START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Subsidizing Big Wind: The Real Costs to Taxpayers


Environment  (tags: Wind Power, Inefficiency, Subsidy, Taxpayer Money, Unsustainable cost, oversubsidized, costly and inefficient, boondoggle, irresponsible spending, Green Energy failure )

Paula
- 748 days ago - manhattan-institute.org
A look at the wind industry from four different angles--direct subsidies, mandates, cost of jobs produced, and ongoing exemptions from federal wildlife laws--shows that no other part of the energy industry receives such preferential treatment.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Paula M. (39)
Wednesday October 3, 2012, 3:17 pm
From the report:




Findings:

* On a per-unit-of-energy-produced basis, the PTC provides a subsidy to the wind industry that is at least 12 times greater than that provided to the oil and gas sector and 6.5 times greater than that provided to the nuclear industry.

* More than two-thirds of the American population live in states that have mandated the use of renewable electricity, and those mandates are imposing significant costs on ratepayers.

* If viewed solely as a job-saving measure, a one-year extension of the PTC will cost about $329,000 per job.

* Despite numerous violations, the Obama administration—like the Bush administration before it—has unofficially exempted the wind industry from prosecution under the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts. If Congress extends the PTC, federal taxpayers will, in effect, be subsidizing the killing of federally protected birds.
 

Edo R. (71)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 12:39 am
Thanks for sharing!
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 7:04 am
Thanks.
 

Joan McAllister (1083)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 8:01 pm
Thanks for sharing Paula
 

Frans Badenhorst (552)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:34 am
noted, interesting, thanks
 

Adam Hamilton (1)
Friday October 5, 2012, 6:16 am
noted
 

Dave C. (216)
Friday October 5, 2012, 9:45 am
while I don't want to see the birds killed, I always wonder how many lives (human, animal, etc) are shortened each year by subsidies to coal, gas, oil????? I am not just counting mining or drilling deaths either.......
 

John Gregoire (257)
Friday October 5, 2012, 10:19 am
All of these subsidies need to be terminated. The only resuklt has been unsafe siting resulting in the deaths of migratory birds and bats.
 

onita Caldwell (32)
Friday October 5, 2012, 11:36 am
Why does our government feel they have to subsidize any business? Especially ones that are already too big for their britches. They should be allowed to either make it or not on their own. If they poured any money into small business start-ups I think the money would be much better spent.
 

Karin B. (31)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:07 pm
We most certainly do not need subsidies for coal, gas, and oil. Those businesses are already profitable. But we do need subsidies for renewal energies (especially solar) until they get off the ground. It is irresponsible that we allow big oil, gas, and coal businesses tell us that it is too expensive to invest in renewable energy. Actually, we cannot afford to allow these industries to stay in the 20th century while the rest of the world is moving on. If you look at Germany, for example, over 30% of all electricity demand is provided by photovoltaic solar energy: That’s the equivalent of 20 huge conventional fossil or nuclear power plants. The solar industry in Germany is doing so well financially that the government has pulled all subsidies.

Right now, Germany is the leader in solar, closely followed by China. This is where the future is. And what are we doing? Sitting by and moaning that it is too expensive to move into the 21st Century, while big oil, coal, and gas are making money hands over fists by polluting and destroying our environment. I really do not know what I would call more unpatriotic than that.

 

Aletta Kraan (146)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:33 pm
Noted , thanks ! Solar is the best !
 

Vicky P. (466)
Friday October 5, 2012, 2:47 pm
interesting, but we subsidize coal, oil, pretty much everything, so harping on wind technology isn't doing anyone any good
 

Paula M. (39)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:04 pm
The problem, Vicky, is a matter of degree. Small subsidies to help encourage development of new energy sources may be justifiable, but massive subsidies that try to pick favorites in the market are costly wastes of money - and, as the article indicates, props up inefficient and destructive business activities.
 

Janet R. (34)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:21 pm
We are subsiding to make it more attractive for companies to invest in that technology. Obviously, we do not need subsidies for gas, oil, and coal especially when you look at the obscene profits those industries are making. We are never going to get alternatives unless the government offers subsidies.
 

Lloyd H. (46)
Friday October 5, 2012, 7:44 pm
Now that I have thrown up in my mouth after seeing the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is the source. Let's get to the facts. MIPR is a conservative, market oriented think tank on par with The Heritage Foundation, that bases all of its solutions on 'free market' ideology. MIPR does not release the actual amounts of corporate donations they do list the following among their top donors: Koch Brothers, Exxon Mobil, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chase Manhattan, CIGNA, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group, Merrill Lynch. Keep these donors in mind.
They fund the Capitalism Project that promotesUniversitiess to further the understanding of capitalism in their curricula because there is a systemic misunderstanding and ignorance of capitalism. Sounds like Romney/Ryan.
They fund the Veritas Fund based on the assumption that American universities do not teach or teach flawed histories and/or views of Western Civilization, American economic and political institutions. Smells like Santorum.
Now thinking of that donor list and the reference article consider that MIPR was a leader AGAINST allowing Medicare Part D to negotiate lower drug prices, like every other Federal drug program, for Seniors
Most importantly MIPR IS one of the Leading Advocates FOR FRACKING.
Can you say, 'a lying corporate vultursheep'sheeps clothing'? Well I can and do this is BS from a corporate funded reich-wing think tank that has an agenda and that is to increase the profit margins for those who pay them.
 

Kamila A. (141)
Saturday October 6, 2012, 6:20 pm
Wind, solar, and ocean wave energy are what we need to more deeply investigate even with all the obstruction from those who have investments in oil and gas. Dinosaur fumes are of the past, we need to evolve or perish.
 

Paula M. (39)
Monday October 8, 2012, 12:21 pm
Lloyd, if this is truly BS as you say you should have no trouble refuting the facts asserted in the report.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.