In a recent editorial the Daily Times spouts the propaganda of an industry trade group (American Wind Power Association) about the benefits of electric power provided by wind turbines and a bogus economic analysis prepared by an associate professor at Coppin State University. This so-called expert analysis, which is being fed to the public and local officials by the investors who want to bring the huge windmills to Somerset County, should be understood for the scam that it is.
One of the claims – that data shows that wind power generation has greatly reduced the cost of electric power to consumers – has been revealed as a hoax by an independent and objective analysis of the actual data, which was manipulated by the AWPA to support its false claim. The details are here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/27/wind-industry-study-electricity-prices-skyrocketing-in-largest-wind-power-states/
In Texas, the only state with significant wind generated electric power in which the charges have decreased, the drop is due to that state’s deregulation policy under Gov. Rick Perry. The AWPA study incorrectly attributes the drop to the wind farms there.
The notion that wind farms have sprung up in many states because of the lower cost of electricity from wind power is pure fiction. There are other reasons, including state laws that require power companies to obtain power from so-called renewable sources. And to make investment in wind farms feasible, the federal government has offered huge tax subsidies, called the “production tax credit.”
As Warren Buffett, who is a major investor in wind farms, recently said: “They don't make sense without the tax credit." Wind power is much more expensive to produce than power from the conventional sources – fossil fuel and hydroelectric – which are also more reliable.
The Daily Times also spouts the wind industry’s spiel about the local economic benefits of wind farms: jobs by the score, if the County Commissioners do what the investors want. That economic projection mentioned about those benefits is too absurd to take seriously. The windmill towers and equipment are made elsewhere and the construction and maintenance work is done by specialized firms located elsewhere. There would be some temporary but very minor stimulus during the development phase and then a handful of permanent positions to mow the grass and remove the birds killed or crippled by the blades. But, as that old cartoon said at the end, “That’s All, Folks.”
The scam being perpetrated in the Daily Times about the economic aspects of wind power is important to expose, but not as much as that regarding the serious health effects of the wind turbines, which we will soon discuss in a separate post.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
13 comments:
The people of Somerset should really educate themselves about the windmills. Unfortunately most are narrow minded and believe what they are told by the press and elected officials. Many think if the windmills generate more tax money for the county, all the county's problems will be solved. The only folks that should be for this project are the landowners who are being paid a lot of money for the use of there land.
I don't think anyone has suggested that more tax money will solve all of Somersets problems. But I think everyone can agree that without more tax money there will be many more problems in Somerset very soon. You are absolutely correct about the abundance of narrow minded people who refuse to educate themselves on wind turbines. This explains why so many people are clinging to the belief that these machines will be 700 or more feet tall (despite FAA permits only going to 599ft), making so much noise it is impossible to sleep, killing masses of birds and slinging ice for over a mile. Why should the only people supporting this project be hosting land owners? Shouldn't many people like to see Somerset better itself economically?
The no to everything crowd is out again! They take an editorial from an anti wind writer and claim they have scientific proof. A number of Universities have done research on wind power cost but I'm not going to waste my time asking you to read them because bottom line what difference does it make? Great Bay is privately funded and will sell electricity on the open market. If they lose money its on them! And yes I know there are green energy mandates but they still have to compete with green energy producers. And no they receive no subsidies just tax credits on which they have to make money to receive.The University of Baltimore study speaks for itself 2.9 million tax revenue annually. They have presented all their work to the public and shown their credentials. If you are going to insist their work is flawed how about you do the same.
The majority of the criticisms of wind turbines such as the perceived health problems, the noise, the ice, falling towers, the reduced property values are all questionable. The only valid criticism is their efficiency. They make doubtful economic sense without the government subsidy. No wise investor would get involved. Compare the cost of electricity by wind to coal or natural gas--coal is about $0.03 per kwh, gas about $0.045 and land based wind is $0.17 kwh (Note: off shore wind is approx. $0.29 per kwh.) In Somerset County you have a Planning Board that is trying to make a recommendation with questionable membership. The chairwoman is an announced progressive--and Ms Truitt has been an open opponent of Wind Energy both before appointment to the Board and after. How can one serve with a preconceived opinion on the subject matter. It's an obvious conflict of interest. (They should get a real lawyer to give them an opinion. You know, one that will actually do some research.) How do so many liberals get appointed to positions of authority--even in conservative areas like Somerset.
I have attended meetings. I have had discussions with the Commissioners and some landowners. I have read information of AWPA and many articles on the computer seeking pros and cons. With all the information I have gleaned I believe I have a good understanding wind turbines.
I read the editorial in the Daily Times (believe it or not, we born here Somerset folks can read and comprehend) and I have read the opinion of the publisher of this blog.
I read comments on blogs and newspapers but they do not factor into conclusions I draw on any subject. Comments I generally find is someone spouting off - to be funny - or malicious - without an inkling of what they speak of.
An editorial in a newspaper or on a blog is the writer's opinion. I'm not sure if this article is about wind turbines or a reprimand to the Editor of the Daily Times for having an opinion. I (like I've been told never to do) assume this was written by SBYNEWS and he will be fighting wind turbines in the opposite opinion as the Daily Times.
Being older than dirt I learned many years ago that facts can be twisted and turned to prove what he/she want facts to say. So for all those many years I've scrounged for all the info on subjects that are a concern to me or my neighborhood and try to make an informed decision, based on my findings.
1:36, My article today has NOTHING to do with the DT's saying one thing and my simply arguing their views.
Please look at today's article timed at 4:01, the top article right now. Please read it and perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from as I agree with the author.
I hardly ever agree with the blogs BUT I have to agree the DT is no more than FISHWRAP. They have either lost or fired the reporters who would write competant articles that could be substantiated. As far as the 'against everthing' crowd, as I attended the meeting 9/4/14 I found the room full of people who are ultra successful at their professional endeavors, a Hell of a lot more than the empty-heads spouting BS above. As for convincing, I`ll be convinced when Barbra Miculski, the Navy, and the folks from M.I.T. are. I`ll put a LOT more stock in what they say than some come-here who thinks they know whats best for me, a taxpayer. To them I say ' GO BACK WHERE THE HELL YOU CAME FROM. To the DT I say mind your own F*%@!^&ing business. Bob Aswell
12:29 --
Apparently you are one of the landowners who would get royalty money for the windmills. Those tax credits -- which they sell to others for $$$$ -- is a subsidy, and it costs tax dollars. Warren Buffett hit the nail on the head.
The report by the University of Baltimore (actually someone from Coppin State) is balderdash, without any real data on which to base its BS.
3:30 PM Nope - live opposite end of county - Looked at my notes, nothing from Coppin State - looked at my comment and I haven't said if I was for or against - so like I misread Joe's article, you have misread my comment. I judged pros and cons from many sources and came to a conclusion on wind turbines
USFWS has confirmed the turbines are 5.0 MW turbines with a hub height of 459'. Adam said in a So. MD news story the blades are over 200'. The United States Navy confirmed Pioneer Green is requesting turbine heights of 690'.
Turbines of this magnitude are no where in the United States.
Paul Harris has not provided turbine specs so that safe siting can be implemented. The P&Z Commission Board is weighing evidence to safely site turbines in Somerset. Somerset residents are smart and concerned about their future. Oh yeah, except for the county commissioners.
what difference? we have to use the mercury laden cfl bulbs, don't we?
(whether we want to or not)
I too attended the hearings and was not at all impressed with the opposition. One speaker talked about protecting Crisfield's airport for commercial development because it was one of only two airports on the shore with a paved runway. I'm not a retired navy pilot like him but I count at least 4 and good luck getting a company interested in working out of Crisfield. He also mentioned helicopter landing pads on the turbines.LOL! You had a good ole boy talk for about a half hour about how Somerset was sitting on over 10 million dollars and didn't need any economic growth. Unbelievable! You did have a retired Doctor give a coherent talk on noise however since he was all for the project and wanted as many Turbines as he could get I take his testimony with a grain of salt. Turbine noise wasn't a problem for him till he found out he couldn't get out of a easement so if he couldn't have one he didn't want anyone to have one. Many people continued to claim the turbines were 690',750' or even 1000' tall. Great Bay long ago submitted a copy of their FAA application which states the turbines will be 599' maximum height or less.
6:13 The FAA permits are for 599 feet. Regardless of what anyone else says they cannot exceed this by a single inch. USFWS is not a sanctioning body on the height neither is the Navy. They were probably given maximum figures to use for their assessments before Pioneer applied for the FAA permits. The FAA permit gives them the right to intrude into airspace but they cannot exceed this permit. If you want to validate the details of the permit call the FAA!
Post a Comment