subsidies, doncha think?

Why are tax dollars going to such a mature industry? Why?

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Why subsidize $280/MWh and jack energy rate up?

You are deflecting the shear difference. Which I expected by the way. Don't talk to the elephant. Focus on the pika.

No deflection, as I have many times stated, none should be subsidized. So please explain why a 150 year old mature industry should get ANY subsidy. Why do YOU side-step that issue?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I disagree with you here. I think the wave generator is actually pretty brilliant. Practically speaking though, its got some issues. BIG issues, I literally mean it is so big for the small amounts of power produced its impractical. The energy and materials put into making it, compared to its output is staggering. I am not bashing it, this is a reality.

It was proof of concept, now they are developing it to be of industrial size. I suspect as in all things, that technology will become more efficient as times goes on. I like that it will produce virtually 24 hours a day, as waves do not go away, no matter how small they are. And tides never go away.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

No deflection, as I have many times stated, none should be subsidized. So please explain why a 150 year old mature industry should get ANY subsidy. Why do YOU side-step that issue?

You're minimizing the fact that without subsidies the oil industry can function. The wind and solar never could or not for a very long long time.

The subsidies for oil and gas are all basically eliminated. Business subsidies in Canada for other sectors now reach $18 billion.

Therefore the answer to your question is I am fine with the fact today Canada has essentially no oil and gas industry subsidies.

http://www.iedm.org/files/note0414_en.pdf

So now back at you. Are you unhappy with the prospect of energy costs in Canada doubling and tripling in the next while. This is on top of all the subsidies granted to wind and solar when at 6% of Alberta's energy out can not be increased without undue cost and burden to home owners and tax payers? When coal has almost no subsidies and wind and solar are from wind T $35 and solar at $280/MWh is going to stifle the economy. Wasted money does not add to prosperity but rather is a direct cause of suffocating deficits and debt. Burdens our kids will likely never pay off. A terrible legacy.

By the way. When you are in Calgary drop me a note. We have to get out fishing. Curious how much fishing you get done in Florida and would love to hear stories of manatees, snook and baby tarpon.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

It was proof of concept, now they are developing it to be of industrial size. I suspect as in all things, that technology will become more efficient as times goes on. I like that it will produce virtually 24 hours a day, as waves do not go away, no matter how small they are. And tides never go away.

Tide stations are nothing new - Soviet Union had one built in 1968, using wave energy was discussed for at least 50 years, wind energy to rotate something is a new technology - you can't be serious, right?
It would be great if any or all of these concepts was developed enough to replace coal, gas, oil or nuclear energy for power generation. But not is developed enough yet, one day these forms may be competitive, I will know that when choosing wind or solar will not require scare tactics or "shaming" people for not doing so. Why people like you choose to go into social engineering instead of just a normal one, if you truly believe that alternatives are really so close to be competitive?

[mich]

Originally Posted by avb3

No deflection, as I have many times stated, none should be subsidized. So please explain why a 150 year old mature industry should get ANY subsidy. Why do YOU side-step that issue?

these so called subsidies are due to the over regulation and taxation of the industry. You want the industry to develop and implement useless technology based on lies of saint suzuki and al goricle? You should pay or give credits for money spent

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ak-71

Tide stations are nothing new - Soviet Union had one built in 1968, using wave energy was discussed for at least 50 years, wind energy to rotate something is a new technology - you can't be serious, right?
It would be great if any or all of these concepts was developed enough to replace coal, gas, oil or nuclear energy for power generation. But not is developed enough yet, one day these forms may be competitive, I will know that when choosing wind or solar will not require scare tactics or "shaming" people for not doing so. Why people like you choose to go into social engineering instead of just a normal one, if you truly believe that alternatives are really so close to be competitive?

What have I said that involves any support for social engineering? Being supportive of alternative and greener energy sources is just common sense.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by mich

these so called subsidies are due to the over regulation and taxation of the industry. You want the industry to develop and implement useless technology based on lies of saint suzuki and al goricle? You should pay or give credits for money spent

Over regulation? Exactly which regulation would you get rid of, and please be specific and why. Just throwing out a general comment doesn't tell much.

So let me understand your perspective. The O&G industry is overtaxed. Therefore, they need tax subsidies. And you think that thought makes sense? Really?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

You're minimizing the fact that without subsidies the oil industry can function. The wind and solar never could or not for a very long long time.

The subsidies for oil and gas are all basically eliminated. Business subsidies in Canada for other sectors now reach $18 billion.

Therefore the answer to your question is I am fine with the fact today Canada has essentially no oil and gas industry subsidies.

http://www.iedm.org/files/note0414_en.pdf

So now back at you. Are you unhappy with the prospect of energy costs in Canada doubling and tripling in the next while. This is on top of all the subsidies granted to wind and solar when at 6% of Alberta's energy out can not be increased without undue cost and burden to home owners and tax payers? When coal has almost no subsidies and wind and solar are from wind T $35 and solar at $280/MWh is going to stifle the economy. Wasted money does not add to prosperity but rather is a direct cause of suffocating deficits and debt. Burdens our kids will likely never pay off. A terrible legacy.

By the way. When you are in Calgary drop me a note. We have to get out fishing. Curious how much fishing you get done in Florida and would love to hear stories of manatees, snook and baby tarpon.

Won't be back for a month, not sure if I will be going through Coutts or North Portal. Have not had much chance to go fishing at all this year, although at least got a new heavy duty Ugly Stick.

I've often stated that no source should get subsidies, including the stupid CCS program. The fact that O&G is getting any subsidies, including accelerated CCA rates, are those little things that most don't think of.

[no-regard]

Originally Posted by hal53

Dear Rugatika:
Can you explain to me why, when the socialists increase corporate tax from 10% to 12% they call it a 2% increase, yet when they purport an increase in employment in a "green" industry from say, 10% to 12% they call it a 20% increase?
Signed
Confused....

Originally Posted by rugatika

Nope. Can't explain it.

Oh man, this made me laugh out loud.