Look at historical subsidies — fossil fuels and nukes have been getting significant subsidies for generations. Compared to other sources, wind has more power on the grid compared to historical subsidies.

Picking one year out of the hat doesn’t show the full picture.

And yet again, the studies mentioned don’t account for health and environmental subsidies in the form of added social costs.

As for jobs, there are over 100,000 solar energy jobs in the use, and approximately 75,000 wind energy jobs. Again, you’re cherry-picking numbers from one construction project. You need to look at the big picture.

I don’t see the value in wind energy from a financial standpoint, or an environmental standpoint.

Senator Cornyn of Texas asked Congressional Research Service to evaluate subsidies for energy.

Their findings-

Federal subsidies for renewables are almost 50 times as great per unit of energy as federal subsidies for fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels that gets about 13% of the federal tax support contributed about 78 percent of our energy production in 2009.

Renewable energy gets about 77% percent of federal energy tax subsidies and contributes about t10.6 percent of our energy production.

http://www.masterresource.org/2011/05/big-wind-sen-alexander/

Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind and 80% of that money went overseas.

Americans fund renewables jobs in China and jobs in the US that cost up to $38 million-each.

Investigative reporter Ira Stoll writes in Future of Capitalism of Boston-based First Wind and job cost::

“First Wind Holdings LLC will get a $117 million loan guarantee from federal “stimulus” funds to finance the construction and start-up of a wind energy project in Kahuku, Hawaii, the federal Department of Energy announced Friday. Once complete, the project will create “six to ten” jobs, according to the Department of Energy.

At $117 million, works out to a federally guaranteed loan of between $19.5 million and $11.7 million for each job created….”

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/03/another-117-million-for-first-wind

Wind farm costs Ore. taxpayers heavily
PORTLAND, Ore. (The Associated Press) – Mar 14 – By TED SICKINGER

“…Yet by any standard, the cost per job is enormous: $34 million per permanent position when all federal and state subsidies are tallied…”

continue reading:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/03/wind-farm-costs-ore-taxpayers-heavily

Oregon @ $34 million beats Massachusetts @ $19.5 million each green job cost

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2011/03/27/6354820-oregon-34-million-beats-massachusetts-195-million-each-green-job-cost

Your claim that wind power is all some giant con trick is made to look like the ranting of a crazy person when we look at the growth of global wind power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GlobalWindPowerCumulativeCapacity.png

China, in particular, is making massive investments in wind. How do you explain that other than with some crazy conspiracy theory?

P.S. When you start off pretending to be a serious commentator and then offer an article that cites James Inhofe, amongst other crazy sources, then your credibility vanishes. You’ll need to produce something more convincing than Fox News talking points to fool people on this site.

I already supplied information on green jobs in the first reply to you — did you ignore that?

I just added emissions info in another comment. Please have a look. The study discussed in that link was conducted by a climate scientist and another scientist complately unrelated to the wind industry.

Coal has been declining and renewables have been filling the gap more than anything else: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/02/natural-gas-vs-renewable-energy-growth/
It’s clear you don’t spend a lot of time on our site. So, if you come here trolling our site, you might want to look around for the facts you claim you want to see before claiming the opposite is true.

The evidence has been furnished. Are you going to change your mind? Probably not — you clearly have an agenda with wind energy that is not based in facts but in some sort of emotional reaction to them.

As for your remaining questions and claims, they get even more out of touch with reality. Again, take a look at the subsidies link and other links above.

fossil fuels and nuclear have gotten subsidies for much longer than wind power, and continue to. historical subsidies don’t compare — wind has a ton more on the grid than anything else did at the subsidy level it is at: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/27/early-fossil-fuel-nuclear-energy-subsidies-crush-early-renewable-energy-subsidies/
also note that wind is cutting back the $500 billion a year the US pays in health costs from coal.

your thoughts on wind’s environmental downsides are misplaced, it’s like focusing on the fact that food is lost (goes rotten) in the fields, transportation, and stores. yes, this happens, but the net effect is positive. the net effect of wind is strongly positive. when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, only solar PV, solar thermal, and nuclear compare: http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/02/clean-energy-is-needed-now-climate-scientists-climate-economists-say/
again, this misplaced focus is like complaining that the floor is filthy because of a single speck of dirt, meanwhile your (fossil fuel) floor is covered in mud. it’s not logical if you take one step of perspective.

again, see the link above.

as for jobs, you’ve got to be kidding me. in my several years of reading
and writing about this topic, i have never seen that claim backed up with
any facts at all. there are now about 70,000 jobs in the wind industry.

I understand why this would be a very tough sell to the private sector.

Why is the renewables sector not even sustainable with 60% public investment?

And what’s “early stage” about wind energy that has been around since the days of Egypt? It still requires us to predict the weather with accuracy, and take the day off when the wind’s not blowing and the gas pump isn’t flowing.

Wind energy is regression in socioeconomic, jobs and environmental terms. It works well when the objective is to shift public wealth to multinationals from the perspective of multinationals.

‘Green jobs, Santa Claus and Unicorn Land’

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/26/3954003-green-jobs-santa-claus-and-unicorn-land

Right here, I’m calling BS.

Bring facts if you want that kite to fly….

—

All your investment stuff – a valid role of government is to provide help to emerging technology. It’s how it’s worked in the past and it’s been a very major reason for our success as a country.

Early stage, it’s really hard to pick the winners. If picking the companies which turn out to be successful was easy, even possible, then private money would be all over the task and there would be no need for public money.

Some ideas seem good but until they are given a fair test, one doesn’t know. And some ideas are good but an ‘unexpected’ can emerge that makes them not-so-good ideas.

Take a few minutes and do a time-limited search on Solyndra. Read what the financial media was writing back at start-up time. The consensus in the private sector that giving Solyndra loan guarantees was a good idea.

No one foresaw the rapid price drop of PV panels. That’s what killed Solyndra – an unforeseeable and unexpected.

—

How you feel about your ‘forced investments’ in computer? In satellite technology? In railroads and the electric grid? In the highway system?

Thanks for your response.

If you were to elect to invest your money in renewables, I would wish you well. My independent investigation of Massachusetts renewable companies results indicate that Evergreen Solar and Beacon Power are the first green bubble business ventures to burst. The multiple companies I’m forced to invest in are not sustainable even with public subsidies in excess of 60% and more.

I’m a fan of the free market. Especially in the context of wind energy that got its commercial start in the US as Enron Wind, Zond, purchased by GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, Obama’s advisor.

GE petitioned the court for their money back as the value of the “Enron” “asset” wasn’t worth the price GE paid.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/15/business/fi-wind15

There’s a lesson here.

One of the nation’s largest wind companies, UPC (First Wind), set up in China in 2006 in response to government support to companies like Goldwind of Xinjiang, China. Goldwind Xinjiang will continue to export wind turbine components to the US thru Goldwind USA, an office employing former First Wind staffers in Chicago, for the Goldwind of Xinjiang China company, who announced just profit losses of 78%.

The renewables industry is acutely aware of favorable conditions in China where an engineer’s wage is $500 per month. China also controls 98% of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals used in the manufacturing of wind turbines.

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/04/7011643-hypocrisy-of-wind-energy-exposed-by-greenpeace

Why is it that wind is not held to the standard of biomass as in MA that requires a life cycle analysis only for biomass? The wind lobby would prefer the public remains in the dark about the full life cycle of wind energy? There’s not one step in the rare earth mineral mining process that is not toxic to the environment according to Greenpeace toxic’s expert Jaime Choi, above link.

There are more than 14,000 steel, concrete, and fiberglass wind turbines abandoned in the US. The fiberglass blades cannot be recycled. Concrete and steel processing are environmentally harmful as are the trucks’ emission and vessel trips from China to the US and UK to deliver components. It took 30 vessel trips from China to the UK to deliver 1/2 of the foundations for the 140 total offshore Gabbard project, now “sinking”, “shifting” and “corroding” as is the case with all offshore UK projects.

The wind industry destroys more jobs that it creates and its benefits are perennially elusive. But its adverse impacts are measurable, actual and unacceptable.

Why should we expect the product of the parent Enron will deliver public or environmental benefits, reliable or commercially reasonable energy?

Thank You,

Barbara

I imagine you have good intentions, but you’re off target.

Try:

Independent Review Finds DOE Loan Program Working
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/10/independent-report-doe-loan-program-working-could-be-improved/

Solar Fastest Growing Industry in US
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/16/321131/solar-fastest-growing-industry-in-america-and-made-record-cost-reductions/

Wind Power Making Electricity Cheaper
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/02/wind-power-is-making-electricity-cheaper-exxon-wind-to-be-cheapest-source-of-electricity/

6 Things You Really Need to Know about Solar Power

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/30/renewable-energy-facts/

3.1 Million Green Jobs Across US

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/23/3-1-million-green-jobs-across-america/

Over 1 Million Jobs on West Coast from Clean Economy Transition

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/16/over-1-million-jobs-on-west-coast-from-clean-economy-transition/

2011 U.S. Solar Market Report — Top 7 Findings & Charts
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/15/us-solar-facts-charts/

We Lose the Clean Energy Race without Government Investments

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/11/we-lose-clean-energy-race-without-government-investments/

Clean energy, without a doubt, will become more and more central to the
global economy in the years and decades to come. You want the US to fall
behind in that race and in the global market?

Green bubble companies concentrated in Massachusetts, the self annointed US “incubator” for renewable companies, have entered the bust cycle, much like the Dot-Com bust of 2000-2001.

Hawaii Free Press
‘Confidential Memo: Wind Turbine Model Installed at Kahuku has Structural Problems’
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5604/Confidential-Memo-Wind-Turbine-Model-Installed-at-Kahuku-has-Structural-Problems.aspx

Massachusetts Green Bubble Alert: First Wind-
http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2012/04/01/10888055-massachusetts-green-bubble-alert-first-wind

Massachusetts Green Bubble Alert: A123 Systems-
http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/27/10887207-massachusetts-green-bubble-alert-a123-systems-aone

Massachusetts Green Bubble Alert: Mass Tank partners with Goldwind of Xinjiang, China-
http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/27/10888647-massachusetts-green-bubble-alert-mass-tank-partners-with-goldwind-of-xinjiang-china

Massachusetts Green Bubble Alert: Flodesign-http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/27/10889807-massachusetts-green-bubble-alert-flodesign

STAFF REPORT
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
112TH CONGRESS
March 20, 2012

‘The Department of Energy’s Disastrous Management of Loan Guarantee Program’. The Congressional Report offers blistering criticism of crony capitalism behind Massachusetts’ companies Beacon Power and First Wind, “Kahuku”, loan guarantees that can be reviewed in the Report:
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FINAL-DOE-Loan-Guarantees-Report.pdf

According to US House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan ‘ Empty Promise of Green Jobs’ study, “The Costly Consequences of Crony Capitalism” 11/21/11:

First Wind Holdings, received a $117 million loan guarantee in March of 2010. First Wind withdrew its initial public offering in October of 2010, due to a lack of investor demand. [11] According to the Boston Globe, investors shied away from the company because “First Wind owes more than $500 million, loses money on a steady basis, and reports a negative cash flow.”[12]

“Empty Promise of Green Jobs”:
http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=261226

Thank You,

Barbara Durkin