Note: counts do not include items in sub-categories
From numbers acquired from this FOIA request, it was determined there is an accumulated five-year loss of more than $130,000. At the end of 10 years, when the last of the turbine's loan payments are scheduled to be made, the district can be projected to have a deficit of more than $260,000 if the expenses or repairs don't go up. In the most recent year alone, the annual insurance and maintenance expenses have risen more than $2,000.
Many in Falmouth town government have been inclined to ‘down-play' the devastating health plight of local residents. Town official chose to promote the turbines for their financial and ‘green' benefit. The required night time curtailment protocol has nullified those expected benefits. The justification from Town Hall for the turbines has dramatically changed. The benefit has mistakenly become a liability. Simply stating the town's case -- "it's just not possible to afford not to operate them."
The subsidies paid to operate offshore wind turbines - the most expensive form of energy ever devised - will rise 16-fold to an annual £4.2 billion. The hated onshore turbines will also get huge new subsidies, at least doubling their number to about 6,500.
Even this underestimates the Bill's full burden, which is closer to £110 billion.
Another week and another war of words is being waged over our green and pleasant land. Last Thursday, Prince Charles told the Oxford Farming Conference that the countryside is "as precious as an ancient cathedral". Former poet laureate Andrew Motion, railed against the government's relaxation of planning rules that is threatening "our spiritual connection to woodland and wilderness".
Nowhere is this battle more heated than over the subject of wind turbines.
Acoustician Richard James provides a brief explanation of the Shirley wind farm sound study where four investigating firms found sufficient evidence to classify LFN and infrasound emanating from the turbines as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the wind industry.
Why is the public not more aware of this carnage? First, because the wind industry (with the shameful complicity of some ornithological organisations) has gone to great trouble to cover it up - to the extent of burying the corpses of victims. Second, because the ongoing obsession with climate change means that many environmentalists are turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of renewable energy.
Then there are the green-energy giveaways that are also quickly becoming entitlements. The wind production tax credit got another one-year reprieve, thanks to Mr. Obama and GOP Senators John Thune (South Dakota) and Chuck Grassley (Iowa). This freebie for the likes of the neediest at General Electric and Siemens.
The lesson of the Galloo tax deal should be clear in the minds of county legislators. It was an expensive concession that resulted in no benefit to the county, school and town governments. Jefferson County leaders should prepare themselves to tell all wind developers that they already have all the tax breaks they need to prosper and that the county will not add property tax relief to the parade of federal subsidies.
These subsidies, touted by their early sponsors 20 years ago as necessary to kick-start a green industry, do little to keep carbon dioxide, an earth-warming gas generated by combustion of fossil fuels, out of the atmosphere. And that little costs a lot - $12 billion if the subsidies are renewed for another year.
Wind is free. Converting it to electricity is not. It appears the cost falls to us, even for power we do not want or need. The generators of wind power demand we pay for electricity they do not make, and ensure their profits from taxpayer subsidies they do not receive.
The wind lobby, fearing it could lose for a change, has suddenly changed its strategy and has sent Congress a letter, saying that it would be willing to accept a six-year phaseout of the production tax credit. But as Phil Gramm notes nearby, the wind subsidy was sold as temporary from the very beginning. Rest assured that once the six years are up, the industry will be back asking for another six.
Billions of dollars in subsidies will continue to be paid out over the next decade on existing projects even if the subsidies for projects built in the future expire. If unimpeded, the expanded use of cheap natural gas to generate electricity will raise living standards and attract millions of new industrial jobs. A vote to stop wind subsidies from being extended is, therefore, a vote for cheaper, more reliable power, higher living standards, reindustrialization and fiscal sanity.
Far from offering residents any real protection, this latest proposal will have the likely outcome of inviting smaller turbines, in larger numbers, that can still be legally sited in very close proximity to residents. Current zoning bylaws in Fairhaven permit citing turbines in every type of zone as a so-called municipal project.
Skeptics counter that Washington's wind subsidy and grant programs actually retard innovation and unlevel the playing field in the energy market. ..."The size of the subsidy relative to wholesale prices is distorting competitive wholesale energy markets and harming the financial integrity of other, more reliable generation."
While the three indirect and infrastructure [hidded] costs of wind have been acknowledged in research reports, they have not appeared in most generation-cost comparisons. That's because regulatory authorities have not required wind operators to pay for them, they've required consumers to pay for them instead. In an honest, transparent and accountable political system, that should not be an excuse for policymakers to ignore their impact on consumers, jobs and the economy.
At some point, Democrats need to give in on this "green jobs" pitch. Extending the subsidy is a jobs-killer. Government doesn't pick winners and losers well, yet the wind subsidy certainly picks a winner. In doing so, it also picks losers (and many more losers than winners) by transferring billions of dollars away from more-effective job producers.
America's debate on green energy is pathetic. In the past year, the two biggest green-energy issues in Congress have been whether to to strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of various authorities and whether to renew a crude subsidy for wind power.
The Newfound Lake area is a perfect example of green energy gone amuck. All it takes is a foreign, for- profit company and opportunistic landowners. All other N.H. citizens, from business and homeowners in a 100-mile radius suffer the consequences. Every town, ridge, and lake in N.H. could be next. This is a horrifying example of a lack of regulations and a state that needs a comprehensive energy plan.
This government in Washington, DC, is borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. That is why I come to the floor to point out a proposal that has been made to fleece the taxpayers out of an additional $50 billion over the next 6 years. This is a proposal that is as brazen as a mid-day bank robbery on Main Street. It is a proposal by the wind developers of America to say to the taxpayers: Please give us $50 billion or so more dollars over the next 6 years to phase out the Federal taxpayer subsidy for wind power.
No more would I trade in blood diamonds or child pornography than I would accept money in any shape or form from Big Wind. The time is long since past when anyone complicit in this vile, corrupt, mendacious industry - not the lawyers, not the engineers, not the land agents, not the investors - could be unaware of the damage it does: to the landscape, to rural communities, to wildlife, to people's health, to the economy generally.