17 thoughts on “Apparently, someone does not like wind energy in Harrold”

  1. Scam is much more efficient as opposed to boondoggle. Straight out of the ethanol playbook. A business model built upon other people’s money.

  2. Like many government subsidized scams, the business would fail if not for taxpayer assistance.

  3. I think another scam exists as well. Several landowners who are vocally opposed to wind energy have made it clear they would change their tune if they could only get a couple leases on the land that they own. Isn’t It sad… trying to keep your neighbor from getting a little additional revenue just because you aren’t getting a cut for yourself.

  4. Here are some wind energy facts:

    1) Wind energy provided more than half of the power on the grid that servers the Great Plains (Texas-Montana) in February.

    2) In 2016, it provided more power than hydro-electric power in the US.

    3) Wind generated megawatt cost has dropped 2/3 since 2009.

    4) Wind generated megawatt capacity is now cheaper to bring online than hydro-electric and nuclear. For instance, rather than building transmission lines to bring in power to growing Sioux Falls, it would be cheaper for us to have a higher % of electricity from wind.

    5) There is a national defense component of wind power. Because of the vulnerability of our national grid, DOD is laying out a plan for critical local power to be independent of the grid of which solar and wind are the key components. Partly because of our local capacity to produce oil, DOD not considers electrical power more critical than the strategic oil reserve.

    If we want to grow as a nation, we will require more energy and wind is a vital component of that energy.

    I’m not saying I support all and infinite levels/time of wind subsidies. But, to assert we could do without it and shutting off the subsidies all-together now is in our national interests is not supported by economic facts.

    1. If wind is the answer, and cheap, and easy to bring on line, and clean, and vital, why does the government have to subsidize profits?

    2. Your point number 4, are you factoring the true costs or are you using the costs after the subsidies for that statistic? Also, when I was talking to a person from a tech school that teaches people to service wind turbines, he said they needed twice as many techs to service turbines that were 5 years old. Surely that is better now, but I do not know for sure. An interesting article from Powerline: https://2lffqo2moysixpyb349z0bj6-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MN-Energy-10.2017-Final.pdf

      1. Picture this, a late August day in Sioux Falls, temperature 103, humidity near 95%, not a breath of wind around.

        Why ya gonna call for power?

    3. Your #2 is very misleading. The only reason wind surpassed hydro is because they always keep some of the hydro turbines shut off now in their green energy trade-off scheme. Otherwise hydro would easily surpass wind in watts produced and efficiency.

    4. Looks like you forgot to include the wonderful health benefits and lack of dangers that come with wind turbines. Large turbines may have blades that are over 50 meters long — meaning the rotor diameter would be over 100 meters long (more than the length of a football field). Nothing could go wrong, right?

      How many eagles are killed each year from these splendid turbines, one might think PETA would be in an uproar. And, when looking out over the prairie, the scenery is so much more majestic when turbines blanket the landscape.

    5. Sadly, the “all in” energy strategy is misguided from a governmental standpoint. It started during the oil bubble, and was a scape goat for our collective confusion about what happens after oil. Wind and solar’s popularity rose together and both suffer similar analytical flaws, including economic projections that only go out a couple years and fail to include some of the biggest maintenance issues. The only real problem with the concept is the obvious, no wind no power. Economically, the industry is still a long way from viability when you remove subsidies. Oh, and when there’s no wind (and no sun), we’re left with the traditional sources, which will therefore never go away. Hate to say it, but suggesting wind is “vital” to anything is nothing more than a taking point. Vital suggests we’re losing power from other sources, we’re not. Or if we lost other sources wind could get us through, it couldn’t. Or maybe other options were becoming cost prohibitive, they’re not. Or maybe we losing international influence or power through other sources, not happening actually going the other way. If private companies want to take a chance go ahead, but government should get out of the game.

  5. He’s no Troy Jones, but…

    Fact 6) “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

  6. Windmills make no sense to generate electricity for the grid. They are an additional expense over and above the conventional power generation capacity that you need to build because wind is simply not reliable. The wind power scam is perpetuated by government subsidies and gimmicks as noted in comments above. In subsidizing wind turbines, the USA is simply feeding Chinese manufacturing – they will be happy to sell stuff to suckers., and getting in return unreliable, high maintenance, low return, expensive and environmentally destructive wind turbines that will wear out in a couple decades.

    1. On Noem’s Congress website, there’s a background picture with turbines, it’s annoying mostly because of the insight you so nicely laid out before us. She should remove it, but first she should more thoroughly research the benefits vs disadvantages. Certainly she’d find this is not the green option for South Dakota. Many farmers and city residents are not in favor of wind energy.

      1. Sorry to disagree, KM, but she needs to leave the windmill. It is actually very telling of an establishment candidate. Clueless. She brays endlessly of her conservative bonifides in her commercials while working hand in glove with Ryan and Boehner before that while having a near allergic reaction to the freedom caucus. She can’t get out of her own way…

  7. Coal, gas, and nukes is the way to generate power. Hydro is fine but that has all been tapped in North America already.

Comments are closed.