ronwagn

Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.

Recommended Posts

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Protests-Break-Out-in-Europe-As-Electricity-Prices-Soar.html Europe is having problems with energy supply due to depending on Russian natural gas, and coal of their own to meet much of their need. Russia is going to ask a hefty price to come up with the money to pay for their new pipeline Nordstream 2. 

Many people are wondering how to cope with inflation and energy prices in America. Taxes are also going up in America and the corporate taxes always filter down to the average consumer. The left has many ideas on spending money, that we cannot afford, on building charging stations for EV's that will be built in the future, and will be sold with $7,500 rebates for those who might want them. EV's will require more electricity from whatever source and more power lines to deliver it. It will be the Greatest Show on Earth and have a HUGE price tag. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.????

 

what a load of babble, you do not post anything to back this up.....Reality Hurricane Ida shutdown 10 percent of the US oil and nat gas production causing a spike in prices in nat gas starting on Aug 26th from $4 to 0ver $5.30...... Dependable Nat Gas?????? Looks like we are all paying the price for being to reliant on Nat gas. Figure it out the cost of renewables did not go up , Nat gas did.

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 7:37 PM, notsonice said:

Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.????

 

what a load of babble, you do not post anything to back this up.....Reality Hurricane Ida shutdown 10 percent of the US oil and nat gas production causing a spike in prices in nat gas starting on Aug 26th from $4 to 0ver $5.30...... Dependable Nat Gas?????? Looks like we are all paying the price for being to reliant on Nat gas. Figure it out the cost of renewables did not go up , Nat gas did.

 

He may not be able to, but i can. You see, there are subsidies in the US at federal, state, and county levels, and nevermind that government is as good as making new subsidies as is it masking inflation and unemployment numbers, plus many fully renewable energy companies, declare itself as small companies or fully private ones in order to not show accountance, thing like the company revenue and the GWh generated.

Electrify2Renewables.024.jpeg?fit=1920%2

Electrify2Renewables.030.jpeg?fit=1920%2
https://i0.wp.com/electrifyingourworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Electrify2Renewables.031.jpeg?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1
Electrify2Renewables.039.jpeg?fit=1920%2



Whatever lazard says, or whatever renewable energy portals say when they go full Soyface doesn't have any value.

Lazard is not an audit office, is a sell-side analysis company, they get paid to sell stocks.

Rosatom got a revenue of around 20U$D/MWh
South Texas Project NPP is around 29U$D/MWh
TVA has a revenue of 70U$D/MWh, and most traditional electric utilities are around 100U$D/MWh
Avangrid has a revenue of 540U$D/MWh
Orsted has a revenue of 390U$D/MWh
¿Where you think that money is coming from?, is either taxes or subsidies
just chek renewable energy credit auctions in new jersey at over 200U$D/MWh


𝐈'𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲, 𝐢𝐦 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬
 

  • Great Response! 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2021 at 8:37 AM, notsonice said:

what a load of babble, you do not post anything to back this up.....Reality Hurricane Ida shutdown 10 percent of the US oil and nat gas production causing a spike in prices in nat gas starting on Aug 26th from $4 to 0ver $5.30...... Dependable Nat Gas?????? Looks like we are all paying the price for being to reliant on Nat gas. Figure it out the cost of renewables did not go up , Nat gas did.

nosonice, maaaaate - you would be well advised to check out overseas stories. Notably the huge problems being caused in the UK by a wind drought.. this article from Fortune magazine is just a tiny part of the coverage of this problem. In some of the coverage I read they're even having to turn the coal plants back on.. businesses have been forced to suspend production. 
Same thing has been happening in Australia during heat waves.. renewables have to be backed up, big time, end of story.. they are far less reliable than natural gas.. Sure gas prices spike, so? At least it was still being delivered..  

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2021 at 11:43 PM, Sebastian Meana said:

He may not be able to, but i can. You see, there are subsidies in the US at federal, state, and county levels, and nevermind that government is as good as making new subsidies as is it masking inflation and unemployment numbers, plus many fully renewable energy companies, declare itself as small companies or fully private ones in order to not show accountance, thing like the company revenue and the GWh generated.

Electrify2Renewables.024.jpeg?fit=1920%2

Electrify2Renewables.030.jpeg?fit=1920%2
https://i0.wp.com/electrifyingourworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Electrify2Renewables.031.jpeg?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1
Electrify2Renewables.039.jpeg?fit=1920%2



Whatever lazard says, or whatever renewable energy portals say when they go full Soyface doesn't have any value.

Lazard is not an audit office, is a sell-side analysis company, they get paid to sell stocks.

Rosatom got a revenue of around 20U$D/MWh
South Texas Project NPP is around 29U$D/MWh
TVA has a revenue of 70U$D/MWh, and most traditional electric utilities are around 100U$D/MWh
Avangrid has a revenue of 540U$D/MWh
Orsted has a revenue of 390U$D/MWh
¿Where you think that money is coming from?, is either taxes or subsidies
just chek renewable energy credit auctions in new jersey at over 200U$D/MWh


𝐈'𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲, 𝐢𝐦 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬
 

What a pile of visual vomit. Your infographic says nothing. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I experienced the Texas storm. When you mix Republicans and nat gas, people die. If Texas followed the rule of its own laws they would jail those who hire illegals. This population drop of illegals going home because of lack of jobs would ease nat gas demand and allow renewables with batteries to expand market share.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Why hydro

On 9/21/2021 at 12:43 AM, Sebastian Meana said:


Electrify2Renewables.039.jpeg?fit=1920%2



 

This chart's 'y' axis...

...per KWH?  Yes that's energy...but it's hard to wrap my mind around something...

Hydro really releases that much CO2 per KWH generated over some life cycle??

If it is supposed to be "capital impacts", then the correct unit should be KW.

If you wish to use KWH, you must include the impact of any fuel consumed.  And any fuel consumed to "fabricate" and deliver that fuel.

It would be of interest to see FF generation on the same chart.  The USA's total generation average is WELL ABOVE 500 grams/KWH (on top of the capital impacts).

 

Also, does hydro's concrete/cement portion include the dam? While hydro does need lots of concrete, I can guarantee you there is MUCH more concrete (and rebar out the wazzo) per KW in a modern nuc plant if you exclude the dam from hydro.

A dam is used to control water for many other important purposes, power generation is a side benefit.

There's some argument to be made that FF is really "biomass", just "well aged" biomass.

Clipboard01.jpg

Edited by turbguy
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/22/2021 at 11:01 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

What a pile of visual vomit. Your infographic says nothing. 

Tell me, ¿How many utilities that are fully renewable, have public accounts and statements about their revenue and electricity generation? Apart from of course, Orsted and Avangrid
imagen.png.ac625f4f5e3d2dbb37651be6c7cd8ee6.png
That's the revenue and power generation of orsted offshore sector in 2019, stated in their website, 40.2 billion DKK is around 6.34 billion USD, we divide 6.34 billion by 12,000,000 MWh and we get 528U$D per MWh, and money has to come from somewhere, either from tariffs or subsidies

Is you against Orsted numbers

https://orsted.com/en/our-business/offshore-wind/our-offshore-wind-capabilities

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/23/2021 at 1:07 AM, turbguy said:

Why hydro

This chart's 'y' axis...

...per KWH?  Yes that's energy...but it's hard to wrap my mind around something...

Hydro really releases that much CO2 per KWH generated over some life cycle??

If it is supposed to be "capital impacts", then the correct unit should be KW.

If you wish to use KWH, you must include the impact of any fuel consumed.  And any fuel consumed to "fabricate" and deliver that fuel.

It would be of interest to see FF generation on the same chart.  The USA's total generation average is WELL ABOVE 500 grams/KWH (on top of the capital impacts).

 

Also, does hydro's concrete/cement portion include the dam? While hydro does need lots of concrete, I can guarantee you there is MUCH more concrete (and rebar out the wazzo) per KW in a modern nuc plant if you exclude the dam from hydro.

A dam is used to control water for many other important purposes, power generation is a side benefit.

There's some argument to be made that FF is really "biomass", just "well aged" biomass.

Clipboard01.jpg

Well, it depends, dams need a lot of concrete, the bratsk dam needed over 13 million tons of concrete, and they operate at 50% capacity factor because when it rains the most, Autumn and Spring is when electricity demand is the lowest, and viceversa. And the fuel to just run the whole contruction equipment for 5 or 10 years during construction.

There's also methane production in water bodies but that may or may not be resolved, in the oxygen poor sediment rich areas of a lake or a dam Archea produces methane as dead organic matter falls in  the sediments and decomposes.

the IPCC says that is 24G/KWh without the methane, but that it varies project to project wildly, depending if a dam will be used for 50 or 100 or 200 years.

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Tell me, ¿How many utilities that are fully renewable, have public accounts and statements about their revenue and electricity generation? Apart from of course, Orsted and Avangrid
imagen.png.ac625f4f5e3d2dbb37651be6c7cd8ee6.png
That's the revenue and power generation of orsted offshore sector in 2019, stated in their website, 40.2 billion DKK is around 6.34 billion USD, we divide 6.34 billion by 12,000,000 MWh and we get 528U$D per MWh, and money has to come from somewhere, either from tariffs or subsidies

Is you against Orsted numbers

https://orsted.com/en/our-business/offshore-wind/our-offshore-wind-capabilities

sigh, if only you guys had a bugger of a clue. 

If you look at the actual numbers and not the marketing widget you will see that their selling price for offshore wind was 43.6 GBP/MWh.

image.png.278017b60c5169b1b74f5a2742d9f38e.png

https://orstedcdn.azureedge.net/-/media/annual2019/annual-report-2019.ashx?la=en&rev=334895b2e83e4266afb7e97cfa9024f2&hash=BA390050EDD075C9C7E514CF02BB8D6F

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

sigh, if only you guys had a bugger of a clue. 

If you actually go and look at the Orsted numbers and not just the stupid little marketing widget you will see a very different story. Particularly notice the 127 TWh of gas sales.

image.png.9f11541ba2e3de1f5fbf77659e27f750.png

https://orstedcdn.azureedge.net/-/media/annual2019/ar19-en-summary-2019.ashx?la=en&rev=72b9bd2465c54d04824656221b49ee06&hash=F2CD4C6E257FC2933A455FFD2B384CDC

That tiny marketing piece says specifically offshore sector, which is give or take half of orsted annual revenue, and indeed the number of 12TWh a year coincides with the small little marketing piece. ¿how many offshore oil platforms orsted has?

Anyway heres the beatrice wind farm annual financial statements for 2020

https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2021/04/image.png
It had a revenue of £38/MWh trough electricity sales and £118/MWh through subsidies, which gives us 213USD/MWh, without the effects on the redundant infrastructure to balance intermittency, butt wait, theres more

Beatrice wind farm had a CAPEX of £2.2 billion for 588MW with factor of 45%, which in dollars makes that around an effective 6688USD/KW and will last anywhere from 20 to 30 years, without incluiding a decline in factor due to wear and tear

BEIS estimate of capital cost was £1.6 million/MW 72% of the final estimate

On the other hand the VVER-TOI reactors at construction at Kursk will be built for a similar price as those ones in Civaux France, 1400USD/KW, and will last anywhere from 60 to 120 years, so for the same cost per GW of Beatrice you can build *14* VVER-TOI reactors from Russia. They already builtNovovoronezh-II in 1900USD/KW.

Thats what you get when you eliminate all the parasitic bureaucrats activists and middle mans and get things done as they should.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

That tiny marketing piece says specifically offshore sector, which is give or take half of orsted annual revenue, and indeed the number of 12TWh a year coincides with the small little marketing piece. ¿how many offshore oil platforms orsted has?

Anyway heres the beatrice wind farm annual financial statements for 2020

https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2021/04/image.png
It had a revenue of £38/MWh trough electricity sales and £118/MWh through subsidies, which gives us 213USD/MWh, without the effects on the redundant infrastructure to balance intermittency, butt wait, theres more

Beatrice wind farm had a CAPEX of £2.2 billion for 588MW with factor of 45%, which in dollars makes that around an effective 6688USD/KW and will last anywhere from 20 to 30 years, without incluiding a decline in factor due to wear and tear

BEIS estimate of capital cost was £1.6 million/MW 72% of the final estimate

On the other hand the VVER-TOI reactors at construction at Kursk will be built for a similar price as those ones in Civaux France, 1400USD/KW, and will last anywhere from 60 to 120 years, so for the same cost per GW of Beatrice you can build *14* VVER-TOI reactors from Russia. They already builtNovovoronezh-II in 1900USD/KW.

Thats what you get when you eliminate all the parasitic bureaucrats activists and middle mans and get things done as they should.

 

I corrected my post for offshore wind only. Orsted sale price for offshore wind was 43.6 GBP/MWh.

image.png.a3f25e377510a5d6775b2f88c5fbc311.png

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

I corrected my post for offshore wind only. Orsted sale price for offshore wind was 43.6 GBP/MWh.

image.png.a3f25e377510a5d6775b2f88c5fbc311.png

 

So effectively only 1/4 of their offshore revenue comes from electricity sales, and the rest through other means.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

So effectively only 1/4 of their offshore revenue comes from electricity sales, and the rest through other means.

Correct.

 image.png.ed3420e0491545c2c8eab4467f715390.png

image.png.17adca84cc4a0bd8516a8835a9b3303d.png

 

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/24/2021 at 5:24 PM, Sebastian Meana said:

Tell me, ¿How many utilities that are fully renewable, have public accounts and statements about their revenue and electricity generation? Apart from of course, Orsted and Avangrid
imagen.png.ac625f4f5e3d2dbb37651be6c7cd8ee6.png
That's the revenue and power generation of orsted offshore sector in 2019, stated in their website, 40.2 billion DKK is around 6.34 billion USD, we divide 6.34 billion by 12,000,000 MWh and we get 528U$D per MWh, and money has to come from somewhere, either from tariffs or subsidies

Is you against Orsted numbers

https://orsted.com/en/our-business/offshore-wind/our-offshore-wind-capabilities

Sebastion , the accounting principles that apply to utility projects are something that s foreign to you. Your estimate of costs  at Kursk for new nuclear construction look lit a list of materials only. They clearly omit AFUDC and intangible overheads that are capitalized not expensed in the current year. These drive the cost per kw over $35,000/kw name plate. "Georgia Power's share of the total project capital cost forecast is now 27 BILLION Dollars.  for 2500mw.  That is only a few percentage points of the cost of Hinkley Point.

Plant Vogtle expansion cost tops $27B as more delays unveiled https://www.wrdw.com/2021/07/29/plant-vogtle-expansion-cost-ps-27b-more-delays-unveiled/  Then you will have about $1.6 billion per year in fuel replacement costs and interest  payment of$ 2 billion annually.

You could buy a new wind farm every year for nuke plant operating expense only while not repaying the bond holders anything.

Plant Vogtle

 

Edited by nsdp
error in pasting link
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/24/2021 at 8:17 PM, Sebastian Meana said:

That tiny marketing piece says specifically offshore sector, which is give or take half of orsted annual revenue, and indeed the number of 12TWh a year coincides with the small little marketing piece. ¿how many offshore oil platforms orsted has?

Anyway heres the beatrice wind farm annual financial statements for 2020

https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2021/04/image.png
It had a revenue of £38/MWh trough electricity sales and £118/MWh through subsidies, which gives us 213USD/MWh, without the effects on the redundant infrastructure to balance intermittency, butt wait, theres more

Beatrice wind farm had a CAPEX of £2.2 billion for 588MW with factor of 45%, which in dollars makes that around an effective 6688USD/KW and will last anywhere from 20 to 30 years, without incluiding a decline in factor due to wear and tear

BEIS estimate of capital cost was £1.6 million/MW 72% of the final estimate

On the other hand the VVER-TOI reactors at construction at Kursk will be built for a similar price as those ones in Civaux France, 1400USD/KW, and will last anywhere from 60 to 120 years, so for the same cost per GW of Beatrice you can build *14* VVER-TOI reactors from Russia. They already builtNovovoronezh-II in 1900USD/KW.

Thats what you get when you eliminate all the parasitic bureaucrats activists and middle mans and get things done as they should.

That is based on manipulated exchange rate. That is like Russia selling NG for $0.35/gigajoule from Nord Stream II.

Edited by nsdp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  •  
Tuesday at 01:43 AM
  •  

 

On 9/14/2021 at 5:37 PM, notsonice said:

 

Expand   Expand   Expand  

Rosatom got a revenue of around 20U$D/MWh
South Texas Project NPP is around 29U$D/MWh
TVA has a revenue of 70U$D/MWh, and most traditional electric utilities are around 100U$D/MWh
Avangrid has a revenue of 540U$D/MWh
Orsted has a revenue of 390U$D/MWh
¿Where you think that money is coming from?, is either taxes or subsidies

Sebastian STNP has taken two haircuts in bankruptcy. First was the HL&P/RRI/NRG portion for 45% in the Chapter 11 plan. The second CPSEnergy bought  660mw25% for $400 million in Central and Southwest Bankruptcy. $29 was the ERCOT 2019 price. $20/mwh in was for ERCOT 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I don't really understand.

At one point last year, Brent crude oil cost below $ 20 a barrel and NG from Gazprom for Europe was below $ 2 per mbbtu. Whats more WTI at one point was minus 37 $ per barrel/

We all know that this is a classical boom&bust industry where low prices are the best remedy for low prices and high prices are the best remedy for high prices.

This year  oil and gas producers around a world are simply recovering from last year's record losses in oil%&industry.

Two, I know that I have pro-Russian views, but I really cannot understand the claim.

On the one hand, the collective West imposes sanctions on Gazprom, Rosneft Lukoil or Novatek.

And now, in turn, West claims that these companies does not feel the role of some kind of charity organizations selling gas or oil to Europe as cheaply as possible for the final  recipient.

No sorry colleagues - please decide sanctions or price preferences.

You cant eat a cake and still have it.

 

In addition, when it comes to switching to green energy, I rather heard all the time calls from Greta that the world must be saved from climate apocalypse at all costs.

.Nobody really called for it to be a perpetual motion machine with free energy for everyone.

It was immediately said that it would be just much more expensive source of energy 

. And it is more expensive.

 

 

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2021 at 5:36 PM, Sebastian Meana said:

Well, it depends, dams need a lot of concrete, the bratsk dam needed over 13 million tons of concrete, and they operate at 50% capacity factor because when it rains the most, Autumn and Spring is when electricity demand is the lowest, and viceversa. And the fuel to just run the whole contruction equipment for 5 or 10 years during construction.

There's also methane production in water bodies but that may or may not be resolved, in the oxygen poor sediment rich areas of a lake or a dam Archea produces methane as dead organic matter falls in  the sediments and decomposes.

the IPCC says that is 24G/KWh without the methane, but that it varies project to project wildly, depending if a dam will be used for 50 or 100 or 200 years.

Sebastian, many thanks for mentioning what you call archaea. I just call it biomass because it covers all the earth and is in all bodies of water. Think peat bogs which are lakes that filled with peat moss etc. I have never seen an estimat about the amount of methane Mother Earth releases into the atmosphere. I imagine it is far greater than what mankind does. If you are a in a lake, just watch the water and the bubbles coming up contain some methane % and other gases such as oxygen from plants that breathe carbon dioxide. 

https://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/frozen-methane-bubbles-create-artistic-images/

Methane bubbles

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true; the worse is yet to come, if the gravity is not recognized by the decision makers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when a bunch of ill formed WOKE ASS*** join a cause with out fact checking and extensively reading up and digging into the issues . 
 

Then you have your ( WOKE CORPORATIONS ) adding there .02 cent’s  and a silly movement is underway. 
 

So now if people and business around the globe have to confront this issue by Re- Firing up Coal Power Plants and Nuclear Power Plants must restart or pushback there closing. The sad part is the people that will most really be his are the poorest ! 
 

Corporations have no business to get involved in such stupid situations, they are there to manufacture and make a return on investment. I have lived my 41 years as an owner of business and purchasing badly run business and turning them around or just to invest into the corporation that will give me the return I’m looking for.

i base my life on the easiest and most fundamental form of a Corporation, 

CORPORATIONS RUN ON ASSETS AND LIABILITY, I am hopeful your thinking this correctly which is,

,ASSETS KEEP YOU IN MY GOOD GRACES , LIABILITIES , WELL LIABILITIES GET REMOVED, BE IT A PERSON, SUPPLIERS OR BAD WORKING PRACTICES !

People need to WAKE  UP AND SEE IT FOR ALL IT IS AS SIMPLY AS IT IS AND THEY SHOULD PRACTICE IT IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE AS WELL …….

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hit the nail on the head Rich ! .....agree 100 % !!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hemanthaa@mail.com said:

Very true; the worse is yet to come, if the gravity is not recognized by the decision makers.

The immediate need is to ramp up natural gas development and use while ALSO developing wind and solar. It is foolish to try to meet the need by ignoring natural gas and burning coal in China, India, Africa, etc. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 8:01 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

What a pile of visual vomit. Your infographic says nothing. 

It matches what I see. Wind production credit accounts for 1/3 of wind farm revenues. Then there's the 80% depreciation allowance.

I don't really care. If the babblers want renewable energy they can pay me with their taxes while I power my business with wind. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

It matches what I see. Wind production credit accounts for 1/3 of wind farm revenues. Then there's the 80% depreciation allowance.

I don't really care. If the babblers want renewable energy they can pay me with their taxes while I power my business with wind. 

The 80% bonus depreciation allowance applies to just about everything, it has nothing specific to do with wind. You might also want to note that unless you started your wind project in 2019 there is no PTC for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.