The Truth from Europe

The wind industry likes to tell stories about wind power in Europe and make us in the United States feel that we are woefully behind our friends across the Atlantic, imploring us to catch up.

The reality is that the European wind experience is increasingly colored by gross failure, economic problems related to unsustainable subsidies, curtailment of subsidies and citizen revolt.

This section is thus what the U.S. wind industry does not want you to know about Europe.

10/1/09 - Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies:The German experience

2/15/10 - Wind Energy's Ghosts (Bankrupt Europe has a lesson for Congress about wind power)

3/10/10 - ‘Anti-Lobbyist’ Obama Administration Recruited Left-Wing Lobbyists to Sell Bogus ‘Green Jobs’

6/18/1111 - Governor LePage: Wind Turbines Damaging Maine's Quality of Life and Mountains" (references Sweden in Denmark)

2/1/12 - Learning from Others’ Mistakes: What Europe’s Experience with Renewable Mandates and Subsidies can Teach Texas

October 2009 - Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies:The German experience

Excerpt: "Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits."

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

February 15, 2010 - Wind Energy's Ghosts (Bankrupt Europe has a lesson for Congress about wind power)

Wind Energy's Ghosts

*******************************

3/3/10 - ‘Anti-Lobbyist’ Obama Administration Recruited Left-Wing Lobbyists to Sell Bogus ‘Green Jobs’

September 12, 2010 - Denmark to abandon future onshore wind farms in the country?

An ill wind blows for Denmark's green energy revolution

ERIC REGULY

Austerity pulling plug on Europe's green subsidies

The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates. But the real victims are the investors who bought into the dream of endless, clean energy financed by the taxpayer. They forgot that governments often change their minds.

Spain is famous for its housing bubble, whose bursting drove the national unemployment rate to 20 per cent-plus. Less well known is the renewable energy bubble, inflated by a government bent on shaking down the taxpayer to subsidize clean energy – a social program disguised as a politically correct industrial program.

It worked. Sunny Spain became the world’s top solar power producer. Since 2002, about €23-billion has been invested in Spain’s photovoltaic (PV) industry, which sucked up €2.7-billion in subsidies in 2009 alone, or more than 40 per cent of the freebies doled out to the country’s entire renewables sector.

When the Spanish economy went into the toilet in 2008 and 2009, austerity measures were put into place. At first, it appeared the solar industry would be spared the worst of the cutbacks. That changed a bit, but only a bit, in November, when a royal decree reduced tariffs by up to 45 per cent on new PV plants; existing plants would remain untouched. Then – whammo! – a new royal decree landed with a thud just before Christmas. While it didn’t change the tariff, it retroactively limited the number of production hours that PV plants could qualify for the subsidies.

Spain’s solar industry lobby group, the Asociacion Empresarial Fotovoltaica, estimated that the second decree would effectively reduce tariffs received by PV plants by 30 per cent, forcing many of the PV companies to default on their debt. Infrastructure Investor magazine called the second decree “the Christmas Eve massacre.”

Other European countries are also taking a long, hard look at their renewable energy sector and wondering whether it’s affordable. In December, the French government unveiled a plan for a three-month moratorium on new solar projects that are eligible for subsidized tariffs. The goal was to prevent a speculative PV bubble while it mulls new regulations for renewable energy.

There is no doubt the replacement regime will be less generous. CRE, the independent regulator of the French energy and natural gas markets, recently estimated that taxes on electricity would have to almost triple to meet the rising costs of renewable energy. The question, of course, is whether rising energy taxes could kill more jobs than those created by renewable energy expansion.

Germany is scaling back subsidies, too, and revealed another reduction a few days ago to households that generate electricity with their own solar panels. In the United States, where the incentives generally come in the form of tax credits instead of subsidized tariffs, the appetite for long-term support seems to be waning, partly because of the natural gas glut. Ditto in Canada. In Ontario last year, the average price for power was 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. The feed-in tariff for solar installations ranged from 44 cents to 80 cents, that is, up to 20 times the market rate. (Ontario revised that higher end of the range downward to 64.2 cents last summer.) Watch the next Ontario government drain the renewable energy slush fund.

Renewable energy is fraught with difficulties. In less-sunny climates, PV panels make little sense, though that hasn’t stopped Germany and Britain from installing them on rooftops everywhere. Wind power is becoming hugely popular in some parts of the world. But since the wind doesn’t always blow, backup power has to be installed. That means consumers have to pay for the capacity twice and the backup power is usually of the fossil-fuel variety. Denmark, which has a reputation as the cleanest of the clean countries, actually generates about half its electricity from coal, the grubbiest fuel. That proportion hasn’t varied in a decade in spite of the country’s relentless pursuit of wind power.

The austerity programs have piled on additional difficulties in the form of subsidy reductions. No government would announce “temporary” subsidies, for fear of scaring off investment in renewable energy. Still, that’s exactly what the subsidies are turning out to be. Investors everywhere are going to get slaughtered as debt-swamped governments trim or eliminate the freebies. The ailing share prices of renewable energy companies such as Spain’s Iberdrola Renovables gives you an idea of the (waning) investor sentiment.

The renewable energy bubble was inflated by government subsidies. Those same governments are now deflating them. Turns out the subsidies were too good to be true.

**************************************
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted

Wind and solar energy subsidies are experiencing drastic cutbacks in many European nations and some places in the United states

Wind and solar energy subsidies are experiencing drastic cutbacks in many European nations and some places in the United states

In a radical change of policy, the Netherlands is reducing its targets for renewable energy and slashing the subsidies for wind and solar power. It has also given the green light for the country’s first new nuclear power plants in almost 40 years. Why the change? Wind and solar subsidies are too expensive. Holland thus becomes the first country to abandon the EU-wide target of producing 20 percent of its domestic power from renewables. (1)

Italy’s government passed a decree to stop solar energy and deep cuts in wind energy due to their high costs to consumers and technical problems integrating these sources into the existing infrastructure. (2)

Solomon also reported that in October, New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, slashed by two-thirds the revenue that homeowners who had installed solar panels would receive from 60 cents per kilowatt-hour to 20 cents. New South Wales overnight went from being Australia’s most generous to least generous subsidizer. Also in October, the UK government announced that withering spending cuts were coming to renewable projects. (3)

Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Virginia either cancelled or delayed renewable energy projects

In the US, state regulators in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Virginia either cancelled or delayed renewable energy projects that would raise rates for consumers. (3)

Thanks in part to the wind farm subsidies, Danes pay some of Europe’s highest energy tariffs—on average, more than twice those in Britain. (4)

In Spain, ‘green jobs’ can require a subsidy of $1,000,000 per job. Wind-related jobs in Denmark are subsidized at the rate of 175 to 250 percent above average pay, roughly costing taxpayers $90,000 to $140,000 for each ‘green’ employee. (5) Spain increased its electricity costs for households and small businesses 20% between January 2010 and January 2011. The government’s official explanation of this increase is the huge bill for renewables’ subsidies. Industry’s electricity costs have risen 110% and Spain has over 20% official unemployment. (6)

Extreme green Ontario is experiencing rate hikes 50 times greater than those countenanced in some US jurisdictions. (3)

Green jobs cannot reduce unemployment when they require significant government assistance. When the President and Congress talk about green jobs, they are talking about ones created via federal tax breaks, subsidies, or outright mandates. For example, wind and solar-generated electricity already enjoy subsidies nearly 50 times higher per unit of energy output than ordinary coal and 100 times higher than natural gas. (7)

Kenneth Green sums this up quite well: “With $2.3 billion in Recovery Act tax credits allocated for green manufacturers, President Obama and other Democratic politicians have high hopes for green technology. But their expectations clash with both economic theory and practical experience in Europe. Green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create almost five jobs in the general economy. Wind and solar power have raised household energy prices by 7.5 percent in Germany and Denmark has the highest electricity prices in the European Union. Central planners in the United States trying to promote green industry will fare no better at creating jobs or stimulating the economy.” (8)

Jack Dini has been writing on science and environmental issues for the past 13 years, publishing in places like Hawaii Reporter, Environment & Climate News, American Council on Science and Health and others. Jack can be reached at: jdini@comcast.net

The Wind Experience

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the world now has 197 gigawatts of installed wind capacity with the largest amount in China (45 gigawatts), followed by the United States (40 gigawatts). Europe, led by Germany (27 gigawatts), has thelargest regional share of the total, 44 percent, followed by Asia with 31 percent. But the issue of much of this capacity is useable and benefiting the electricity grid and jobs is another question entirely. European countries have found that subsidies, set asides, and special treatment for renewables cost the country job losses in other sectors. Denmark, a country that generates 20 percent of its electricity demand from wind, can only use half that amount and must export the remainder to Norway and Sweden whose hydroelectric power can serve as a storage device. In the United Kingdom, wind farms were paid 900,000 pounds to disconnect their units for one night because the electricity was not needed. In China, the wind expansion was so great that many wind units were sitting idle because they were not connected to the grid. Add to that, noise pollution, property devaluation, frozen turbine blades, bird kills, and the cost of revamping the electric grid starts to make one wonder whether wind power was the correct course of action and what its future entails.

The European Experience

Germany. Germany began its onshore wind expansion in 1997, instituting a feed in tariff to cover the higher cost of wind power that was 300 percent higher than traditional electricity costs. The highly subsidized wind market generated numerous investors who were guaranteed a market for 20 or more years and a high enough price to earn a profit. But, in 2008, German consumers were paying about 7.5 percent higher rates ( 1.5 cents more on a 20 cent per kilowatt hour household rate) and the abatement costs for carbon from wind generation were $80 a metric ton, four times the cost of carbon traded in the European trading system. Worse still, wind generally only produced about a fifth of its capacity. When its output rose to over 20 gigawatts on a windy weekend, grid connections to neighboring countries had to be shut down because they could not handle the additional power. Now that Germany has temporarily shut down some of its older nuclear units due to the nuclear accident in Japan, Germany has had to import power, principally nuclear power, from France and the Czech Republic. Certainly an ironic situation‚Äìwith domestic nuclear being unpopular, imported nuclear had to be used to keep the lights on.

Germany is now moving its wind expansion to the offshore in an attempt to replace nuclear power. On May 2, 2011, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel toured Germany’s first commercial offshore wind farm. The50-megawatt wind farm is located 10 miles north of the Darss Peninsula in the Baltic Sea. Because of rough conditions in the Baltic and North Sea and because of the difficulty of getting loans for a large wind farm due to its cost, offshore wind has not progressed as quickly in Germany as in other European countries. Germany would like to have 10,000 megawatts of offshore wind by 2020 and is planning to finance $7.4 billion in loans for the first 10 offshore wind farms despite its problems from subsidizing onshore wind. According to German think tank Dena, in order to integrate its renewable energy sources, Germany will need to spend at least $13 billion on new transmission lines, covering about 2,240 miles.

Spain. In Spain, a study by Gabriel Calzada Alverez of the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos released in March 2009 found that:

Denmark. In 2009, a Danish think tank, CEPOS, published a study on that country’s wind industry, investigating reports of its 20 percent wind generation. The study found that while 19 percent of the country’s electricity generation was supplied by wind, wind only supplied an average of 9.7 percent of its electricity demand over a five year period. And, in fact, in 2006, wind generation only supplied 5 percent of demand. The country cannot use all the wind energy it generates since most of it is produced at night. Over an eight year period, West Denmark exported 57 percent of its wind generation and East Denmark exported 45 percent to neighboring Norway and Sweden, whose hydroelectric power can be easily switched on and off and can act as storage for the excess wind generation.

As a result of the subsidization for wind power, Denmark’s electricity customers have the highest electricity rates in Europe. Further, little carbon dioxide abatement results because displacing hydroelectric power does not displace carbon dioxide emissions. While some fossil displacement takes place in Denmark, it is at a cost of $124 per metric ton, nearly 6 times the trading value of carbon on the European Exchange. The CEPOS study also found that employment was reduced when it shifted from more productive sectors to the wind sector. An anti-wind association in Denmark, Neighbors of Large Wind Turbines, now has over 40 civic groups as members, protesting the noise and property devaluation caused by wind turbines

United Kingdom. The United Kingdom joined the renewable power band wagon andVerso Economics assessed the impact. They found that for every renewable job created in the UK, 3.7 jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy. In 2009/2010, the cost to electricity consumers in the UK was $1.75 billion and in Scotland, it was $159 million. The Verso study was different than its predecessors in that it used an input-output model to generate its results. Environmental groups had criticized earlier studies for using methodologies other than input-output models.

According to a recent study, wind installations in the UK produce wind power at only 21 percent of capacity. One factor for this poor performance is that Awind turbines in the UK freeze in the winter, suspending their generation and requiring the turbines to be heated, creating a demand for additional energy. And besides freezing temperatures, very high winds have caused the turbines to be turned off to prevent damage. Recently, the British have found that three of its older coal-fired power plants will need to be retired sooner than originally expected needing to turn to wind for its replacement power. The irony is that any one of the coal plants provides almost twice as much electricity as all of Britain’s 3,000 wind turbines put together. The contribution of the country’s wind mills during weeks of freezing weather last winter was minuscule, and during hot weather recently, the country had to import nuclear power from France since there was no wind power. Recently, wind operators were asked to turn off their wind turbines and were paid900,000 pounds to do so because there was insufficient demand. The payments were about 20 times the cost of the power they would have produced.

The costs and technical obstacles are much, much higher for offshore wind, getting power from the offshore to where it is needed, when it is needed, and at the time of production. And the question is: Who should pay for grid development? Should it be subsidized or should the market bear the brunt? Another issue with new transmission is where to place the lines. Overhead is an eyesore to many, underground has cooling problems, and there is also lost energy getting it from either the windy north or sunny south to central European demand centers.

The U.S. Experience

Like Germany, the United States has built its wind onshore and ranks second in the world in total wind capacity. Last year, wind generated 2.3 percent of the electricity demand in the United States. Like Germany, the United States would like to venture to its offshore for wind generation. It has approved the construction of wind turbines off of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The problem is getting buyers for the power which is more expensive than onshore wind generation and more expensive than current electricity rates in Massachusetts. Only half of the currently planned capacity has a buyer.

Other issues have also surfaced. On the same day that Chancellor Merkel toured Germany’s first commercial offshore wind farm, May 2, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement announced that they were more than halving the amount of offshore areas in Massachusetts that would be available for lease to offshore wind. That came as a result of a request from Massachusetts Governor Patrick Deval and other political officials from Massachusetts, who are reacting to concerns from the fishing industry. The original area to be leased was about 12 nautical miles south of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket and extending about 31 nautical miles offshore.

Noise pollution is also a problem. In Maine, for example, the current minimum setback is1.5 times the height of the tower, or between 582 and 615 feet for most projects. The setback distance is based on safety guidelines from the turbine manufacturer. But, folks affected would prefer a mile setback to keep people from being disturbed by the noise, the low-frequency sound pressure and vibrations that turbines and their blades make under various wind conditions.

Like Europe, the United States is dealing with grid-related issues. One issue is the ramping up and down of fossil fuel and nuclear generators based on when the wind blows or does not blow. When wind capacity was small, natural gas turbines were able to deal with most of the ramping. But now, coal is being ramped up and down based on the output of the wind units. That ramping up and down of coal units that were designed to operate continuously, exposes valves, piping and other components to more extreme temperature shifts and causes potentially damaging changes in steam operation. It also causes carbon dioxide emissions to increase because more carbon dioxide is released due to the ramping than if the coal unit was run continuously because more fuel is burned.

Another grid-related problem results from the oversupply of electricity. Recently, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) indicated that they were going to draft a policy to shut down wind turbines during excess electricity because of high water levels that resulted from storms and spring runoff from melting snow. That caused concern from wind turbine operators, who receive a production tax credit based on their actual generation levels. As a result, renewable advocates and environmentalists indicated that BPA should spill water over the dams instead of shutting down wind turbines. BPA argued against spilling water and curtailing hydropower production because it conflicts with a mandate to protect endangered salmon and steelhead and meet water quality standards in rivers. Because the force of falling water creates air bubbles that dissolve as gas in waterways, the gas can harm fish and violate the Clean Water Act. According to BPA, a wind power shutdown would be a last resort, but it must balance its energy load.

The ad below from Idaho Power points out issues with variable generation sources.

Conclusion

Although wind is a renewable, European experience has shown that its development causes loss of jobs in the economy, grid stability problems, high subsidization, higher retail electricity rates, and usage issues. Europe increased their renewable generation so quickly that it did not evaluate how its electric grid would be affected and now needs to make substantial investments. The United States is also involved with grid-associated problems with renewable energy including generation over supply and ramping problems primarily when backing up wind generation with coal units.

Most disturbing, though, is the level of subsidization that Europe has amassed from developing its wind industry, the higher rates that its population pays for wind-generated electricity and the limited amount of wind generation actually available to the countries that paid for it. There is still time for the United States to learn lessons from the European wind experience, but will it?

While the U.S. is dumping billions of dollars into wind farms and onshore and offshore wind turbines, this energy source is being cast aside as a failure elsewhere in the world.

Some 410 federations and associations from 21 European countries, for example, have united against deployment of wind farms charging it is “degrading the quality of life.”

The European Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) is demanding “a moratorium suspending all wind farm projects and a “complete assessment of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of wind farms in Europe.” The EPAW said it objects to industrial wind farms which “are spreading in a disorderly manner across Europe” under pressure from “financial and ideological lobby groups,” that are “degrading the quality of life living in their vicinity, affecting the health of many, devaluing people’s property and severely harming wildlife.” A petition for a moratorium has been sent to the European Commission and Parliament, said EPAW chairman J.L Butre.

France, earlier his year ran into opposition to its plan to build 3,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind turbines by 2020. That year is the target date the European Union set for providing 20 percent of its energy through renewable sources. An organization called the Sustainable Environment Association, opposes wind power, saying the subsidies will “not create a single job in France.”

In Canada, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) has launched a province-wide drive against wind power. It said Aug. 8 it wants to ensure that the next government is clear that “there is broad based community support for a moratorium…and stringent environmental protection of natural areas from industrial wind development.” WCO claimed, “ The Wind industry is planning a high powered campaign to shut down support” for the WCO’s aims. “Our goal is to store the petition until the next legislative session gets underway in the fall…”

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. But even though Holland is synonymous with windmills, the installed capacity of wind turbines in the Netherlands at large has been stagnant for the past three years, according to an article in February in the Energy Collective. It was 2237 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2011. That was said to be about 3.37 percent of total annual electricity production. The principal reason for the stagnant onshore capacity “is the Dutch people’s opposition to the wind turbines.” They are up to 400 feet in height.

The Dutch national wind capacity factor is a dismal 0.186. The German wind capacity factor “is even more dismal at 0.167,” the article said.

Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape “at a cost of about $6 billion.” Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”

An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. “The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.” The article added, “The proposed Cape Wind project in Massachusetts is a perfect example of such a project.” Environmental Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in July wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal blasting the project off Cape Cod as “a rip-off.” Recently, the Netherlands became the first country to abandon the European Union target of producing 20 percent of its domestic power from renewables by 2020.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

The Australian government, like the U.S., has placed a major emphasis on deploying renewable sources of energy, especially wind energy. As in the U.S.,Australia set a target of 20 percent of its energy to come from renewal sources by 2020. The government provides generous subsidies and tax breaks to wind energy developers. But medical studies on farmer families living within 5 miles of wind farms found health problems ranging from sleep deprivation to nausea. Similar health effects have been discovered in other locations, including in the U.S.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Onshore wind power today costs about $0.13 per kWh. That’s nowhere neareither the objective of the U.S. Department of Energy or the cost of competing power sources. The wind turbines jutting into the sky all across the country exist only because of the massive federal subsidies. Is this considered a failure by Obama officials? No way. Obama’s 2012 budget proposal increases renewables spending by 33 percent.

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment. So the state’s comptroller general figured, according to a December 20, 2010 story in the Austin American-Statesman.

As long ago as 1973, then- President Nixon called for “Project Independence” in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo. The project was to achieve energy independence through development of alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal power. So, there’s nothing new about renewable energy.

The Obama 2012 budget asks for $8 billion for “clean” energy, mainly wind power subsidies. As recently as Feb. 7, the secretaries of Energy and Interior announced plans to launch dozens of offshore turbines miles out at sea, while admitting the expense would be unknown. Despite generous subsidies, wind power is expected to provide no more than 8 percent of electric power in the U.S. by 2030.

The American Wind Industry Energy Association, the wind lobby group, said the top five states for wind energy were Texas, Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Washington. It said the second quarter of 2011 saw over 1,033 megawatts of capacity installed. It also maintained that wind is second only to natural gas and U.S. wind power represents more than 20 percent of the world’s wind power.

Over the next half century, say, it’s possible some new technologies will revolutionize energy. But, if so, they surely will come from the private sector — not government.

About Tait Trussell

Tait Trussell is a national award-winning writer, former vice-president of the American Enterprise Institute and former Washington correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.

October 30, 2011 - Letter from EPAW, the European Platform Against Windfarms

Dear members of EPAW,
The launching pad of the windfarm invasion is a mountain of public funds. If you withdraw the subsidies, the wind industry will collapse.
If we want to go for the throat, we must denounce these subsidies. Now is the time to do it, because they are contributing in no small measure to the budget deficits of EU countries, to their sovereign debts, and to the crisis of the euro. This in turn causes governments to make drastic cuts in social benefits. If the public knew that windfarms are hurting their wallets this way, the wind monsters would be a lot less popular.
We have thus decided to denounce publicly the fact that Greece and Spain (implying Italy, Ireland, and Portugal as well), continue to increase their sovereign debts by financing with public funds economically inviable "green" energy projects. What this means is that the countries that collectively guarantee these sovereign debts, and who just paid billions of euros to save Greece, must tighten their own social belts to allow the profligate countries to continue spending money they don't have on windfarms and other expensive and inefficient projects.
To denounce this is to hit our enemy where it most hurts. It is therefore what we must do.
Here is a press release that we invite you to send to your contacts in the media:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 30, 2011
Someone has to pay for the “green fiesta”
Spanish electricity giant Iberdrola warns of another bubble

The president of Iberdrola, Ignacio Sánchez Galán, declared Thursday in Madrid that the brakes should be applied on the development of thermosolar energy in Spain, because it is "economically inefficient".He warned that this immature technology may create “a new bubble” similar to that of the photovoltaic, with a cost to the Spanish consumers of €2 billion annually (1).
"Someone has to pay for the green fiesta”, he warned at a conference attended by analysts. He added that the amount of public funds spent to support green technologies “makes the Spanish MWh the most costly in the whole of Europe”.
The European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) remarks that, like Greece, Spain continues to squander on uneconomic energy projects money it doesn’t have. The Iberian country has conveniently placed off-budget € 22 billion's worth of "deficit tarifario", or green energy deficit, which nevertheless needs to be financed by sovereign debt. EPAW has learned that the Saudis have been invited to finance it, but no details have been released regarding State guarantee or other security being offered.
“What's most worrying is the lack of transparency", says Mark Duchamp, EPAW’s CEO. What kind of deal is being offered to the Saudis, he asks? Like the Chinese, who are being asked to fund the European Financial Stability Facility, it is unlikely they will lend billions on an unsecured basis, or without important perks. They've seen the German and French banks bite the bullet on Greek debt, now worth to them 50 cents on the euro. "What is being offered that we don't know?" wonders Duchamp. "Having sold its furniture to pay for decades of public overspending, are the EU governments now mortgaging the European house to be able to continue wasting away money that we don't have on uneconomic renewable energies?"
EPAW has been provided with scientific proof that "the most mature" of the green technologies, wind farming, doesn't actually save on C02 and fossil fuel imports. "More on that next week", adds Duchamp.
The North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW) comments along the same lines. Says her CEO, Sherri Lange: "The United States and Canada are following the European model. It would be wiser to watch and learn, instead of jumping on a bandwagon that's headed for the cliff."

Contacts:
Mark Duchamp
CEO, EPAW
www.epaw.org
Tel: 34 693 643 736 (Spain)
save.the.eagles@gmail.com
Sherri Lange
CEO, NA-PAW
www.na-paw.org
Tel: 1 416 567 5115 (Canada)
kodaisl@rogers.com

(1) References:
http://www.expansion.com/accesible/2011/10/27/empresasenergia/13197...
http://www.noticias.com/sanchez-galan-pide-cambiar-el-insostenible-...

2/1/12 - Learning from Others’ Mistakes: What Europe’s Experience with Renewable Mandates and Subsidies can Teach Texas

Wind Energy's Ghosts

*******************************

An ill wind blows for Denmark's green energy revolution

Denmark has long been a role model for green activists, but now it has become one of the first countries to turn against the turbines.

ERIC REGULY

Austerity pulling plug on Europe's green subsidies

LONDON— From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 7:15PM EST

Last updated Friday, Feb. 11, 2011 2:59PM EST

The Wind Experience

Although wind is a renewable, European experience has shown that its development causes loss of jobs in the economy, grid stability problems, high subsidization, higher retail electricity rates, and usage issues

The European Experience

The U.S. Experience

Conclusion

Governor LePage: Wind Turbines Damaging Maine's Quality of Life and Mountains"

Governor takes town hall meeting to Rockport

About 250 people turn out for his fifth Capitol for a Day event since his inauguration.

Wind Power Is Dying

About Tait Trussell

*******************************

11/19/11 - Wind farms are useless, says Duke of Edinburgh

The Duke of Edinburgh has made a fierce attack on wind farms, describing them as “absolutely useless”.

The Truth from Europe

Wind Energy's Ghosts

*******************************

An ill wind blows for Denmark's green energy revolution

Denmark has long been a role model for green activists, but now it has become one of the first countries to turn against the turbines.

ERIC REGULY

Austerity pulling plug on Europe's green subsidies

LONDON— From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 7:15PM EST

Last updated Friday, Feb. 11, 2011 2:59PM EST

The Wind Experience

Although wind is a renewable, European experience has shown that its development causes loss of jobs in the economy, grid stability problems, high subsidization, higher retail electricity rates, and usage issues

The European Experience

The U.S. Experience

Conclusion

Governor LePage: Wind Turbines Damaging Maine's Quality of Life and Mountains"

Governor takes town hall meeting to Rockport

About 250 people turn out for his fifth Capitol for a Day event since his inauguration.

Wind Power Is Dying

About Tait Trussell

*******************************

11/19/11 - Wind farms are useless, says Duke of Edinburgh

The Duke of Edinburgh has made a fierce attack on wind farms, describing them as “absolutely useless”.

The country has 3,421 turbines — 2,941 of them onshore — with another 4,500 expected to be built under plans for wind power to play a more important role in providing Britain’s energy.