A Wind Farm in Coal Country

[turbguy + 1,537]

A short transcript from a NYT podcast.

A Wind Farm in Coal Country

Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Michael Simon Johnson and Leslye Davis; edited by Marc Georges, Dave Shaw and Claudine Ebeid McElwain; and engineered by Marion Lozano.

Wind energy has become a popular target for Republican leaders and pundits. So why are some local conservative lawmakers embracing wind farms?

Tuesday, March 16th, 2021

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/podcasts/the-daily/wind-power-wyoming-climate-change.html?showTranscript=1

 

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

51 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Wind energy has become a popular target for Republican leaders and pundits. So why are some local conservative lawmakers embracing wind farms?

You don't suppose free money from the feds could have anything to do with it, do you? 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Gerry Maddoux
to clarify

[turbguy + 1,537]

7 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

You don't suppose free money from the feds could have anything to do with it, do you? 

Wait, you say they actually RECEIVE cash for building wind farms?

Edited March 17, 2021 by turbguy

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

MidAmerican Energy Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has a seat on AWEA’s board. Berkshire’s subsidy total: $1.5 billion — and it’s primed to collect lots more. In April, the company announced plans to spend $3.6 billion on wind projects in Iowa. Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Well then, have no fear, Skybrators are here!  Exciting new tech.  Although they may come at a cost.  I don't know, though, they seem to be missing something.....perhaps a sheath of some sort?  I think they might actually catch on.  In fact, miniature versions could become de rigueur in every bedside table in America.    Sign up today!

‘Skybrators’ generate clean energy without environmental impact of large windfarms, say green pioneers

@Gerry Maddoux, what would the impact of big, pulsating, phalluses spread across the land?

(Excerpt)

It has already raised eyebrows on the forum site Reddit, where the turbine was likened to a giant vibrating sex toy, or “skybrator”. The unmistakably phallic design attracted more than 94,000 ratings and 3,500 comments on the site. The top rated comment suggested a similar device might be found in your mother’s dresser drawer. It received 20,000 positive ratings from Reddit users.

“Our technology has different characteristics which can help to fill the gaps where traditional windfarms might not be appropriate,” says Yáñez.

(I'll get my coat now....  )

 

[turbguy + 1,537]

22 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

MidAmerican Energy Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has a seat on AWEA’s board. Berkshire’s subsidy total: $1.5 billion — and it’s primed to collect lots more. In April, the company announced plans to spend $3.6 billion on wind projects in Iowa. Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Ah a SUBSIDY, via a tax credit.  That's not receiving cash.  It's avoiding an expense.

I suspect the fossil fuel industry also receives similar benefits, perhaps not to the same degree, but I bet they are there.

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

MidAmerican Energy Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has a seat on AWEA’s board. Berkshire’s subsidy total: $1.5 billion — and it’s primed to collect lots more. In April, the company announced plans to spend $3.6 billion on wind projects in Iowa. Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

Buffet and Munger ignore assets or investments that can't yield 10% because of the opportunity cost associated with buying indexes. It makes sense that they feel this way about wind farms. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

Ah a SUBSIDY, via a tax credit.  That's not receiving cash.  It's avoiding an expense.

I suspect the fossil fuel industry also receives similar benefits, perhaps not to the same degree, but I bet they are there.

 

You're wrong. Instead of calling it a tax credit, look at it this way:

"I'll exchange what I would pay in taxes for an asset that yields 3% annually" 

EDIT: I believe there's also a production subsidy. A direct payment for every kWh produced. So yea. If this is true, there's "'receiving cash" too. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[Meredith Poor + 894]

5 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

MidAmerican Energy Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has a seat on AWEA’s board. Berkshire’s subsidy total: $1.5 billion — and it’s primed to collect lots more. In April, the company announced plans to spend $3.6 billion on wind projects in Iowa. Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

That's what he said two years ago. The math may be a bit different now.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

3 hours ago, turbguy said:

Ah a SUBSIDY, via a tax credit.  That's not receiving cash.  It's avoiding an expense.

I suspect the fossil fuel industry also receives similar benefits, perhaps not to the same degree, but I bet they are there.

Who are you? A guy from Mars? Or a native Wyoming guy? 

One moment you seem relatively sophisticated about the energy business and the ways of the world. The next minute you act as though you fell off the turnip wagon. 

In Wyoming do you not have "shirttail" politicians: those who went into office unable to afford a sports coat and came out rich? How do you think that happens? I mean, just take a guess. 

Why do you think it was not only acceptable in Texas, the Natural Gas capitol of the world, to have windmills, but so incredibly desirable that the governor and congressmen and all truly promoted it? None of those people are "shirttail" politicians today--they're wealthy. 

Yes, there's a subsidy, and not just a small one like oil & gas gets, but a whopper. And watch all those people who warm to this: they will come out of office wealthy. Some of that will be ill-gotten because of legal insider trading, knowing what's up for voting. But most of it will come from the wheels being greased. 

Look, it's fine with me if you like wind, or make your living from it, or want to be a part of the movement. But don't act like this is some profitable business model, because it's not--without exceptionally lucrative subsidies and incentives. I think Wyoming is the perfect place for the windmills. The wind has been blowing every time I went to Wyoming; the state could use the revenue since the coal is dying; it's a clean resource; California will be a steady buyer of electricity. But to think it is not incredibly supported in too many financial chicaneries to count is begging reality. 

2 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

That's what he said two years ago. The math may be a bit different now.

Not much. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Who are you? A guy from Mars? Or a native Wyoming guy? 

One moment you seem relatively sophisticated about the energy business and the ways of the world. The next minute you act as though you fell off the turnip wagon. 

In Wyoming do you not have "shirttail" politicians: those who went into office unable to afford a sports coat and came out rich? How do you think that happens? I mean, just take a guess. 

Why do you think it was not only acceptable in Texas, the Natural Gas capitol of the world, to have windmills, but so incredibly desirable that the governor and congressmen and all truly promoted it? None of those people are "shirttail" politicians today--they're wealthy. 

Yes, there's a subsidy, and not just a small one like oil & gas gets, but a whopper. And watch all those people who warm to this: they will come out of office wealthy. Some of that will be ill-gotten because of legal insider trading, knowing what's up for voting. But most of it will come from the wheels being greased. 

Look, it's fine with me if you like wind, or make your living from it, or want to be a part of the movement. But don't act like this is some profitable business model, because it's not--without exceptionally lucrative subsidies and incentives. I think Wyoming is the perfect place for the windmills. The wind has been blowing every time I went to Wyoming; the state could use the revenue since the coal is dying; it's a clean resource; California will be a steady buyer of electricity. But to think it is not incredibly supported in too many financial chicaneries to count is begging reality. 

Not much. 

You have taken notice to all the different personalities too i see, one minute a adolescent teenager and then a fairly well articulated adult. Bradly PNW was a good example and perhaps when mentioning CowBoy Up one replied with a "code of the west" paste...Now i ask you what does cowboy up have to do with the code of the west....lmao...i do believe only a offshore personality would come up with that BS.

The arrogance of the Big E was beyond reapproach..the guy actually threatened a mod.

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Meredith Poor + 894]

3 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Not much. 

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost

When I try to keyword search 'Wind power prices 2020' I end up getting content that sits behind paywalls. The above link shows a chart of that includes the prices of on-shore and off-shore wind, and it does show wind power prices declining, but, as pointed out 'not by much'. Other stories dated in the 2018 to 2019 time frame suggest that wind turbines can operate without subsidies, at least in some markets. However, the US market has cheap natural gas, so subsidies are still needed.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost

When I try to keyword search 'Wind power prices 2020' I end up getting content that sits behind paywalls. The above link shows a chart of that includes the prices of on-shore and off-shore wind, and it does show wind power prices declining, but, as pointed out 'not by much'. Other stories dated in the 2018 to 2019 time frame suggest that wind turbines can operate without subsidies, at least in some markets. However, the US market has cheap natural gas, so subsidies are still needed.

Articles like that always speak in general terms so I have no idea what the fuck they're referring to. I can't tell if they're talking about yearly returns or the cost of operation. Pretty useless. We all know that the operating cost of renewables beats fossil fuels by a good margin, but what matters is how fast the initial investment is paid off and becomes cashflow positive. 

[Meredith Poor + 894]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Articles like that always speak in general terms so I have no idea what the fuck they're referring to.

Usually LCOE - the total expenditure to acquire, operate, and dispose of the asset divided by the number of Kwh (or Mwh) produced.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Usually LCOE - the total expenditure to acquire, operate, and dispose of the asset divided by the number of Kwh (or Mwh) produced.

And they're claiming that the LCOE of these renewable systems beats ng plants? Maybe I've been doing the math wrong the entire time. 

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

It is heartening  to see so many serious readers exploring this topic.

Some data points 

ITC and PTC (Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits are - in every sense of the terms - hard cash money as they are used, dollar for dollar, in lieu of tax obligations.

Googling the latest iterations (they keep changing) will show what is involved.

Sliding scale ITCs and $23/Mwh PTC, IIRC.

 

Lazard's LCOE has been the 'bible' for comparative cost examples, but the presentations (Version 14 is most recent) have been heavily skewed favoring wind, IMHO.

Using unrealistic $3.45/mmbtu cost of natgas, 20 year lifespan for CCGT plants, and $1 billion capital cost for 550 Mw CCGT plant demeans this work - in my eyes - as being any type of objective analysis.

Do not believe me.

Do your own research and you draw your own conclusions.

 

The EIA's LCOE/LACE report (available online) is more accurate and balanced.

Covers much of the same ground as Lazard.

Should anyone download and study Lazard's 21 page pdf, suggest you pay attention to the footnotes.

This is where so much 'stuff' gets buried.

Things like transmission costs, dispatch ability, etc.

Wind should not even be a serious contender,  IMHO.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Coffeeguyzz

[turbguy + 1,537]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

 

 

Wind should not even be a serious contender,  IMHO.

I also believe EIA's analysis is more realistic.

And yet, here's the near future.

https://www.power-eng.com/renewables/ferc-renewables-account-for-78-of-u-s-capacity-additions-in-2020/

Somebody's gonna have to add storage.  A LOT of it.

BTW, you can take the PTC, or the ITC, but not both. 

The PTC as I last looked was about $19 per MWh.

Edited March 18, 2021 by turbguy

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Turbguy

Both 2021 and 2022 should show big increases from wind power (and, now, 2023 as the ITC/PTC  has been extended one year. I no longer stay current in these matters) as the deadline to break ground - and be eligible for the credits - ended this past December 31, 2020, before the extension.

The flurry of activity for wind buildout was directly connected with the tax policies, and yet the 'narrative' presented was that this was further 'proof' of wind's inevitability.

The EIA'S graph on their LCOE/LACE report clearly shows this with the abrupt fall off in 2023/4 of new wind capacity  as the credit program was due to expire.

[turbguy + 1,537]

1 hour ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

The EIA'S graph on their LCOE/LACE report clearly shows this with the abrupt fall off in 2023/4 of new wind capacity  as the credit program was due to expire.

Yeah, I noted that abrupt change as well.