[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Try multi-category search (beta) »

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind should be forced to compete  

When an operator of a coal fired plant states they are showing a loss in annual revenue, they are comparing wind to coal but including using Production Tax Credits (PTC) as a big part of their calculations. The PTC enables wind farms to sell into the market sometimes at negative pricing -- due to the tax subsidies. Utilities are gambling on closing plants that burn coal and banking on the public’s tax payments to subsidize wind as a “base load” option. (I will not get into the ridiculousness of that statement in this writing).

Credit:  The Bismarck Tribune | Aug 4, 2020 | bismarcktribune.com ~~

Having worked in the North Dakota energy industry as a business owner for the past 37 years, I take issue with many of the conclusions former Commissioner Tony Clark stated in his recent op-ed.

He is correct when he says natural gas is a competitor to the coal industry. Gas is cheap and if anyone wants to add more electrons to the grid, natural gas might be the best and least expensive option. But only if, A) there is a gas line with adequate capacity close by and, B) if the coal plant that is being replaced is truly at its life’s end. Building a new gas plant is not cheaper than an already existing coal plant.

However, he is dead wrong in his argument on wind … the economic calculation of “wind” vs “coal” is more complicated than most people think.

When an operator of a coal fired plant states they are showing a loss in annual revenue, they are comparing wind to coal but including using Production Tax Credits (PTC) as a big part of their calculations. The PTC enables wind farms to sell into the market sometimes at negative pricing – due to the tax subsidies. Utilities are gambling on closing plants that burn coal and banking on the public’s tax payments to subsidize wind as a “base load” option. (I will not get into the ridiculousness of that statement in this writing).

The anti-wind sentiment Mr. Clark speaks to in his letter in North Dakota is right on. Imagine being a miner or a plant employee and knowing your tax dollars are being used to put you out of a job. I applaud the counties in North Dakota that have placed a moratorium on wind production. Wind should be eliminated from the conversation as a low-cost producer. Wind should be forced to stand on its own two feet and compete if it is a truly competitive source of supply.

Now let’s compare job creation. Most jobs in the wind industry are temporary – such as construction. A coal plant operates for 40-60 years and operates at a VERY low cost. Between the mine and the power plant, hundreds of employees are hired at wages superior to those in the wind industry and at a multiple of one (wind) to 150+ (coal).

Now let’s talk about the service industry that supports the plants and mines. Besides the hundreds of jobs tied directly to the industry, there are thousands of people employed at service companies that support the mines and plants not calculated into the ratio used above.

Mr. Clark speaks about land owners who benefit from leasing their land … true … however the BIG picture is that if you build 4000 megawatts of wind in North Dakota, which we are approaching, and then subsidize wind (PTC’s) with these same people receiving the land lease payment, we lose sight of which producer is really benefiting the economy; wind or coal, for the long term.

Finally, let us not forget the “unintended consequences” due to plant shutdowns. What happens to the economy in the small towns and counties, what happens to the schools, the main street stores, and all the suppliers who support the plants? They go away!

The people who lose their jobs due to coal plant closures are still paying taxes (PTC) to operate the “wind farm,” but they are not in the area to make a living any longer. So, does the landowner really benefit from withered towns and counties when there are less people to pay taxes for schools and other services?

This is the economic evaluation that must be done when comparing wind subsidies to the longevity of a coal plant.

I respect Commissioner Clark, but disagree with him on virtually every point in his op-ed.

Perrie Schafer

Perrie Schafer is CEO of Environmental Services, Ltd., in Mandan.

Source:  The Bismarck Tribune | Aug 4, 2020 | bismarcktribune.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

 Follow: