Wind power

Wind power: it’s not free

by Bob Weeks on April 6, 2009

A letter from a citizen in today’s Wichita Eagle makes the case that electricity generated from coal is less expensive than electricity from wind. I don’t know if the writer’s numbers are correct. Considering all costs, though, it is true that wind power is very expensive.

Here’s something from the American Wind Energy Association: “Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.”

Note that it takes a taxpayer-provided subsidy to make wind power competitive in cost with coal. This is at odds with claims made by some that once the wind plant is built, there’s little cost.

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Wind power

GPACE poll on Kansas energy

by Bob Weeks on April 1, 2009

Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy recently released a poll that purportedly shows great interest in Kansas for clean energy sources. Looking at the poll, however, leads to little confidence in its results.

Some of the results the poll produced are totally meaningless. For example: “Results show that most voters (almost two-thirds) think the price of coal will increase over the next 25 years.” Is this poll relying on Kansas voters as experts in coal futures? This result is probably more the result of the Kansas press repeatedly reporting the wishes of radical environmentalist groups.

The poll also asks questions that produce results like this: “88% of Kansans feel that it is important that Kansas become energy independent by developing natural gas and wind resources that already exist in the state.”

“Energy independent” sound like a good thing, doesn’t it? It conjures up the fear of the United States being reliant on Iran or Venezuela for its energy. But we’re not talking about enriching rogue countries. We’re talking about our neighbors in Colorado and Texas, for example. Have we declared a trade war with these states? We happily export beef, wheat, and airplanes to our neighboring states. What if Texas decided it didn’t want to be dependent on Kansas for airplanes?

One of the poll questions asks Kansans how important it is that Kansas’ electricity production in the future “will help stimulate the state’s economy and create jobs.” The poll question doesn’t state this, but it clearly alludes to the environmentalist lobby’s mistaken belief that a switch in energy policy will create thousands of “green” jobs and drive the economy forward. Jobs will be created, to be sure. But wealth and prosperity, which is what we really want, will not be created.

This green jobs myth is dangerous. Ask Spain. As reported in Green energy policies causing harm in Europe, each “green job” created in Spain cost $774,000. Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs provides additional information.

The same question asks Kansans whether it’s important that future electricity sources “can be provided at a long term fixed price.” The future cost of the renewable energy sources that GPACE supports — wind and natural gas, mostly — can’t be predicted. They are both already much more expensive than coal, and their future cost is unknown. This question may be alluding to the threat of taxes or caps on carbon emissions. These policies will affect natural gas power production too, although to a lesser degree than coal.

It is certain, however, that taxpayers will have to continue to subsidize wind power production, or it would not be used. But this poll didn’t ask a question like “should Kansas’ future energy policy include a power source that is so costly that it must be subsidized?”

The same question also asks if it’s important to produce energy in a way that doesn’t cause climate change. Who wouldn’t agree with that? The question, however, ignores important factors of cost. There’s also the realization that anything we can do in Kansas is virtually meaningless in the context of the entire world, as shown in KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual.

As reported in other stories here, GPACE has a history of asking misleading questions. The results of this poll may be read by clicking on Wind Energy, Net Metering, and Kansas Energy Sources.

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, GPACE, Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, Kansas state government, Wind power

{ 3 comments }

Green energy policies causing harm in Europe

by Bob Weeks on March 30, 2009

In their Washington Times article Lessons from Europe, Iain Murray, Gabriel Calzada, and Carlo Stagnaro warn us in the United States about “green” energy policies that have been implemented in Europe. These harmful policies are just like the ones we are considering here.

The cap-and-trade system that’s been in place in Europe has done little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The scheme has been repeatedly gamed and manipulated by industry and governments so that emissions have actually increased faster than the those of the United States, with none of the big reductions promised materializing.”

Meanwhile, electricity bills are going up, and Europe has become more dependent on natural gas imports from Russia.

Spain has gained experience with the costs of green jobs. Large government incentives meant that the renewable energy sector in Spain grew rapidly — at a large cost that taxpayers and consumers will continue to pay for a long time.

Furthermore, it turns out that green jobs are expensive. Here’s what Bloomberg reported about a study released by one of the authors of the Times article:

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – - which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

The Times article notes that “most of these ‘green jobs’ were transitory, anyhow, mostly connected with construction, not operation.” This is a common criticism made of the proposal to build a coal-fired power plant in Kansas. Yes, thousands of jobs will be created, but only for a year or two, say the critics. It turns out that green jobs have the same life cycle.

It turns out that cap-and-trade has not worked out well for Europe. Neither has heavy government subsidy worked to create jobs at a cost that we can afford.

We have to wonder, then, why President Obama is so committed to cap-and-trade in the United States.

Furthermore, have outgoing Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and soon-to-be governor Mark Parkinson thought of things like this?

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Kathleen Sebelius, Mark Parkinson, Wind power

{ 3 comments }

Earl Watkins, Sunflower Chief Executive, speaks at AFP event

by Bob Weeks on March 13, 2009

Earl Watkins, President and CEO of Sunflower Electric Power Corporation recently spoke to a group of citizen activists as part of AFP – Kansas Day at the Capitol. Here’s a few notes from his talk.

Did you know that Sunflower Electric is a not-for-profit organization?

The demand for electricity changes constantly, moment-by-moment, throughout the day. Since electricity can’t be stored, matching generation to consumption of electricity is a challenge. Adding wind power makes this an even more challenging job, as wind power is very erratic.

Watkins told a story of how a group of Kansas University students contacted him as part of their investigation of the “slothful and wasteful” practices of excess electricity consumption. Watkins told how when he attended KU, he had a radio and an electric typewriter in his dorm room, not to mention the forbidden hotplate. Today, however, these students have many electrical devices in their dorm rooms — refrigerators, microwave ovens, televisions, and computers, for example. Electrical power is a huge factor in the increased quality of life, especially for college students.

The average age of Sunflower’s natural gas-powered plants is almost 40 years.

While Kansas is often portrayed as having rich wind resources, the wind doesn’t always blow when power is needed. “The fact of the matter is, of the four seasons for harvesting wind, the summer in the day is the worst,” Watkins said. The highest demand for electrical power, of course, is on hot summer afternoons.

It is the cost of the various forms of power generation that Sunflower uses that drives the decision as how to generate power and invest in capacity. These costs per kilowatt-hour are 1.5 cents for coal, 5 cents for wind, and 9 cents for natural gas.

If the permit for the new coal plant is denied, Sunflower will be forced to build new wind and natural gas capacity. It’s estimated that the extra cost to consumers — remember these forms of generation are more expensive to build and operate than coal — is about $600 per household per year.

Afterwards I asked Watkins a few questions. One concerned Cessna Aircraft Company chairman, president and chief executive officer Jack Pelton and his role as leader of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP). How, I asked, does Pelton expect to build airplanes in Wichita when the wind isn’t blowing? The answer is that it’s easy for him to trade Western Kansas for a relationship with the Sebelius administration. This relationship has paid off handsomely for Pelton and Cessna, with $33 million in state money heading his way, and potential for more. My post Jack Pelton, Leader of Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group explains.

Also, does the fact of Governor Sebelius’ impending departure from Kansas have any potential impact on the Kansas House of Representatives and its voting? He indicated that perhaps it would.

Tagged as: Climate change, Kansas legislature, Kansas state government, Kathleen Sebelius, KEEP, Wind power

{ 1 comment }

Global warming alarmism: coming to a faith-based organization near you

by Bob Weeks on February 24, 2009

Has global warming alarmism become a religious issue? Judging by a recent op-ed in the Wichita Eagle, it seems so. (Moti Rieber and Connie Pace-Adair: Make clean-energy generation a priority, February 22, 2009 Wichita Eagle. Link is to article at the Eagle, or see Eagle op-ed: Clean energy is a faith issue at Rieber’s blog.)

As always, we must recognize that the science behind global warming alarmism is not a settled issue. What else is there in this op-ed to be concerned about?

Mr. Rieber speaks of “free and abundant wind.” Readers of his op-ed may be excused for believing that wind power generation is free of cost, as that’s the message that comes through. But wind power, we are finding out, is quite expensive. My post A Reasoned Look at Wind Power reports on a study from the Texas Public Policy Foundation that examines the entire picture of wind power in Texas.

Or, as a piece in Friday’s Wall Street Journal stated: “Renewables simply cannot produce the large volumes of useful, reliable energy that our economy needs at attractive prices, which is exactly why government subsidizes them.”

These expensive alternative energy programs make electricity more expensive, as evidenced by Westar’s recent rate increase request. It makes it more difficult for poor people — a group Rieber seems to care for — to pay their utility bills. This was the case last September when Westar asked for a rate increase that would amount to about $10 a month for the average homeowner. In Wichita Eagle reporting, Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, was quoted as saying “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.”

This directly contradicts Rieber when he writes “A clean-energy future … alleviates the burdens that our energy policies place on the poor and vulnerable among us.” Unless, of course, someone else pays for this expensive energy.

Rieber also advocates programs that give “Kansans access to programs such as programmable thermostats and weatherization rebates.” This gives us another clue as to Rieber’s political goals: expansive government programs that subsidize one group at the expense of another. These subsidies might be one-time, as in the case of helping someone buy a thermostat, or ongoing, helping them to pay for expensive power.

In a few follow-up email conversations with Mr. Rieber, some of which are available for reading on his blog, it became clear to me that he is quite comfortable with using the coercive power and force of government to achieve his personal political goals.

Both authors of this op-ed are members of the steering committee of Kansas Interfaith Power and Light, an organization that works with faith communities. Its steering committee is largely composed of religious leaders. It’s always puzzling to me how leaders like these are willing to use the force of government — and that’s what government is — to achieve their political goals. Always from the moral high horse, of course.

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Kansas state government, Wind power

{ 3 comments }

A Cautionary Note for Kansas Wind Power

by Bob Weeks on January 25, 2009

A piece in the Wall Street Journal contains some useful information that we should keep in mind as we consider the future of energy in Kansas, even though the focus of the column is the debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound. (Blowhards, January 24, 2009).

One thing is the hypocrisy of “green” power proponents:

Bill Delahunt, the windy Cape Democrat, also denounced the action as “a $2 billion project that depends on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs for the region.” … Good to see the Congressman now recognizes the limitations of green tech, such as its tendency to boost consumer electricity prices — but his makeover as taxpayer champion is a bit belated. Green energy has been on the subsidy take for years, including in 2005 when Mr. Delahunt was calling for “an Apollo project for alternative energy sources, for hybrid engines, for biodiesel, for wind and solar and everything else.” The reality is that all such projects are only commercially viable because of political patronage.

This column informs us of the subsidy that wind power receives.

Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is minus 163.8%. In other words, every dollar a wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government. The Energy Information Administration estimates that wind receives $23.37 in government benefits per megawatt hour — compared to, say, 44 cents for coal.

This directly contradicts an incoherent comment left on this blog a while ago, which claimed that coal power received huge subsidies compare to wind.

Background: The subsidy report referred to is TAXING ENERGY IN THE UNITED STATES: Which Fuels Does the Tax Code Favor?

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Wind power

{ 1 comment }

Wind power: look at costs of “boom”

by Bob Weeks on January 20, 2009

There’s been a lot of investment in Nolan County, Texas. Things are booming.

That’s pretty much the entire point of an op-ed piece in the Wichita Eagle by Scott Allegrucci. (Money Blowing in the Wind in Texas, January 16, 2009)

He’s the director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Topeka. This organization’s website states that “GPACE seeks to correct an imbalance in the information citizens and their elected representatives have received regarding the critical and complex energy policy decisions facing our state.”

If that’s really GPACE’s goal, Mr. Allegrucci didn’t advance it in this piece. That’s because he promotes the benefits of spending on wind energy without considering the true cost of wind energy. Further, he ignores the tremendous subsidy poured into wind energy production.

Last year the Texas Public Policy Foundation released a report titled Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future. This report contains information about the realities of wind power. It provides the balance that GPACE says it seeks to provide but fails to deliver in Mr. Allegrucci’s op-ed.

For example, did you know that every bit of wind power that’s produced receives a subsidy? Last year, as the subsidy was about to expire, wind power advocates warned that without the subsidy, wind power production would cease. No new plants would be built. It’s these subsidies that have created the growth in Nolan County that Allegrucci writes about. These subsidies produce some peculiar incentives. From page 25 of TPPF’s report:

The financial handouts available to wind developers are so generous that, in Texas, many wind-energy producers “will offer wind power at no cost or even pay to have their electricity moved on the grid, a response commonly referred to as ‘negative pricing.’ Wind providers have an incentive to sell power even at negative prices because they still receive the federal production tax (PTC) credit and renewable energy credits.”

Directing subsidies of any type into a concentrated area produces the results described by Allegrucci in this county. There’s nothing remarkable about that. But what about the rest of Texas? From the executive summary of the TPPF report:

The distinction between wind and wind energy is critical. The wind itself is free, but wind energy is anything but. Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs — transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation — that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers. Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025.

It’s a common error, assuming that since no one owns the wind, wind power is free once the turbines are built. That’s far from the case, though. Page 23 tells us this:

The true cost of electricity from wind is much higher than wind advocates admit. Wind energy advocates ignore key elements of the true cost of electricity from wind, including: (i) The cost of tax breaks and subsidies which shift tax burden and costs from “wind farm” owners to ordinary taxpayers and electricity customers. (ii) The cost of providing backup power to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines. (iii) The full, true cost of transmitting electricity from “wind farms” to electricity customers and the extra burden on grid management.

The reality is that the boom in Nolan County is being paid for by electricity customers throughout Texas. Not by their choice, too.

When considering wind power, balance requires us to consider these factors. The illustration that a concentrated area experiences a boom from a subsidized, expensive, and unreliable source of power doesn’t paint a picture of sound public policy.

Tagged as: Climate change, Economics, Environment, GPACE, Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, Scott Allegrucci, Subsidy, Wind power

{ 2 comments }

Not All Agree With New Kansas Energy Plan

by Bob Weeks on January 13, 2009

Currie Meyers of the Kansas Federalist has a few issues with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius‘ energy plan. I can’t link directly to Meyers’ article, so I’ll reproduce it in its entirety here.

Sebelius New Energy Plan Lacks Energy

Governor Kathleen Sebelius unveiled weak and pathetic energy proposals that she hopes will help Kansas capitalize on renewable energy. Standing beside her at the major news event was Lt.Gov. Mark Parkinson, whom has already announced he is not running for running for office. The Sebelius four-point legislative plan calls for:

Net Metering! Which would allow Kansas consumers to generate their own electricity, then sell the surplus they create back to the power companies. (The only energy I can produce on my own is Methane and she wants to tax that one! Maybe I can capture all the squirrels in my yard and place them in the wheel cage for energy. There is plenty since we can’t hunt varmints in the city. Oh, by the way, they tried this “Net Metering” idea in Missouri but consumers could not get insurance to cover liability of producing their own energy.) Next!

Setting into law the state’s existing voluntary renewable portfolio standard! The standard initially called for 10 percent of the state’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2010, a goal the state has already met. (If we have already met it and we are in a billion dollar deficient then what’s the benefit of making this into law? Except that liberals like laws, regulations and portfolios.) Next!

Requiring all new state buildings or leases meet energy-efficiency standards! (Which will actually cost more to taxpayers due to the capital improvements that will have to be done in order to change energy systems. And there also is a difference between energy efficient and green. Green is not always efficient.) Next!

Creating energy bond programs! So Kansas can attract solar and wind manufacturing jobs to our state. (How about tax abatements, low business taxes, low capital gains taxes and less business regulation instead? How about Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Bio-Fuels?) Next!

This is the best energy proposal that our liberal government leaders can come up with? You have got to be kidding me! “It’s time we take the next step toward a clean energy future,” said Sebelius. No Governor, it’s time to lead! And this ain’t it!

Lead, follow or get out of the way! The citizens are waiting!

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Kansas state government, Kathleen Sebelius, Wind power

{ 1 comment }

A reasoned look at wind power

by Bob Weeks on December 31, 2008

The Texas Public Policy Foundation has released a report titled Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future. It doesn’t have a catchy title, but the report is full of useful information about wind energy. Here’s a little bit from the executive summary:

The distinction between wind and wind energy is critical. The wind itself is free, but wind energy is anything but. Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs—transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation—that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers. Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025.

Wind, like every other energy resource, has its pros and cons, and there is no doubt that wind power should be part of Texas’ energy supply. Texas needs a variety of fuel sources, plus concerted efforts at conservation and efficiency, in order to meet its energy needs. However, wind energy should only be employed to the extent it passes economic cost-benefit muster. Instead of subsidizing private wind development and imposing billions of dollars in new transmission costs upon retail electric customers, Texas policymakers should step back and allow the energy marketplace to bring wind power online when the market is ready. Texas electricity consumers will reap the benefits of such a prudent path.

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, KEEP, Wind power

{ 4 comments }

Rhonda Holman’s Kansas Energy Policy: Not Good for Kansas

by Bob Weeks on September 24, 2008

Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman writes “[Kansas Governor Kathleen] Sebelius gets it. Too bad the Kansas Chamber does not.”

This is the end of her lead editorial from today titled Kansas Chamber protecting past. In it, she claims that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is out of touch with the reality of global warming, and by extension, that our governor isn’t.

Ms. Holman cites a study showing that green investment in Kansas could add many jobs to our economy. That’s no doubt true. But these jobs have all the characteristics of public works jobs, meaning that for each job created, one is lost somewhere else. That’s because these jobs don’t add to the wealth of Kansas, as we already are producing electricity. These new jobs simply shift Kansas to using a different form of power generation, one that Ms. Holman prefers.

Now if this shift was necessary to save our planet, that might be one thing. But the consensus behind man-made global warming is not as strong as Ms. Holman claims. And even if true, it might be best to learn to deal with the changing climate rather than try to stop the change.

Even if global warming is due to man’s activity, there’s very little we in Kansas can do to stop it. As illustrated in the article KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual, Kansas is just a tiny speck on the Earth. Other countries overwhelm anything we can do in Kansas:

So even if Kansas stopped producing all carbon emissions, the effect would be overcome in about 16 months of just the growth in China’s emissions. This doesn’t take into account the huge emissions China already produces, or the rapid growth in other countries.

That’s right. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions in Kansas, the growth of emissions in China would very quickly negate our extreme sacrifice.

That’s the reality of the arithmetic of carbon emissions. But Ms. Holman thinks this is okay.

One of the comments left in response to Ms. Holman’s editorial argued in favor of solar and wind power and stated “Zero energy cost forever and zero drawdown of the Ogallala [sic] aquifer — what’s not to like?” This comment writer might want to take notice of impending expiration of the wind production tax credit, which gives money to subsidize the production of these two types of power. Without this subsidy, supporters of wind and solar power concede that investment in these forms of energy will likely cease. Furthermore, our local electric utility is asking for a rate increase, in part due to the expensive cost of wind power. See Tax incentive for wind energy producers set to expire and Kansas Electric Rates Increase Because of Wind Power Generation.

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Kansas state government, Kathleen Sebelius, KEEP, Rhonda Holman, Wind power

Kansas electric rates increase because of wind power generation

by Bob Weeks on September 5, 2008

Electric rates may be increasing for many Kansas consumers. Why? To pay for a new coal-fired plant?

According to Notice of Public Hearings & Comment Period availabe at the Kansas Corporation Commission, the reasons Westar Energy cites as creating the need for a rate increase are repair costs from a recent ice storm, investments in new natural gas plants, and investments in wind energy.

It turns out that electricity generated by wind is expensive, even though the federal government pays producers $.015 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by wind. (This payment, made through a tax credit, is set to expire at the end of this year unless the United States Congress extends it.)

In the Wichita Eagle article Residents bash Westar rate plan, we learn that people are angry over the proposed rate increase. Some are suffering a hardship with present rates. According to Rep. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita, presently running for the Kansas Senate, “When I’m (campaigning) door-to-door, people say they need help with the utilities.” A rate increase won’t help these people.

As our state, under the leadership of Governor Kathleen Sebelius, moves towards using even more wind power plus other expensive forms of energy, rates will have to increase further. At that time I would not be surprised to see programs put in place where taxpayers subsidize expensive energy costs for low-income households.

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Kansas state government, Wind power

{ 1 comment }

Analysis of Kansas Wind Power Prospects

by Bob Weeks on August 25, 2008

In the post Is Sebelius’ call for more wind-power all hot air? Kansas Liberty reporter Holly Smith provides excellent analysis of the current situation regarding additional wind power generation in Kansas.

Some important findings:

With more wind power, electricity bills will be higher. Wind power generation is costly, and costs are rising rapidly.

There aren’t enough transmission lines from where the wind farms are located.

There is no scientific basis for associating emissions with public health risks.

T. Boone Pickens says “I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch. They’re ugly.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial Wind Jammers sums up part of the problem: “In other words, the liberal push for alternatives has the look of a huge bait-and-switch. Washington responds to the climate change panic with multibillion-dollar taxpayer subsidies for supposedly clean tech. But then when those incentives start to have an effect in the real world, the same greens who favor the subsidies say build the turbines or towers somewhere else. The only energy sources they seem to like are the ones we don’t have.”

Tagged as: Climate change, Environment, Kansas state government, Wind power