Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
Mon May 20, 2013, 12:50 PM May 2013

The goal was to make wind politically "toxic,"...

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201303/wind-power-turbine-technology-tax-credit.aspx

AS 2012 DREW TO A CLOSE, congressional Republicans were spurning bipartisan appeals from wind states and refusing to extend federal incentives for wind power, which were set to expire at the end of the year. Only in January's emergency "fiscal cliff" legislation was the renewable-energy production tax credit extended for a single year, giving wind developers a 2.2-cent tax cut for 10 years for every kilowatt-hour of power produced.

But by then the damage had been done. The months of uncertainty had spooked investors, leading to thousands of layoffs, factory slow-downs and closures, and a grinding halt in new wind farm projects. Consequently, the boom year of 2012, which saw an estimated 12 gigawatts come online—more new capacity than from any other energy source in the country—will be followed by a much slower wind year in 2013, as it will take six to nine months just to rehire, retool, and renew construction permits, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

The push by congressional Republicans to kill the tax credit was backed by a nationwide anti-wind campaign—rife with discredited health, environmental, and economic claims—from an array of opposition groups, notably ones supported by billionaire oilmen Charles and David Koch. The goal was to make wind politically "toxic," according to the Koch brothers-linked American Energy Alliance. Their main argument: Wind is too costly and should compete on a "level playing field" rather than survive on "handouts."


Sid
105 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The goal was to make wind politically "toxic,"... (Original Post) SidDithers May 2013 OP
k&r n/t RainDog May 2013 #1
And some gulible folks here carry water for the Koch brothers. FSogol May 2013 #2
Not gulible, they are looking to make a quick buck. Rex May 2013 #52
Including, even many of them don't realize it, most of our resident climate doomers. n/t AverageJoe90 May 2013 #62
Easy to spot. Just look for the 401k label. nt raouldukelives May 2013 #83
What I find interesting is... jberryhill May 2013 #3
Same here. If GE wants to do the right thing, more power (heh) to them. n/t FSogol May 2013 #4
Yes this doesn't bother me either. alarimer May 2013 #58
When I break wind, it's usually toxic. Apophis May 2013 #5
So the "nuanced" opinions actually came from the RW Koch bros? DevonRex May 2013 #6
Shocking nooz, eh?...nt SidDithers May 2013 #7
Seriously, this could knock the earth off its orbit. BlueStreak May 2013 #8
.oh.my.dog. Whisp May 2013 #41
The same people who claim this malarky will also say climate chage is a hoax. MindPilot May 2013 #79
You should read Duncan Birch's new book BlueStreak May 2013 #82
lol NT ctsnowman May 2013 #91
Living in coal country, with the highest cancer rates in the nation... Pragdem May 2013 #9
+1 LisaLynne May 2013 #42
Or solar power for that matter? AverageJoe90 May 2013 #63
K&R nt abelenkpe May 2013 #10
Not at all surprised siligut May 2013 #11
I blame his "hair" zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #15
True, wind is certainly the nemesis of Trump's do siligut May 2013 #16
Indeed zappaman May 2013 #17
Looks like a dying tribble. Rex May 2013 #54
His "hair" Lordquinton May 2013 #23
when it comes to the Donald zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #33
go where? "his hair?" Lordquinton May 2013 #36
ah, I read it as refering zerosumgame0005 May 2013 #37
Great post! Matariki May 2013 #12
K&R octoberlib May 2013 #13
Flashing Blades Of Subsonic DEATH!!! Ikonoklast May 2013 #14
At some point, wind needs to compete without tax credits badtoworse May 2013 #18
why? oil still isn't 'weaned off' tax breaks. HiPointDem May 2013 #22
Agreed. HappyMe May 2013 #26
We don't generate electricity with oil, it's a transportation fuel. badtoworse May 2013 #27
With natural gas Kolesar May 2013 #30
Funny. I've got an oil burning power plant right by my house in Florida. Fuddnik May 2013 #84
yes we do. & even if we didn't, so what? HiPointDem May 2013 #40
It's true we burn a small amount of distillate oil in peakers... badtoworse May 2013 #45
... HiPointDem May 2013 #46
Deducting operating expenses and depreciating equipment and wells is not a subsidy badtoworse May 2013 #48
Do you actually know anything about subsidies? kristopher May 2013 #55
Let's agree on what is and is not a subsidy badtoworse May 2013 #80
IER? Seriously? No wonder you express rightwing views... kristopher May 2013 #92
Would it have made a difference if I cited the Energy Information Administration? badtoworse May 2013 #93
IOW you don't believe climate change is real. kristopher May 2013 #99
I guess we'll have to disagree. badtoworse May 2013 #100
we must not be reading the same links. HiPointDem May 2013 #66
There are two sides to every story. Try these badtoworse May 2013 #71
there are plenty of direct and indirect tax breaks and subsidies for oil & gas; the link i HiPointDem May 2013 #96
The link just took me to Google badtoworse May 2013 #97
the link took you to the results of a google search for gas subsidies. the natural gas industry HiPointDem May 2013 #98
or ethanol grantcart May 2013 #88
Why? EC May 2013 #31
What tax credits do gas, nuclear or coal fired plants get? badtoworse May 2013 #44
Are you kidding?.. n/t EC May 2013 #47
No badtoworse May 2013 #49
Do your own research EC May 2013 #51
See Post 48 badtoworse May 2013 #53
Again, do some research EC May 2013 #57
When we generate 20% of our electricity from wind jpak May 2013 #65
Not going to happen, but you can dream about it. badtoworse May 2013 #81
That sounds like a capitalist idea! More important to gtar100 May 2013 #102
There are plenty of capitalists in the wind industry already badtoworse May 2013 #104
Toxic wind only when it blows coal fumes nt Progressive dog May 2013 #19
Or "Agent Orange" LondonReign2 May 2013 #20
Someone tell the Dukes, uh, I mean the Kochs, about Wind Fracking. kentauros May 2013 #21
Warning to Republicans and some crooked Democrats Jack Rabbit May 2013 #24
Be careful Sid, you'll get a double Iggy. GoneOffShore May 2013 #25
FEAR THE WIND CANCER!!!!!!!!!1111!1one backscatter712 May 2013 #28
And oil isn't surviving on "handouts".. n/t EC May 2013 #29
What, no CAPS ??? Trajan May 2013 #32
Damn, you're right... SidDithers May 2013 #34
A level playing field might require Oil companies to give up Ilsa May 2013 #35
Someone was sending me emails and website links that claimed windmills were... Triana May 2013 #38
Yeah, it's really weird. LisaLynne May 2013 #43
Sing it Triana..... MAD Dave May 2013 #59
Hundreds of years of windmills in Netherlands and East Coast of England. HooptieWagon May 2013 #60
Its a fact that windmills are making people crazy. grantcart May 2013 #89
+1 Triana May 2013 #94
The FF industry isn't the only source. kristopher May 2013 #39
Wow, who knew this plot would take this kind of twist? Rex May 2013 #50
Looks like somebody's got some 'splaining to do. Codeine May 2013 #56
They just don't care. Fuck 'em all. AverageJoe90 May 2013 #61
This is what repugs have done since the 1980's jpak May 2013 #64
and China MindPilot May 2013 #74
K&R! sheshe2 May 2013 #67
My, my....nt msanthrope May 2013 #68
From now on, jurors should hide any post pintobean May 2013 #69
I'd say that maybe GD Hosts would lock those threads... SidDithers May 2013 #70
You've documented the "shtick" very well....nt msanthrope May 2013 #72
Bad luck hide in that insufferable thread...nt SidDithers May 2013 #76
Every once and a while you gotta take one. 'Insufferable' is a good word. msanthrope May 2013 #78
Least County Times, BREAKING: WINDFARMS CAUSE TORNADOS MindPilot May 2013 #73
Nailed the schtick perfectly... SidDithers May 2013 #75
I'd respond, but your on my iggity list. MindPilot May 2013 #77
So, if wind needs to compete on a level playing field NewJeffCT May 2013 #85
This is a much larger story than people realize. On August 2nd Romney lost the election on this grantcart May 2013 #86
Good post... SidDithers May 2013 #87
This post should be an OP. FSogol May 2013 #95
The Koch criminals - how did I guess? Initech May 2013 #90
yup..... madrchsod May 2013 #101
K&R nt Zorra May 2013 #103
K & R Scurrilous May 2013 #105
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
52. Not gulible, they are looking to make a quick buck.
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:26 PM
May 2013

They KNOW what they are supporting, it will be interesting to see if they still do after this revelation.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
3. What I find interesting is...
Mon May 20, 2013, 12:57 PM
May 2013

...that we go on about tax credits for wind power, and then are shocked, shocked that GE, the largest US producer of them, gets all sorts of tax advantages.

I don't have a problem with the tax credits, as I am one of those folks who believes the tax code can productively be used to shape policy, and that whether those purposes are being gamed is something that requires continuous oversight. But we can't be too hypocritical about GE getting "tax breaks" if we are going to support tax credits relative to wind energy.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
58. Yes this doesn't bother me either.
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:41 PM
May 2013

Although it will be centuries before GE can make up for the damage they've done.

 

Apophis

(1,407 posts)
5. When I break wind, it's usually toxic.
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:02 PM
May 2013


All kidding aside, I have seen the anti-wind campaign here on DU within the last few days and it's sickening.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
6. So the "nuanced" opinions actually came from the RW Koch bros?
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:05 PM
May 2013

Those toxic claims were untrue? OMG!!! Who could have known?
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
41. .oh.my.dog.
Mon May 20, 2013, 04:02 PM
May 2013

!

we are going to get thrown out into space because of windfarms. ?

It's so sad that some actually believe this. omg. The poster that opened this subject up... may she receive help and information.

 

MindPilot

(12,693 posts)
79. The same people who claim this malarky will also say climate chage is a hoax.
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:16 AM
May 2013

Human activity can't possibly dump enough junk in the air to affect the climate, but a few big spinning blades are going to affect the planet's orbit.


Yes, it's from the Onion, but that doesn't mean much any more.

 

Pragdem

(233 posts)
9. Living in coal country, with the highest cancer rates in the nation...
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:23 PM
May 2013

I dare anyone to look me in the eye and tell me wind power is toxic.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
63. Or solar power for that matter?
Mon May 20, 2013, 06:25 PM
May 2013

Honestly, this is insane. Who doesn't want clean air, for Pete's sakes?!?!

I can't help but begin to wonder if some of this resistance to wind, solar, and biofuels may go beyond climate denialism and greed.....but to something even worse.....

siligut

(12,272 posts)
11. Not at all surprised
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:34 PM
May 2013

Have to wonder if someone put Donald Trump up to fighting the wind farm off the coast of Aberdeen, in Scotland.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/scotland-approves-vattenfall-backed-offshore-wind-test-site.html

The European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre, a venture between Vattenfall AB, Technip SA (TEC) and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group, will be allowed to build 11 wind turbines capable of generating enough power for more than 49,000 homes, the government said today in a statement. The project will cost more than 230 million pounds ($349 million), according to the companies.
“This was a purely political decision,” Trump said in a statement. “We will spend whatever monies are necessary to see to it that these huge and unsightly industrial wind turbines are never constructed.”
Trump has been in conflict with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond for more than a year over his goal of making the country the hub of European wind power by generating all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
14. Flashing Blades Of Subsonic DEATH!!!
Mon May 20, 2013, 01:58 PM
May 2013

More people get killed, maimed, diagnosed with an occupational disease from the fossil fuel extraction industries IN ONE DAY in just this country than ALL the people ever hurt in the wind power industry on the entire planet, ever.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
18. At some point, wind needs to compete without tax credits
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:10 PM
May 2013

The idea was to allow wind to achieve a "critical mass" so the industry could survive on its own. That was a good idea, but it's time to get weaned off the tax credits.

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
84. Funny. I've got an oil burning power plant right by my house in Florida.
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:37 AM
May 2013

They plan to convert it to natural gas eventually.

But, then again, they've been charging us for 5 years to build a nuke that they may never break ground on.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
45. It's true we burn a small amount of distillate oil in peakers...
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:10 PM
May 2013

...but usually it's only when natural gas isn't available (like in the winter when pipelines occasionally have to interrupt power plants to insure an adequate gas supply for home heating). As a practical matter, the amount oil burned for baseload generation is very small.

What subsidies does a natural gas fired plant get?

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
48. Deducting operating expenses and depreciating equipment and wells is not a subsidy
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:21 PM
May 2013

All businesses can do that including wind.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
55. Do you actually know anything about subsidies?
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:28 PM
May 2013

Why don't you tell us how you understand subsidies to be distributed in the energy sector, both here and globally.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
80. Let's agree on what is and is not a subsidy
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:19 AM
May 2013

Tax deductions for operating expenses, depreciation and amortizations, interest and operating losses are not subsidies in my opinion. Foreign tax credits and deductions for royalties paid to foreign governments are not subsidies either. These provisions of the tax law that are available to all businesses, including wind, and are not unique to oil and gas.

Things I would consider a subsidy are payments or credits by the government to reduce the cost of developing or producing something. Examples would include direct grants, low interest loans, loan guarantees and tax credits tied to investment or production. In recent years, renewables havehad a number of subsidies such as investment and production tax credits and Section 1603 grants. Additionally substantial DOE loan guarantees have gone to renewable projects (and a number of these have gone sour leaving taxpayers on the hook).

Here is a link to a study that details how subsidies have been divided between various generating technologies. Renewable have gotten the largest peice of the pie by quite a margin.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/08/03/eia-releases-new-subsidy-report-subsidies-for-renewables-increase-186-percent

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
92. IER? Seriously? No wonder you express rightwing views...
Tue May 21, 2013, 12:41 PM
May 2013

...you get your information from rightwing sources. I mean, you did notice the hostile responses your comments have elicited, didn't you?

On substance, no, I'm sorry. I do not accept your definition of subsidies, nor of how the need for subsidies should be determined. Since I have it handy, let me provide you a comprehensive analysis of one area that you've stated does not receive subsidies: nuclear. Doug Koplow is a top analyst on the topic of subsidies. If you give this report a careful read, I think you'll learn a lot.

NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf


If you wish to expand your horizon, I'd urge you to examine the historical record and the total amount of subsidies the various industries have received over their lifetime.

I'd also suggest you consider the need to explain why a desirable emerging technology should NOT receive favorable market treatment that will enable it to displace obsolete and socially undesirable technologies. Or are you in favor of the government effecting such needed changes by fiat?

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
93. Would it have made a difference if I cited the Energy Information Administration?
Tue May 21, 2013, 01:44 PM
May 2013

IER was only citing EIA analysis which I would expect to be unbiased.

My views are based on 30 years of experience in the Independent Power Business. I don't have a particular bias for or against any particular generating technology. I don't have any animus toward wind - I look at it objectively. It's expensive and it has it's own environmental impacts. I'm pretty familiar with it too because I've led the development of wind projects in Texas. We had trouble selling the power (too expensive even with a 1603 Grant, but in fairness, that was in 2010 and costs have come down some since then). The reality is that wind can't compete with $4.00 gas unless it gets $22 / MWh in tax credits. I don't see any reason why taxpayers should foot that bill when it looks like we have so much gas that we'll be exporting 6 - 8 Bcf/day of LNG in a few years.

As far as lifetime subsidies go, they fall into the sunk cost category, IOW, not relevant to decision making going forward. We'll just have to disagree about the definition of a subsidy - wind companies get to deduct operating costs, amortize development costs and depreciate equipment just like oil & gas companies do (and every other kind of business for that matter).

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
99. IOW you don't believe climate change is real.
Tue May 21, 2013, 02:51 PM
May 2013

That says a lot about you right there. The science is overwhelming and the urgency can not be overstated, so if you think you are "looking at it objectively" you are deluding yourself in the worst way.

As far as brushing aside the past subsidies as "sunk costs" that is nothing but a bullshit excuse to avoid discussion of WHY we use subsidies at all. We Use Them To Help Establish Socially Desirable Technologies. Fossil fuels have received vast subsidies to enable them to serve our needs. Those aren't "sunk costs", they are the cost of doing business as a culture. We (our culture) benefited from that money so we helped those industries become established and self sufficient. Now it is time for our culture to buy a new system of energy - one that is carbon free. That means it is time to withdraw the help we've previously given to the FF companies. It doesn't matter that other companies are receiving write-offs that are similar, fossil fuels have large external costs that are not being captured in their pricing. This provides a valid rationale for a stringent approach to equalizing the playing field.

However, since you don't acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis we are facing, you don't see a transition to carbon free technologies as being "socially desirable". That, in turn, means you can't accept or acknowledge the values that bring coherence to my position.

That is the crux of your disagreement with others here; it has nothing to do with the definition of subsidies. Not to be disagreeable, but that is just something you are tying to play a weaselly word game with. You've shown you aren't interested in real discussion by ignoring the extremely comprehensive report I provided to you on nuclear. Apparently all you want to do is be contrarian.

That doesn't make your position valid.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Topped $620 Billion in 2011
February 27, 2013
Earth Policy Institute By Emily E. Adams

The energy game is rigged in favor of fossil fuels because we omit the environmental and health costs of burning coal, oil and natural gas from their prices. Subsidies manipulate the game even further. According to conservative estimates from the Global Subsidies Initiative and the International Energy Agency (IEA), governments around the world spent more than $620 billion to subsidize fossil fuel energy in 2011: some $100 billion for production and $523 billion for consumption. This was 20 percent higher than in 2010, largely because of higher world oil prices....

Of the $523 billion that supported consumption, $285 billion went to oil, $104 billion to natural gas and $3 billion to coal; an additional $131 billion was divided among the three energy sources specifically for electricity use. Through these subsidies, governments cut the prices people paid for fossil energy by nearly a quarter—encouraging waste and hindering efforts to stabilize climate. ...
http://ecowatch.com/2013/fossil-fuel-subsidies-620-billion/




http://priceofoil.org/2012/12/03/new-analysis-fossil-fuel-subsidies-five-times-greater-than-climate-finance/


http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
100. I guess we'll have to disagree.
Wed May 22, 2013, 08:26 AM
May 2013

First of all, you're correct in that I'm not convinced that climate change is the crisis it's been portrayed as. I read studies on both sides of the issue and can't help noticing that people who cite conflicting data or question the accepted wisdom about climate change are either ridiculed or ignored by their colleagues. In that respect, climate change has become as much of a political debate as it is a scientific one, perhaps more so.

I don't buy the current claims that climate change is responsible for the severe weather events we've had recently. The deadliest hurricane in our history occured 113 years ago. Hurricanes in the 1930's changed the coast of Long Island and Andrew did major damage to south Florida in 1992. Tornado damage is nothing new - we had severe twisters in the mid-west for as long as I can remember. One of the worst blizzrds the northeast ever saw occured in 1717. NYC's worst blizzard was likely in 1889.

Even if I was 100% convinced about climate change, I still wouldn't support continued PTC's for wind. For one thing, I don't think wind is a particularly good technology. Having to do maintenance in a small nacelle 100 meters in the air is problematic, especially if you need a big crane (expensive rental) to change out a gearbox or replace a blade. Noise and flicker are issues that at best will reduce the value of neighboring property and at worst, will directly impact the neighbors. USF&G estimates that as many as a a half million birds are killed each year by wind turbines. Wind has plenty of externalities - did you include the dead birds and reduced property values in your estimate of wind subsidies? I assume you are familiar with grid stability issues - wind is a variable, uncontrollable resource and still needs turbines on AGC to match generation to load.

If we out to limit carbon, we shouldn't do it by annointing a particular technology with a subsidy. We should impose a carbon tax or a cap and trade system and let wind fend for itself. The wind industry needs to consolidate around 3 or 4 turbine manufacturers (like the combustion turbine industry) which should help lower costs further. If we keep the PTC's in place, there is less incentive to drive costs down. I'm not sure we really need to legislate carbon reduction - because of the lower cost of gas, MATS, CCR and the NSPS for CO2, about 60 GW of coal plants have or will have retired in the next few years. That has already lowered CO2 emissions substantially and further reductions will occur in the future.

I'm not against renewables. In fact, I actually like distributed solar with battery storage as a technology. Combine it with electric vehicles and smart grid technology and you have a flexible, stable platform.

As far as the subsidies go, I looked at your links and I find the approach taken in calculating the value of subsidies to be ludicrous. The cost of defending the Persian Gulf is a subsidy? Accelerated depreciation is a subsidy? Sorry, but I don't accept that the difference between a puntive tax on revenue and the current tax code constitutes a subsidy. Those are very warped, biased determinations as to what is a subsidy done by people with their own agenda. In any case, I assign about as much credence to people with agendas as you do. I'll consider what they have to say, but in the end, I make up my own mind.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
96. there are plenty of direct and indirect tax breaks and subsidies for oil & gas; the link i
Tue May 21, 2013, 02:26 PM
May 2013

provided goes to links which explore some of them.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
98. the link took you to the results of a google search for gas subsidies. the natural gas industry
Tue May 21, 2013, 02:44 PM
May 2013

basically gets the same subsidies and breaks the oil industry does including some created specifically for it.

EC

(12,287 posts)
31. Why?
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:50 PM
May 2013

none of the other forms of energy survive without welfare and tax credits from the government.

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
102. That sounds like a capitalist idea! More important to
Wed May 22, 2013, 09:12 AM
May 2013

get a business competing on its own than to transition off of fossil fuels. Wouldn't want to have any unfair advantages in the energy industry.

Or maybe we should do all that we can to rid ourselves of the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. If that's a priority for anyone anymore these days. Seems tax incentives would be a no-brainer to help a new industry get off its feet and calling for their cessation at this point seems way too soon. What's the real goal here? Just another competitive business? Or to end our dependence on oil and gas?

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
104. There are plenty of capitalists in the wind industry already
Wed May 22, 2013, 10:07 AM
May 2013

GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi and other big companies produce the turbines and there companies like BP, Shell and major financial players that own wind farms.

I don't ending the use of fossil fuels as an achievable or a desirable goal, but I do think that getting rid of our oldest and dirtiest coal plants is a good idea. To a great extent that is already happening. I like natural gas fired generation and distributed solar (with battery storage) as a model for our future power needs.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
21. Someone tell the Dukes, uh, I mean the Kochs, about Wind Fracking.
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:19 PM
May 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022871282

They'd change to supporting wind in a heartbeat (someone else's heartbeat, though, as they have none.)

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
24. Warning to Republicans and some crooked Democrats
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:35 PM
May 2013

Snorting Koch is politically toxic. No one who takes money from those Birch bred bastards deserves any public support.

 

Trajan

(19,089 posts)
32. What, no CAPS ???
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:50 PM
May 2013

I thought the only way we could talk about toxic wind was with statements that used ALL CAPITOL LETTERS?

Yeah ... some silly ass threads floated by this weekend, and I finally discovered what an absolute @$% that person is ....

I'm guessing that person lived near a wind farm and didn't like seeing the hardware ... why not just directly say "I don't like how it looks" instead of concocting this silly ruse about toxicity? ... I would have greater respect for that ....

Ilsa

(61,633 posts)
35. A level playing field might require Oil companies to give up
Mon May 20, 2013, 02:55 PM
May 2013

their govt subsidies.

I'm so tired of the Kochroach brothers.

 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
38. Someone was sending me emails and website links that claimed windmills were...
Mon May 20, 2013, 03:14 PM
May 2013

...making people crazy. Somehow afflicting them with disorientation or ADHD or some such. People buy this crap! They actually believe it!

I have family that live very near 800+ windmills. And while some of their sanity is jokingly in question - this was so long before they ever moved there. IOW, the wind farms have naught to do with any psychological or mental issues people have. They do not make noise. They do not cause harmful 'air vibrations' that affect people's mental health. But there is propaganda out there which seeks to make such claims - of course with little to no credible resources or research to back it up. I figure the Kochs are behind it - or someone else in the oil, coal, and gas industries.

It's such a load of hooey.

Where they live, sheep, cows and emus (yes, emus) live, graze, sleep and sun themselves beneath the windmills on the wind farm. It has no ill effect on them or any communities of humans living nearby. Most of the folks who live there don't mind the windmills at all and a field of them is quite beautiful.

It will be a damn hard sell with me, based on my personal experience, to convince me that wind energy or wind farms are in any way dangerous to humans.

LisaLynne

(14,554 posts)
43. Yeah, it's really weird.
Mon May 20, 2013, 04:11 PM
May 2013

In the past, people have always believed weird claims about new technology (i.e. that people would fly apart when going 50 MPH on a train and the like). So, in that way, I guess it's not *that* weird, but at the same time, I guess I believed in some small way that people would have gotten over it, just a little bit, you know? But ... naw. Guess not.

MAD Dave

(204 posts)
59. Sing it Triana.....
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:42 PM
May 2013

......Sing it long and sing it proud. There are even "academics" that spout this sort of paranoid drivel.

It really is a pet peeve of mine.......BAD SCIENCE and worse science education.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
60. Hundreds of years of windmills in Netherlands and East Coast of England.
Mon May 20, 2013, 06:19 PM
May 2013

You'd think there would be a long history of cancer and all the other BS some people are claiming.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
89. Its a fact that windmills are making people crazy.
Tue May 21, 2013, 12:02 PM
May 2013


Oil executives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_generation_potential_in_the_United_States


The wind generation potential in the United States far exceeds demand. There are only two states with no commercially significant wind power potential, Mississippi and Florida. Florida has the potential to install 900 MW at 25% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines,[1] and Mississippi the potential to install 30,000 MW at 25% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines.[2] For commercial operation, a capacity factor of at least 35% is preferred. There are no locations in either state that would achieve 30% capacity factor. In contrast, North Dakota, the windiest state, has the capacity to install 200,000 MW at 50% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines.[3] Texas, although not as windy, is larger, and has the capacity to install 250,000 MW at 50% capacity factor,[4] and 1,757,355.6 MW of at least 35% capacity factor, capable of generating 6,696,500 GWh/year, more than all of the electricity generated in the United States in 2010.


kristopher

(29,798 posts)
39. The FF industry isn't the only source.
Mon May 20, 2013, 03:52 PM
May 2013

The fossil fuel industry has a network of think tanks that put out propaganda, and they've organized a rather passive internet presence that presents a shallow image of grassroots activism against renewables.
The post people are poking fun of in this thread is a good example of the nature of that effort.

The nuclear industry sees its last opportunity to become the mainstay of global energy being obstructed by the growth of the renewable sector.
In 2003 the Bush's White House Chief of Staff started coordinating with the nuclear industry to organize their workforce along the same lines the military uses for crisis response. The idea was to protect the nuclear industry from bad publicity when negative events occurred and to that end they created teams of industry scientists and public relations personnel who were tasked with responding to any bad publicity with 'facts' that were favorable to the industry.
I use the military designation for these teams and call them Crisis Action Teams. A CAT has all the normal tools of a world class PR organization at its disposal. But in addition it has access to one thing no other group I've seen has - a dedicated network of working professionals who (again modeled on the military) have been inculcated with the philosophy that they are "ambassadors" for the nuclear industry. Through their professional organizations and employers they are charged with going out into all venues of information exchange and representing their industry to a public being led astray by "greenies".
Of course, that is their right - just as it is the right of the fossil fuel industry to promote the interests of their members. But just as we see with the fossil fuel industry, the nuclear industry has problems finding the ethical line separates what is acceptable participation in public debate from can best be termed deceptive propaganda.
In the case of the fossil fuel industry it is largely a top down problem; something we see exemplified by the Koch brothers machinations and the output of groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
This is where the nuclear industry is most different from the fossil fuel industry - their ethical lapse resides in the unsupervised and tacitly encouraged behavior of the legion of 'ambassadors' they've sent created and unleashed. Originally envisioned as a tool functioning to maintain a sense of reality during crisis' such as Fukushima, this cadre of nuclear evangelicals has morphed into a global presence that dogs the comments sections of newspapers and online publishers of anything positive about renewable energy. They exploit the product of the fossil fuel think tanks in a way that must warm the hears of the members of the American Legislative Exchange Council (in case you don't know ALEC is on a mission to roll back public policy support for renewables at the state level across the country).
DU is a great example of this effort in action. I see virtually no activism against renewables here that I would attribute to the fossil fuel industry. But the efforts of the nuclear industry are unceasing for they (correctly) view renewable energy deployment as an existential threat from a fundamentally incompatible energy system.

FWIW.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
50. Wow, who knew this plot would take this kind of twist?
Mon May 20, 2013, 05:24 PM
May 2013

Thanks for keeping up with this Sid! The Hammer of Truth is bashing away at the dark and exposing some interesting revelations about our current round of anti-wind hysteria. It is sad to find out it was politically motivated by the GOPukers and SOME HERE are helping them push their destructive agenda!

jpak

(41,705 posts)
64. This is what repugs have done since the 1980's
Mon May 20, 2013, 06:29 PM
May 2013

In Washington and California.

This is why we buy wind turbines from the EU.

Yup

 

pintobean

(18,101 posts)
69. From now on, jurors should hide any post
Mon May 20, 2013, 09:03 PM
May 2013

Last edited Mon May 20, 2013, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

that uses East County Magazine as a source. If they're not in bed with the Kochs, they may as well be.


Maybe ECM would like to return to the good ole days.


Huntington Beach oil rigs 1938

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
70. I'd say that maybe GD Hosts would lock those threads...
Mon May 20, 2013, 09:34 PM
May 2013

but if they don't think UFO crop circle woo is off-topic, then I don't know if anything is.

Sid

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
78. Every once and a while you gotta take one. 'Insufferable' is a good word.
Tue May 21, 2013, 08:15 AM
May 2013

"Shtick" (sic) is another one-- a very revealing word.

 

MindPilot

(12,693 posts)
73. Least County Times, BREAKING: WINDFARMS CAUSE TORNADOS
Tue May 21, 2013, 07:55 AM
May 2013

This is new people I know most of you won’t get it because you aren’t nearly as smart as I am
But the first study…mine. Its almost complete and shows a clear connection between failing wind turning blades and super cell formation.
This is real science. I’m doing the physics now vortexes. They are very complicated but the extensive investigative research I’ve done is showing that there are cumulative vortexes.
Clusters. Listen up This is about clusters and they are there. Look at a map people. Clusters of wind farms and clusters of tornados.

I expect to get a lot of you won’t get this. I’ll just ignore you.

NewJeffCT

(56,825 posts)
85. So, if wind needs to compete on a level playing field
Tue May 21, 2013, 10:38 AM
May 2013

does that mean the Koch brothers are also in favor of getting rid of the billions in oil subsidies so oil can compete on a level playing field, too?

Somehow, I don't think so.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
86. This is a much larger story than people realize. On August 2nd Romney lost the election on this
Tue May 21, 2013, 11:50 AM
May 2013

one issue.

Romney came out against the subsidy.

That was the end of the election for all practical purposes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014183554#post16

I don't live in a rural area but I have relatives who do and one is an attorney. One of the most recent little constant jobs he gets is helping the farmers get the maximum rate for putting in a wind turbine. They don't make a lot but even an additional $ 1000 a month is a big deal for a farmer that has to go through times when there is no cash coming in waiting for harvest or waiting for the season to start.

The most stunning point of the campaign was when the Republican Nominee came out against wind subsidy. Do they not understand anything about their rural base?

At that point there was no possibility of a Romney win, he had to turn some states red and Iowa was a must turn.

Problem is that Iowa leads the country in wind turbines on farm land:









http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/farming-the-wind-wind-power.html

Working with Wind Developers
One of the easiest and most attractive ways for farmers to benefit from wind power is to allow developers to install large wind turbines on their land. The royalties are typically around $2,000 to $5,000 per year for each turbine, depending on its size. These payments can provide a stable supplement to a farmer's income, helping to counteract swings in commodity prices.



So when the Republicans come out against the wind subsidy they are giving the state to the Democrats. Obama won Iowa by 90,000 votes, approximately the number of farmers and their families that are directly related to the wind subsidy in Iowa.

Moreover their explanation is absurdly cynical.



Their main argument: Wind is too costly and should compete on a "level playing field" rather than survive on "handouts."



To that I have a single word answer:

Ethanol

Don't think that the people of Iowa saw right thru that one?

I know that they have lost touch with their rural base, but for god sake don't they know how to use google?

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
101. yup.....
Wed May 22, 2013, 08:56 AM
May 2013

my community college has a very good track record of students graduating and finding jobs in the wind turbine industry. the program director thought this was going to be a permanent program but the killing of the tax incentives and the opposition to the turbines sealed the death of the program.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The goal was to make wind...