I did not know that without gov't subsidies wind turbines don 't make a profit for the companies. This article is pretty stunning if true . Much of this information is verifiable."Bankrupt Europe has a lesson for Congress about wind power.Wiwo...wiwo...wiwo.And "The mysterious sounds are "Na leo o Kamaoa"-- the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm" and "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." end of quote' This is really a shock "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." end of quote And as the gov'ts of Europe stopped subsidizing companies installing turbines the mfgs stopped making them. quote from article "But addressing a Heritage Foundation seminar last May, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Professor of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid explained what Feed In Tariffs and other wind subsidies did to Spain (as well as Portugal and Greece) got into debt: "In early 2009 the Socialist government of Spain reduced alternative energy subsidies by 30%. Calzada continues: “At that point the whole pyramid collapsed. They are firing thousands of people. BP closed down the two largest solar production plants in Europe. They are firing between 25,000 and 40,000 people….” “What do we do with all this industry that we have been creating with subsidies that now is collapsing? The bubble is too big. We cannot continue pumping enough money. …The President of the Renewable Industry in Spain (wrote a column arguing that) …the only way is finding other countries that will give taxpayers’ money away to our industry to take it and continue maintaining these jobs.” That “other country” is the United States of America." end of quotes Good Lord BP is firing 40,000 former turbine workers and we just gave billions to China to make turbines for us? Calif quit subsidizing turbines and 14,000 now abandoned in the best spots for wind in the world. Europe stopped subsidzing and they are firing thousands. How long can the USA subsidize what has failed already here( Hi and Ca) and in much of Europe? One last note T Boone didn't walk away from his great wind turbine scheme because he was going to make money. here is linkThe Link
great article. There are so many subsidies already in place. Same goes for the food industry. Clean, renewable energy is something I would like to see GREATER subsidies in. Start shifting the money away from dirty coal and into nuclear and solar volataics.
Pharm I think the issue is there is no money for this right now. California is an object lesson. You have to admit the failure there is hard to ignore. Europe is another deeper lesson. We would be stupid to send billions of our scare money to China for a venture that is failingwithout huge subsidies all over the world Looking at the amount of money needed to subsidize and looking at the debt already going to our kids perhaps now is not the time to spend 5-6 times more to subsidize wind turbine power. The free market will find a way to make wind turbine power competitive. In the meantime don't send billions we don't have to a failed endeavor. All those billions nwill do is boost China's economy and a few million here to install the turbines.
But wind turbines are great visual images for companies trying to show us how green and responsible they are.... GE is going to choke on this fail....Chevron and BP should be embarrassed.
gecko your idea, "But wind turbines are great visual images for companies trying to show us how green and responsible they are" is funny Because many companies are doing exactly that. They let the turbines free wheel because it looks to people driving by that the turbines are "green" working for them. Are you sure you don't work for GE? I bet you negotiated for GE to buy that Enron turbine company and got a big bonus.
"The money is part of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power approved under the 2005 energy bill" Just so those is favor of this know whom to thank. "The increased funding is part of an effort to win Republican support for the president's overall energy plan, " An offhand way of noting the Rs' approval of federal subsidies, depending on where the taxpayers' money is being directed. "Those who have long advocated for nuclear power, including many Republicans, have to recognize that we will not achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable," Obama is clearly not talking about UCS here. "When originally built late 1980s, the plant was expected to have four reactors and cost $975 million, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The final price tag for two reactors was $9 billion" With numbers like that, why wouldn't we want to force taxpayers to backstop such enterprises' bottom lines? EDIT quotations are lifted from HPhD's link, in case anyone was confused.
If any of you guys had a genuine interest in the economics of wind, you can PM me, and I can email you a spread sheet documenting profitable wind projects in West Texas, with American turbines and American employees. You can always find an example of a bad wind project. Why? Because it's not a good fckin idea to put a turbine everywhere! Some places work, some don't. And using the one example of Chinese turbines out of several thousand projects? Classy. If anything, its the EU that has GE in a bunch for the American market. Vestas etc.
Lastly- if you think wind sucks- great, you are entitled to that opinion. However, you are not entitled to poo poo every type of power generation. Because we all use electricity, and much more on average than we did even 10 years ago, the American consumer must have a power generation source nearby their homes. So, choose from the following: Would you like a coal plant near your house? A CCGT? Nuclear plant? Geothermal? Wind? Solar? Hydro? Keep in mind most utilities like a diverse supply. Personally I'd take all of the above except for coal. I've got bad lungs to start with..
mcbrett you seem like you'd know. Why would they have to shut down 14,000 turbines in the windiest part of the globe ( calif) and why would Europe( spain UK Portugal Italy) shut down it's plants with 40,000 being laid off in Spain alone? One last question, that you hinted at. Why didn't we buy those turbines from GE instead of sending those billions to China? Those billions were part of the stimulus plan and I am guessing GE could have employed a few people here to make the turbines
How's the windmill farm between Palm Springs and LA working? Hell,. half of them are always broken down.
Why would this be surprising? The reason you do not see alternative energy is because it does not make money. Period. There has been wheelabrator tech to turn garbage into energy for years, but it is a huge money loser. Wind, etc are all money losers. Fact is natural gas and coal are good clean, and cheap energy sources that provide low cost energy to consumers, and profits for investors. Why this is allegedly a crime according to Obama is beyond me.
Horn- These are really finance questions- not wind. Here are the answers, which are well documented online. 1) California is not in the top 5 of windiest zones in the US. North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, NW Texas, and some coastal areas are. 2) EU shut down- as for specific plants- it is true much of plant capacity is not running at full strength in areas around the world. (GE's plant in Tehachapi CA is however!) The global, capital crisis is by far the biggest reason. Most intl. banks are not approving senior debt typically used on most project finance projects. Additionally, in the US, the appetite for tax equity fell considerably since most banks had no profits to offset anymore with tax equity. And those that do have profits are deciding to play it safe. Tax equity is improving over 2009, but is nowhere near its 2007 levels. When a project has challenges getting financing no matter what type it is, wind, coal, nuclear- it gets shelved. 3) China vs. GE= That is not a question of national relation. Each project is managed and run by private corporations. The best person to ask would be the project manager. My knowledge is that China offered a dirt cheap price to get a foothold in the US market, and also coordinated with a Chinese bank to assist with the financing, since most US and EU banks that typically participate were being sheepish. To question American firms about this would be as relative as me asking you why you bought a Korean TV or a Japanese car- it was your personal choice and you took care of the financing somehow (just an example of course!)
Namewithheld, Here are a few reasons why blades sometimes don't move: 1) Maintenance 2) Wind is too strong 3) Utility market factors 4) Turbine is broken If you see multiple turbines off, it is less likely that they all broke at the same time and more likely one of the other reasons. #3 is related to the fact that utilities solicit bids from generators the day BEFORE such that they can assure they will have substantial generation for their predicted demand. If demand is less than predicted, or if say another competing generator like hydro is flooding the market at cheaper prices- the wind turbines are often asked to shut down. 911- wrong. As mentioned before, tons of wind are profitable when managed, cited in a good location, and run well, even without govt subsidies. In fact, much of the good Texas wind produces at 8 cents/kwH which is great! With bad choices- you can certainly find an unprofitable wind project.
mcbrett thanks for the responses. I am dense so did not udnerstand if you answered my questions. 1.You said EU shut down their turbine plants but didn't say why. If this is such a profitable market why would EU shut down and have to fire over 40,000 in Spain? The Professor at Juan Carlos U said it was because the subsidies no longer allowed companies to make a profit. 2. I did not say California as a state was one of the windiest states. IN the article it said the 14,000 turbines that are shut down were in one of the windiest spots. Spot NOT state I also sued the word part. if that threw you off I apologize. That spot with the 14,000 shut down turbines IS one of the windiest spots.The Link 3. If the stimulus as advertised by Obama was to help create jobs here in America then we damn sure can stipulate that any company getting BILLIONS of our taxpayer money must buy product here in America if it is made here. GE makes turbines here. If we can limit bonuses and salaries to CEOs of companies tht have paid us back with interest we sure can limit where our money gets spent. Billions could actually create private enterprise jobs here. Now if there was not a USA company making turbines here fine, go offshore. This is a bad decision. All in all though at this time we should not be subsidizing at such high levels a commodity we can get much much much cheaper. Our children simply can't afford it along with all the other bills.
Horn, 1) This is a complicated question that has several answers. The most important factor I mentioned- which is the flow of capital. If capital does not flow, and thus does not facilitate projects from ANY technology from happening, the factories have to cut back. This has NOTHING to do with whether or not the technology can produce profitable projects. Think about it- home construction is virtually stopped also, but does that make homes not profitable? No- that is also a capital/real estate issue. Make sense? 2) Ok maybe I misunderstood you a little. If it is the area I know, Tehachapi- I spent 7 weeks there in the summer of 2004 to consult with GE Wind. Other than Tehachapi, the coastal areas are typically awesome for wind in much of the country- especially CA. 3) I agree with you in that it'd be much more preferable if the turbines were all made in the US. I think GE has about a 50% market share here in the US with the rest coming mostly from the EU. However- here's the deal. Even with Chinese turbines, they still helped facilitate American jobs by erecting a project that might have otherwise not happened if not for the incentives. We will never know the exact answer as we aren't the project owners and can only speculate. But if you compare something happening with foreign parts vs not happening- you'd rather it happen because it is a net positive for the American economy and does create jobs. As a native of San Antonio- I can tell you all of San Antonio is THRILLED to have the new, huge Toyota plant come to town, create jobs and help the economy. Would they prefer it had been GM or Ford? Of course, but hey- foreign companies can also help the US to generate net positive revenues and create jobs. I am as much a fiscal conservative as anyone. I hate our debt, spending irresponsibly, and wish more was dedicated to reducing the debt. As for picking and choosing which battles to do that- the erection of new, clean energy projects that create American jobs is not in the top 1,000 of areas to look at to help reduce our debts IMO. You need to ask yourself, do you want a coal turbine blasting away 24/7 4 miles from your house, that requires a staff of 6 to monitor it? Or do you want the other 6 technologies I mentioned that create at a minimum- the same amount of jobs and do so in a much healthier, and in some cases- cheaper manner, than what these subsidies are intended to reduce.
Bronco- 1) Show me a link to anyone who has lost 'billions' on wind. I said it several times- if you do wind in a bad area- it's bad. You can say the same for real estate or a dozen other industries. Wind can, and is, profitable when done right. 2) Open up a WSJ. Do you know how many profitable sectors are on ice right now due to capital constraints? It has NOTHING to do with the specific sectors! It has everything to do with being capital intensive. All large projects usually need senior debt, sometimes mezzanine, and various forms of equity. When capital is dry- nothing happens regardless of how profitable or not it is. Here is a report saying the exact same thing I am: Link
You're right Name- he did lose $60MM. Your own link cites the credit markets- plus an also known fact that T Boone counted on the transmission for his project to magically appear from the govt or from other unknown sources. When it didn't- the cost dramatically rose for the overall project if he was going to do his own transmission. Boone also purchased the turbines with down payments before he had a completed project ready to go with financing and citing! He lost a lot of money of the down payment issue alone. In short- the cap markets killed the project, but he also made a dumb mistakes in wind by planning a project somewhere where you couldn't transmit the electricity. Wind is a business- there are smart guys and dumb guys. This obvious fact does not say anything about the industry itself. Go look at the P&L of the company FPL- they make a shtload of money from doing wind energy well. FPL
He had a plan for transmission that didn't pan out as I understand it. He contributed to essentially (literally?) every member of the Texas legislature and got a bill passed that allowed for Eminent Domain powers vested in a special kind of utility board he could set up. He was going to use land he condemned ostensibly for water transport to piggyback his power lines. The groundswell of support for property rights didn't help his cause.
A little more detail on how big of a "loss" wind is- from NextEra- the subsidiary of FPL Group mentioned above.
