THE GHOSTS OF EUROPE WARN US NOT TO RELY ON SUBSIDIZED WIND POWER

By Juan Montoya
It is painted a s a win-win situation: The U.S. stops its reliance on fossil fuels by using wind power and the economic offshoots of green "renewable" energy enriches us all and protects the environment.

That's how wind energy has been sold in the United States as Congress seeks to mandate that at least 20 percent of our energy come from such renewables as wind, solar or biomass sources.

The wind industry has spread like wildfire across the United States. First came California, then the Midwest and such unlikely places like Iowa and Minnesota. Now it's Texas, whose "wind budget" out west and along the Gulf Coast gives its adherents visions of millions of dollars to be made while at the same time lowering our reliance on coal and oil.

And even as the Port of Brownsville crows up the economic impact of merely moving the hardware of wind turbines and blades into neighboring Willacy County and heralds the arrival of a new industry and its economic offshoots into the local economy, there are voices warning us that this may be a pie in the sky proposition.

And it's not just because environmentalists fear that migrating birds may be the victims of the new 280-foot wind towers placed along their routes, but also because at its core, the wind industry, as do other renewables, can only survive if the government (that is, the taxpayers) subsidize the industry.
In an article written by Andrew Walden, in the July 28, 2011 issue of the American Thinker, he warns that the only thing that is bringing Europe's wind energy industries to the United states (and to South Texas) are the attractive subsidies being offered by the U.S. government. Once they are gone, he warns, so will the companies.
To illustrate, he point out that "European wind developers are fleeing the European Union's expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake. But their game is not over. Already they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States."
Senator Lamar Alexander (R. Tenn.) put it this way: "So, federal subsidies for renewables are almost 50 times as great per unit of energy as federal subsidies for fossil fuels. [But] this would be distorted because hydroelectric power is included within renewables. Most people think of renewables as ethanol, solar, or wind and those are the renewables that actually get the subsidies, while hydroelectric does not.

So, the federal taxpayer support for renewable energy is at least 50 times as great per unit of energy as compared with fossil fuel energy. So why aren’t we including subsidies for all renewables in our debate? Specifically, if we are talking about ‘Big Oil,’ why don’t we talk about ‘Big Wind?’ The Senate seems an appropriate place to talk about ‘Big Wind.’"

According to The Hill, wind executives went on a lobbying-flurry after the “Buy American” agenda that Senator Chuck Schumer pushed with regard to renewable power projects funded with stimulus grants. Schumer had become somewhat agitated to learn that most (79 percent) of the US stimulus money spent on renewable energy has gone overseas creating manufacturing jobs abroad, but creating little but taxpayer debt here in the U.S.

And just today (Jan. 13), it was reported today by reporters Flemming Emil Hansen and James Herron of the Wall Street Journal from Copenhagen that "Vestas Wind Systems A/S said Thursday it will shed more than 2,300 jobs, or 10 percent of its work force, close one of its 26 factories and reshuffle management in a cost-cutting plan as it grapples with industry overcapacity.

The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer also warned that if U.S. lawmakers fail to extend a renewable-energy subsidy, known as the production tax credit, which expires by the end of 2012, it could lead to the layoff of an additional 1,600 workers in the U.S. Vestas will start preparing for a possible scale-down of U.S. operations later this year, it said."

So there you have it. Wind power may seem to many, like the spokesmen at the Port of Brownsville, as a welcome self-propelled industry that came here on its own and not by the marketing incentives of the port, but at what cost to the U.S. taxpayer?

And once the incentives are gone, will they, like the maquilas of old, simply pack up and leave the skeletons of the industry on the Gulf Coast savanna?