Wind farms, giant wind turbines in clusters, will save the environment and produce electricity at no more than conventional sources.
Correct? Conventional sources being coal fired plants, natural gas plants, or nuclear powered plants. Not true on all counts: Remember President Obama's statement that your electric rates must necessarily skyrocket. According to Southwest Power Pool estimates, transmission grid expansion will add $2.8 billion in costs in the next 5 years mostly due to wind expansion dictated by state government. A study by the American Tradition Institute, Center for Energy Studies reveals the true cost of adding wind to existing power sources. The total cost in dollars per megawatt hour for various sources are as listed:
Coal - $111
Natural Gas - $102
Nuclear - $111
Coal plus wind - $190 (+70 percent)
Natural Gas plus wind - $149 (+46 percent)
There is no such number for wind alone because it cannot stand alone, unless of course you wish to only use electricity when the wind blows at required speeds. Wind turbines have a life expectancy of about 20 years; traditional sources are 2 to 3 times that.
A very short and sad review of overall cost of this mandate:
^ The federal Government grants a 50 percent subsidy for constructing the farms.
^ Lyon County grants a forever property tax exemption on the farms.
^ Our utility rates will necessarily skyrocket as our president told us long ago.
Who benefits: Turbine manufacturers (German), the groups putting this in place, and the land owners collecting royalties.
Who pays: The average federal taxpayer funds the federal subsidies, the local taxpayers in the form of forgone tax receipts because of local tax exemptions, and electric users in the form of increased rates. Kansas Legislative Research has documented that in 2013 the Kansas counties with farms have lost around $110 million dollars in forgone tax receipts.
It is the same old game of the well-connected profiting at the expense of the little guy. If this average Joe knew just what this is costing, this type of project would never get started. One figure he is already seeing is his electric bill going up and should understand just why.
And to top it off the EPA that fines oil producers for the killing of ducks on a slush pit completely turns a blind eye to the fact that many birds, including the bald eagle, are slaughtered at high rates at the “hands” of the wind turbines.
Are the global warming concerns of progressives and democrats so great as to override tax, energy cost burdens, and wildlife concerns of the working classes of America? This is diametrically opposed to everything propagated by them. Conservatives like myself carefully evaluate the situation and quite readily come to the conclusion that it is a great detriment of society, especially the middle class. If fossil fuel usage is such a concern, then we need to work on the predominate sources in India and China to solve the problem.
ATI calculates rate payers are paying an extra $8.5 to $10 billion a year for wind energy compared to natural gas-fired generation, and this will only increase as more capacity is added.
Add to this the more than $12 billion that the American taxpayer is paying for the 'one-year' extension for the production tax credit, and one can see that the wind industry is a boondoggle at the expense of taxpayers and ratepayers, that is, slowly but surely, making the US economy less competitive.
—Source: “A More Realistic Cost of Wind Energy,” American Tradition Institute Center for Energy Studies, Washington, DC, December 2012