Comments on: IER's Danish Wind Study: Response to Critics http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Wind power hopelessly uneconomic? - Page 95 http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-10787 Wind power hopelessly uneconomic? - Page 95 Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:20:23 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-10787 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Bob R Geologist http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-2807 Bob R Geologist Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:56:40 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-2807 I think wind as had about all the wind it can stand. It does make sense for a Wyoming rancher, 50 miles from a power line. I think wind as had about all the wind it can stand. It does make sense for a Wyoming rancher, 50 miles from a power line.

]]> By: Bill Wightman http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-2810 Bill Wightman Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:36:41 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-2810 The wind energy advocates are to be congratulated on their success in cowing policitians and misleading large numbers of the public into believing wind powered turbines hold the key to saving the planet despite the fact they have no record of having reduced CO2 in any substantial amounts and despite being incapable of existing absent massive subsidies at public expense. They are a wonderous example of negative efficiency. The wind energy advocates are to be congratulated on their success in cowing policitians and misleading large numbers of the public into believing wind powered turbines hold the key to saving the planet despite the fact they have no record of having reduced CO2 in any substantial amounts and despite being incapable of existing absent massive subsidies at public expense. They are a wonderous example of negative efficiency.

]]> By: rbradley http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-2808 rbradley Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:32:31 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-2808 Mr. Goggin: It is just fine to make your points--and the comment above is polite--but why the ad hominem stuff? Your critique of IER's comments begins with "The fossil fuel lobby continues ..." and "the fossil fuel lobby front group...". I founded IER in 1989, and it is not a "front group" or "fossil fuel lobby." IER is a scholarly organization that has a strong intellectual case that the energies that consumers voluntary chose are the best ones--and the modern wind industry is government-dependent from start to finish. For the historical record, let me fill you in on a key reason why I founded IER: to have an independent voice in the energy debate while I was at Enron. And I fought Enron hard on its decision to enter into the wind business in 1997--a decision that all but saved the US wind industry (Zond was in trouble, and Kenetech was near bankruptcy). I can name you the two Enron lobbyists that were at work to get the 1999 Texas renewable mandate--all to benefit Enron Wind Corporation. (Enron was at the forefront of what is now called the climate-industrial complex.) I recount in some detail Enron's lobbying campaign that sparked the Texas and thus national wind boom in different posts here: http://masterresource.org/?cat=45. Your organization, AWEA, worked with Enron officials in an attempt to muzzle me while I was at Enron, in fact. If you scroll down here: http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/060898.pdf you will see a June 3, 1998, memo from AWEA's communications coordinator Michelle Montague to Ken Karas, head of Enron Wind. Karas tried to get me fired--preventing me from 'speaking truth to power,' if you will. Would you or any other AWEA person care to have a discussion/debate about the history and purpose of IER, the (political) history of the US wind industry, and the merits of windpower versus consumer-chosen alternatives? Let's decide on a time and place and invite the media to attend. - Rob Bradley Mr. Goggin:

It is just fine to make your points–and the comment above is polite–but why the ad hominem stuff? Your critique of IER’s comments begins with “The fossil fuel lobby continues …” and “the fossil fuel lobby front group…”.

I founded IER in 1989, and it is not a “front group” or “fossil fuel lobby.” IER is a scholarly organization that has a strong intellectual case that the energies that consumers voluntary chose are the best ones–and the modern wind industry is government-dependent from start to finish.

For the historical record, let me fill you in on a key reason why I founded IER: to have an independent voice in the energy debate while I was at Enron. And I fought Enron hard on its decision to enter into the wind business in 1997–a decision that all but saved the US wind industry (Zond was in trouble, and Kenetech was near bankruptcy).

I can name you the two Enron lobbyists that were at work to get the 1999 Texas renewable mandate–all to benefit Enron Wind Corporation. (Enron was at the forefront of what is now called the climate-industrial complex.)

I recount in some detail Enron’s lobbying campaign that sparked the Texas and thus national wind boom in different posts here: http://masterresource.org/?cat=45.

Your organization, AWEA, worked with Enron officials in an attempt to muzzle me while I was at Enron, in fact. If you scroll down here: http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/060898.pdf
you will see a June 3, 1998, memo from AWEA’s communications coordinator Michelle Montague to Ken Karas, head of Enron Wind. Karas tried to get me fired–preventing me from ‘speaking truth to power,’ if you will.

Would you or any other AWEA person care to have a discussion/debate about the history and purpose of IER, the (political) history of the US wind industry, and the merits of windpower versus consumer-chosen alternatives? Let’s decide on a time and place and invite the media to attend.

- Rob Bradley

]]> By: Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-2809 Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:41:40 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-2809 We appreciate that IER has taken the time to read and respond to our initial debunking of the misleading and false claims made in their report. For a follow-up debunking of the new arguments made above, please see our website: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/IER_Denmark_Response.pdf Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association We appreciate that IER has taken the time to read and respond to our initial debunking of the misleading and false claims made in their report. For a follow-up debunking of the new arguments made above, please see our website:
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/IER_Denmark_Response.pdf

Michael Goggin, American Wind Energy Association

]]> By: Tom Stacy http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-2365 Tom Stacy Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:54:59 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-2365 IER has elegantly described the cost, carbon avoidance and fossil replacement problems with wind energy. With a bit more digging, a breakdown of wind energy's entire revenue stream could be displayed, putting an exclamation point on the cost issue. This would obviate why the AWEA and other wind interests push for reducing non-delivery penalties and allowing negative bidding into grid supply auctions - forcing lower cost base load sources to opt out more frequently than they were designed to, and the entire rest of the system to operate less efficiently. The only major issue not touched on here is the sprawl and inappropriate placement of massive numbers of gigantic, non-compact intermittent generation units in low wind, high population density areas of the US. The effect of too much subsidy clearly has many undesirable side effects. IER has elegantly described the cost, carbon avoidance and fossil replacement problems with wind energy. With a bit more digging, a breakdown of wind energy’s entire revenue stream could be displayed, putting an exclamation point on the cost issue. This would obviate why the AWEA and other wind interests push for reducing non-delivery penalties and allowing negative bidding into grid supply auctions – forcing lower cost base load sources to opt out more frequently than they were designed to, and the entire rest of the system to operate less efficiently.

The only major issue not touched on here is the sprawl and inappropriate placement of massive numbers of gigantic, non-compact intermittent generation units in low wind, high population density areas of the US.

The effect of too much subsidy clearly has many undesirable side effects.

]]> By: Gary Novak http://www.masterresource.org/2009/09/iers-danish-wind-study-response-to-critics/comment-page-1/#comment-2364 Gary Novak Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:15:33 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4839#comment-2364 I don't see any evidence that the energy required to manufacture windmills is accounted for. I roughly estimate that 90¢ of every dollar spent goes to energy, since an extracted resource can only be compared to other extracted resources. This means, a $5 million dollar windmill uses $4.5 million in energy to produce it. There is no reduction in carbon dioxide in that dynamic. I don’t see any evidence that the energy required to manufacture windmills is accounted for. I roughly estimate that 90¢ of every dollar spent goes to energy, since an extracted resource can only be compared to other extracted resources. This means, a $5 million dollar windmill uses $4.5 million in energy to produce it. There is no reduction in carbon dioxide in that dynamic.

]]>