Michael Giberson
This amusement, courtesy of Examiner.com: “Wind power officially cost effective, AWEA hopes for more incentives from Feds.”
The like link is “http://www.examiner.com/green-living-in-national/wind-power-officially-cost-effective,” but I warn you that the site may try to serve you multiple ads, making the experience more trouble than the story is actually worth.
The article does, however, make good on the headline by reporting that the American Wind Energy Association clearly states that wind power is competitive in the current marketplace and that the Association continues to work for “a strong federal energy policy [to drive] the deployment of renewable energy technologies” and “defending and improving on state renewable” power mandates.
[HT to an anonymous Austin-area reader. Thanks for sharing.]
Mike,
Glad to see your “BS” detector is still working. Denise Bode has hers turned off.
Comparisons of the kWh cost of intermittent sources of electricity and the kWh cost of reliable, dispatchable sources of electricity are meaningless.
I detect a fundamental tension in your logic.
Using the same logic, am I to assume the mortgage interest tax deduction is proof that home ownership is not cost effective?
How about education?… lots of subsidies there, must not be cost effective.
Pingback: Yoga For Beginners – Five Useful Things You Need to Know About the History of Yoga
Ed, I wouldn’t say that the comparisons are meaningless, you just need to be aware of just exactly what you are getting for the money. But I don’t blame Bode for turning off her BS detector. It would be impossible to get any work done at all in Washington DC with a functioning BS detector. The thing would be clanging all the time.
Tom, obviously not surprising that a Washington, DC, based trade association is seeking tax/subsidy/benefits for its members. In this respect the AWEA is not so different from any group from the National Mining Association to the Motion Picture Association of America. But a simultaneous assertion that says, in effect, “finally, we can stand on our own two feet” and “we won’t be able to continue to build without continued significant subsidies.”
What the title says to me is “we want significant subsidies” not “we need subsidies.”
I don’t see how you get anything else from “AWEA hopes for more incentives from Feds” unless it’s in the article you said was not worth reading.
Mike,
It is certainly an awareness of the conditions placed on “what you are getting for the money” that gives meaning to the comparisons. Bode is quite facile in assuming that her audience is aware of the conditional nature of the comparisons, or that they would find those conditions unimportant.