An article in Sunday’s paper looked at why Wyoming wind power is behind other states, even those that one would not associate with wind power (Iowa, Texas). I would like to suggest that Wyoming was behind in wind power because we were embarrassed that we were not as savvy as wildlife about wind power.
Foolishly, after years and years of being told oil derricks were loud and obnoxious and drove off wildlife, the trucks over the open spaces leaving hundreds of tire tracks, oil and gas obscuring the view with ugly oil derricks and open pit coal mines, suddenly it becomes clear that none of this was the true problem. It turns out wildlife KNOW what is environmentally friendly and they are all in on this stuff.
Eagles and bats are completely willing to sacrifice however many individuals as needed to keep that wind turbine turning. The noise of 50 trucks an hour putting in the thousands of pounds of concrete and metal to make the 400 foot turbines is music to the ears of sage grouse, deer, foxes, owls, eagles........Wildlife was never disturbed by activity, only by the vile and evil nature of the oil and gas people. We just didn’t understand this.
As for the driving over the "fragile ecosystem", again it’s completely acceptable to destroy as many plants as necessary and as many species of wildlife as necessary to get those beautiful, environmentally perfect wind turbines put in. The ecosystem is only affected by oil, gas and other evil polluters.
Lastly, while there seems to be a push to limit oil and gas in the Teton Range, I hope Wyomingites won’t make the mistake of thinking tourists or any one else cares about the views. The only things tourists do not want to see are oil and gas development of any kind and those horribly ugly open pit coal mines. Heck, 400 or 500 wind turbines along the base of the Tetons would be a beautiful site the would undoubtedly be featured on many vacation pictures featured on the net, along with praise for not letting anything get in the way of saving the environment.
Now that Wyomingites understand these things and as they get over their embarrassment over their complete lack of understanding of saving the environment and that wildlife were smarter than the average Wyoming citizen, we can look forward to thousands of turbines in all of the tourist pictures, the sacrifice of a few animals and plants all for the much greater good of 400 foot, vibrating, environmentally perfect wind turbines.
Just a theory.......
December 2011
Recently we have seen letters asking that the Production Tax Credit for wind be extended. This is interesting. GE recently reportedly stated if the tax credit for wind was not extended, the company would move to Germany. Yes, that’s the GE that made billions and paid no taxes now demanding a continuation of avoidance of taxation (others benefitting from this tax credit include Morgan-Stanley, Exxon, Warren Buffet and Goldman Sachs). These are part of the 1% that sparked the Occupy Wall Street movement, now demand continued tax exemptions.
Wyoming’s governor and senators have supported exempting GE from paying the Production Credit Tax. Any action extending the PTC for GE and wind, helps GE maintain that tax-free status. These elected officials are furthering the tax “losses” from corporations and individuals getting a free ride. Blaming GE for not paying taxes is misplaced when Congress and state governments clearly believe there is no reason for taxing certain industries and corporations.
What we have here is what the military calls a “Catch 22”, science calls “mutually exclusive” and Orwell called “double think”. In simpler terms, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. GE and the other 1%ers pay no taxes because the people we elect give them tax credits that taken as a total, allow the companies to not pay taxes. If you think GE and other wealthy corporations and individuals should pay taxes, then elect people who don’t vote and lobby for giving these corporations free rides. Continuing to elect persons who support a “tax-free GE” and then complaining that GE pays no taxes amounts to trying to bend reality with your will. Reality does not bend. Pick one or the other.
November 2011
Editor:
Mr. Jack Watts wrote concerning how wind is clean and coal is dirty and we need to switch to wind power. I was quite surprised—I had no idea turbines popped up fully formed from the earth. I was laboring under the misconception that wind turbines required copper, iron ore, rare earth elements and bauxite mining (much of which is done in other countries because it’s “environmentally damaging”), plus gravel pits and concrete plants. Then there’s rare earth element refining, again done overseas in China, which turned an entire valley into a toxic, radioactive dump (but it’s not in the US, so do we care?). Blades are made with “possible” carcinogen styrene . A North Dakota plant was cited earlier this year for exposing workers to excessive levels of styrene—not so safe making turbines, it seems. If turbine parts are manufactured overseas, and the majority seem to be, the materials require shipping to the US, often on diesel powered ships. And since the wind is variable, there’s that pesky natural gas plant running 24/7 as backup in case the wind stops blowing.
Now it seems all my beliefs were mistaken. Turbines just spring up fully formed and so very green, who could oppose them?
For those of you who embrace wind energy, I am thinking of starting a web-based business selling perpetual motion machines to produce clean, free energy for your homes. I might even be able to get some stimulus funding to keep the cost down.
With
the
propaganda
fest
in
Rawlins
on
wind
(Celebrate
Wind
May21st,
2011),
it's
time
to
take
a
look
at
some
of
the
realities
that
often
are
overlooked
with
wind.
The
proposed
turbines
south
of
Rawlins
are
being
put
in
by
a
Colorado
billionaire,
who
will
be
eligible
to
receive
up
to
two
thirds
of
the
cost
through
subsidies,
tax
breaks,
and
accelerated
depreciation.
Interesting
that
Obama
has
not
been
outraged
that
billionaires
and
oil
companies
get
these
tax
subsidies/breaks
for
wind,
but
is
outraged
the
oil
companies
and
the
rich
receive
too
many
tax
breaks.
Maybe
it's
just
that
using
tax
breaks
for
oil
and
the
wealthy
is
so
much
more
obvious
than
giving
the
money
to
these
groups
via
a
more
hidden
route,
like
wind
subsidies.
The
power
will
go
to
California
via
a
transmission
line
(probably
also
subsidized).
California
fulfills
its
renewable
energy
mandate
and
keeps
its
scenic
vistas.
Wyoming
gets
the
mess.
Generally
that
is
referred
to
as
NIMBY
behavior.
Wyoming
senators
backed
the
gift
of
your
tax
money
to
billionaire
corporations
because
it's
“good
for
Wyoming”.
It
appears
if
Wyoming
is
lucky,
they
might
get
1%
of
the
money
invested
by
taxpayers
in
this
project.
Wyoming
gets
property
tax
(Duke
Energy
paid
approximately
$2.5
million
on
a
wind
generation
site
with
66
turbines,
for
example)
and
sales/use
tax
of
around
5%.
The
remaining
99%
of
the
earnings
from
the
turbines
goes
to
corporations
and
other
states.
With
that
kind
of
math,
no
wonder
there
is
a
deficit.
The
new
21st
century
environmentalism
is
also
interesting—more
mining
(clearing
rainforests
to
do
so),
more
refining
including
rare
earth
metals
that
often
contain
radioactive
materials,
more
land
clearing,
more
toxic
chemicals
used
building
turbine
blades,
more
roads,
more
transmission
lines
(guess
they
were
mistaken
about
EMFs
when
they
fought
transmission
lines
before),
destruction
of
habitat,
dead
raptors,
all
to
save
the
planet.
Who
would
have
thought
that
environmentalists
would
come
to
love
industrialization??
I’m
not
seeing
a
reason
to
celebrate.
As
you
send
in
those
tax
payments
or
stare
at
the
tiny
refund,
consider:
$5
billion
dollars
of
tax
money
was
spent
last
year
for
"renewables",
which
produce
less
than
3%
of
the
electricity
in
this
country.
Some
states
like
Washington
and
Oregon
are
having
the
turbines
damp
back
because
there's
too
much
electricity
made
in
high
winds--so
$5
billion
to
cut
back
on
windy
days.
Generally,
that’s
not
considered
a
good
investment
if
you
have
to
damp
back
due
to
the
very
thing
you
invested
in…..
Senator
Barrasso
has
said
Wyoming
has
world
class
wind
resources
and
we
should
develop
those.
Yes--and
California
had
world
class
gold
deposits,
as
did
Alaska.
We're
still
cleaning
up
those
messes.
Kansas
had
world
class
prairies
for
growing
wheat
and
other
crops.
The
government
encouraged
people
to
move
there.
Then
the
drought
hit
and
the
dust.
Years
of
dust.
Washington
ignored
the
plight
of
those
trapped
in
the
Dust
Bowl
until
the
black
cloud
made
it
to
Washington
DC.
Having
world
class
resources
of
something
does
not
mean
we
have
the
sense
or
technology
to
use
it
well,
at
least
according
to
past
experience.
Turbines
have
never
been
subjected
to
rigorous
scientific
testing.
The
turbines
were
just
planted.
Five
billion
dollars
and
China
is
a
mess
from
rare
earth
refining
to
flood
the
markets
with
magnets,
the
dust
at
turbines
near
Glenrock
is
certainly
world-class
(surprise,
grass
doesn't
grow
back
as
fast
as
one
would
think
and
high
wind
moves
dirt),
and
forests
and
mountains
are
being
destroyed
across
the
nation
in
pursuit
of
a
"free
energy
source".
Wind
turbines
were
brought
to
you
by
your
government
and
environmentalists.
The
same
people
who
brought
you
wolves.
Have
a
happy
tax
day!
Letter to Editor, Casper Star-Tribune January 2011
Dear Editor:
After
reading
Cheryl
Riley's
column,
I
looked
up
the
Wyoming
Power
Producers
Coalition.
The
annual
dues
are
$10,000
for
full
membership.
One
can't
charge
dues
of
that
amount
if
they
can't
produce
money
for
members
by
bringing
in
wind
power
plants.
I’m
sure
she
wants
many,
many
turbines.
Ms.
Riley
states
in
her
article
"hundreds
of
good
jobs
from
wind"
would
be
an
outcome
of
increased
wind
power
plants.
I
have
found
predictions
all
over
the
internet
concerning
how
many
jobs
wind
creates.
I
could
not
find
an
actual
number
for
existing
jobs
in
wind
in
Wyoming.
When
the
Glenrock
wind
power
plants
were
constructed,
only
half
the
license
plates
I
saw
were
from
in
state.
I
am
sure
the
motels
and
restaurants
benefited,
but
only
for
the
six
or
so
months
of
construction.
Actual
employment
after
construction
is
a
manager
and
a
few
maintenance
personnel,
so
far
as
I
can
find.
Wind
provides
less
than
2%
of
our
energy
yet
requires
huge
subsidies
from
the
federal
government.
Lower
state
taxation
might
bring
in
more
wind,
but
more
wind
turbines
would
require
more
federal
subsidies.
The
stimulus
package
gave
$550
million
dollars
to
wind
energy
last
year.
It
seems
unlikely
the
government
can
keep
putting
these
costs
on
its
credit
card.
More
tax
money
will
be
needed.
Somewhere
the
cost/benefit
ratio
has
to
be
addressed
before
more
money
is
appropriated
for
these
projects.
Who
is
actually
benefitting?
Ms.
Riley
says
the
companies
know
they
need
to
pay
their
own
way,
yet
checking
statistics,
every
time
subsidies
are
cut,
turbine
installation
drops
off.
This
is
a
worldwide
phenomenon.
It
appears
that
a
huge
infusion
of
tax
money
is
needed
everywhere
wind
is
installed.
That
is
not
"paying
their
own
way".
I
have
noticed
that
ranchers
that
receive
free
money
taken
in
part
from
the
taxpayers,
wind
companies
getting
millions
in
subsidies
and
companies
that
lobby
for
wind
are
the
biggest
supporters
of
wind.
Human
behavior
being
what
it
is,
I
suppose
it's
natural
that
those
who
get
"free"
money
would
indeed
support
whatever
source
it
came
from.
However,
American
energy
policy
should
not
be
based
on
what
group
can
grab
the
most
tax
money.
Not
unless
you
want
to
end
up
sitting
in
the
cold
and
dark.
Economic
lesson
explaining
wind
energy:
Taxpayers
give
the
wind
developer
a
$1
million
tax
credit/subsidy.
The
wind
developer
puts
in
$2
million
and
erects
a
turbine.
Commerce
occurs.
The
government
needs
more
millions
for
more
turbines
and
raises
taxes
to
cover
the
cost.
Taxpayer
pays
for
at
least
one
third
of
the
cost
of
the
turbine,
the
developer
gets
a
33%
discount
and
then
demands
tax
breaks
at
a
state
level.
I’m
sure
that
looks
good
to
the
developer.
Not
so
good
for
the
rest
of
the
participants.
While Mr. Fleetwood had an excellent response to Mr. Walts wind letter, there are a few additional points to consider.
First, if wind power is the answer, then the question must be "How can we do the most environmental damage, with the least results and for the most cost"?
Mr. Walts says he drives by the industrial wind electrical generation site (they are NOT farms and bear no resemblance to agriculture–"farm" is a spin term) each day. Has he ever driven over to the site? Has he seen the very nice house with the giant turbine in its side yard? Driving down Cole Creek or other area roads really does not give you a true picture of what living next to a turbine is like. I suggest that all of you who love turbines drive out on a windy day and park near the turbines with the windows down.
Mr. Walts stated that these turbines will cut CO2 emissions. I notice that the environmentalists are now calling the dissipation rate of CO2 a "half-life". Half-life applies to radioactive decay, not dissipation of a gas. Surely no one is not suggesting that CO2 is radioactive. I have searched and searched and cannot find where any conventional power plant has shut down due to installation of wind turbines any where, even in Europe. If no conventional plants are replaced by wind, no decrease in CO2 is occurring due to wind power. The problem with wind is the same as it was 30 years ago. Wind can generate power but that power cannot be stored. Modern society relies on power being available at the flip of a switch. "Backup" coal power plants cannot rev up and rev down at will to match the fluctuations in the wind. Think of sailboats versus power boats. One does not move products using a sailboat when a power boat is available.
For years, biodiversity was pushed by environmentalists–thus, the Endangered Species Act. Yet wind turbines are allowed to be placed virtually anywhere. In Ontario, Canada, there is a farmer who wanted to build his daughter a house on his land but cannot due to living in a protected forest area. Yet he can lease land, the trees can be cut and turbines put in, all while paying him a tidy sum. So did environmentalists lie about the need to protect biodiversity before? Are they lying now about the turbines? Are polar bears and the rainforest next? Turbines in ANWAR? (It’s pretty windy up there, actually....)
Currently, there are few, if any regulations on wind turbines in Wyoming. I would guess that in 20 years or so there will be government money to deal with abandoned wind turbines. Even where there are regulations, they are very general and often leave decommissioning agreements up to land owners and turbine owners. This worked so well in the past for mining, right?
If CO2 and greenhouse gases are such a threats, I would expect people to be lobbying for electricity rationing, gas rationing, much smaller homes, outlawing big screen TVs (as suggested in California), closing "dirty" factories, and no importing from any country not following the same rules. If global warming is as serious as we are being told it is, drastic action must be taken. If it’s not that serious, then we are losing open spaces, cutting virgin forests and covering offshore ocean areas in a rush to install highly subsidized wind turbines from which we get nothing but a bigger tax bill.
(When trying to convince people how wonderful wind energy is, consider this: A local wind contractor shows a picture of a Wyoming ranch, cowboy and dog for their "logo". No wind turbines. Why not photoshop the turbines in and call it an "artist’s rendition"? Why show that which will be destroyed instead of what will be created?)
The local paper edited this part out before printing.