Michael Giberson
In an article titled “4 Reasons All Americans Should Be Worried About Wind Layoffs,” you’d think there would be at least one reason that people should be worried about wind industry layoffs.
Sadly, no.
Instead the author tells the reader: (1) wind power installations are largely in GOP-held congressional districts, (2) the U.S. is losing the “race” with China to build the most wind power, (3) fossil fuels receive tax breaks too, and (4) natural gas prices are low.
The only substantive content in the short piece was a casual invoking of “the externalities of fossil fuel.” I’d encourage the writer to hold on to this sentence, toss the rest, and start again.
I saw an op-ed in the NYT earlier this month, “Is the Energy Boom a Mirage?”, that begged the question, is it possible to talk about an energy boom without discussing the electricity sector?
I was not aware that the Administration was directing wind power subsidies at “GOP-held congressional districts” as punishment for their sins.
The “US is losing the “race” with China to build the most” coal and nuclear generators as well. I am not sure the US even entered that “race”.
Fossil fuels “receive tax breaks too”, but those tax breaks are actually deductions which reduce real tax obligations resulting from the generation of profits.
Natural gas prices are low, because EPA has not yet determined how it will force thenatural gas price up through regulation.
Another consideration about low natural gas prices is political pressure to permit the export of Natural Gas. This would be an anti-subsidy when the coercive power of the state is used to prevent you from exporting your product to the place where it can be sold at the highest price.
Wind gets a credit which can mean the difference between profit and loss. That is an altogether different animal than a deduction which only has worth if there is a profit now or sometime in the future.
In the above comment, I meant to say, “political pressure to prevent the export… “