Green Energy Wind Subsides Distort Free Markets

The progressive agenda of slamming on the brakes of oil and gas development is designed to slow the growth of our industrial base and force the population to into declining life style. The Obama administration believes America has been the problem in the world and so must pay for centuries of exploitation of lesser countries. Mr Obama believes the best way to level the playing field is to slow Americas prosperity growth. 

Mr Obama believes, as his father did, the collective system of resource distribution is the only way to solve the problem of the United States ruling the world because of it industrial might. To bring this country in line with other countries that have been victims of our power, we must suffer decline in our living standards. Witness the last four years of increases in energy and food.

It is the belief of the progressive socialist liberal Democrats that the country will be much better off if we all live a life that isn't better or worse then anyone else. Life should be all about the collective.

Believe, this is what the voters last November decided was a good idea. What other conclusion can one come to? The majority of the voting public voted for decline. Just look what the voters did in California.

The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies
January 8, 2013
Source: Phil Gramm, "The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies," Wall Street Journal, December 25, 2012.

The wind industry receives lavish subsidies from the federal government. But this distorts the market and prevents even competition among different energy sources. Subsidies waste taxpayer money, subvert the allocation of capital, and generate a social cost many times the price tag of the subsidies themselves, says Phil Gramm, a former senator and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

• According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind subsidies cost $52.48 per one million watt hours generated.
• In contrast, the same amount of electricity from nuclear power costs $3.10.
• Hydropower only costs 84 cents and natural gas costs only 63 cents.

There are also many indirect subsidies that the wind industry receives from the government. For example, the government mandates that federal agencies use renewable energy. In addition, many states provide more tax breaks and mandates for wind power. The total amount of direct and indirect assistance has never been truly measured or calculated.

The government's insistence on wind energy distorts the market and displaces other sources of energy that would otherwise be cheaper. But since wind is so subsidized, many utility companies end up using wind power. Rather than using taxpayer money more effectively, the government subsidizes a non-competitive industry.

On top of that, wind power is highly inefficient and has a high failure rate. Considering that the electricity is generated only when the wind blows, the risk that wind won't be able to produce sufficient power is high. For example, when peak demand for electricity occurred in Chicago this past summer, wind energy, which made up 2,700 megawatts of capacity, only supplied four megawatts of electricity -- a 99.8 percent failure rate.

As a result, many power grids that utilize wind energy have to maintain backup generating capacity, which ends up being costlier. On top of that, much of the backup electricity is comprised of coal and natural gas, energy sources that are deemed environmentally unfriendly.

Despite years of research and money into wind power, there has been little to no technological development to make wind a more viable energy source. On the other hand, there has been significant technological development in oil and gas that has reduced prices significantly. But wind subsidies disincentivize people from investing in natural gas, an industry that could be responsible for millions of new jobs.