Thailand - Renewables and EV Mecca

Media_Truth · Apr 23, 2024

AFM said: ↑

Renewables increase the cost of electricity. That reduces the standard of living of the lower income quintiles who have to decide between heating or eating as is the case in Germany.

Where are gas and coal toxic wastes exceeding the EPA thresholds.
Click to expand...

You must be thinking of nuclear, which is always overbudget, and leads to astronomical electricity costs. Wind and solar are now one of the most affordable electricity.choices, with natural gas in the same ballpark.

AFM · Apr 23, 2024

Media_Truth said: ↑

You must be thinking of nuclear, which is always overbudget, and leads to astronomical electricity costs. Wind and solar are now one of the most affordable electricity.choices, with natural gas in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Why is the price of electricity 3X that of the US? Germany has made huge investments in wind power?

Media_Truth · Apr 23, 2024

AFM said: ↑

Why is the price of electricity 3X that of the US? Germany has made huge investments in wind power?
Click to expand...

I don't live in Germany. Why does Iowa have some of the most affordable electricity in the US, when they get the highest percentage of generation from wind?

AFM · Apr 23, 2024

Media_Truth said: ↑

I don't live in Germany. Why does Iowa have some of the most affordable electricity in the US, when they get the highest percentage of generation from wind?
Click to expand...

Subsidies from the government paid for by other taxpayers.

Media_Truth · Apr 24, 2024

AFM said: ↑

Subsidies from the government paid for by other taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Try again...

AFM · Apr 24, 2024

Media_Truth said: ↑

Try again...
Click to expand...

Why try again if the first statement is accurate.

Media_Truth · Apr 27, 2024 at 8:50 AM

AFM said: ↑

Why try again if the first statement is accurate.
Click to expand...

Then you'll have no problem producing link that talks about all the renewable subsidies in the state of Iowa.

557 · Apr 27, 2024 at 9:46 AM

Media_Truth said: ↑

Then you'll have no problem producing link that talks about all the renewable subsidies in the state of Iowa.
Click to expand...

https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/RE and WEP Tax Credit Evaluation Study.pdf

It’s about a penny and a half per kilowatt-hour for wind.

Media_Truth · Apr 28, 2024 at 3:57 AM

557 said: ↑

https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/RE and WEP Tax Credit Evaluation Study.pdf

It’s about a penny and a half per kilowatt-hour for wind.
Click to expand...

I took a look, and I’m not sure where you came up with that number. What kind of subsidy is it?

557 · Apr 28, 2024 at 8:04 AM

Media_Truth said: ↑

I took a look, and I’m not sure where you came up with that number. What kind of subsidy is it?
Click to expand...

I didn’t come up with it. Chuck Grassley claims he is responsible for it. It’s a tax credit. Transferable.

Page 5.

Here’s another source.

https://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/File/Iowa Solar PTC Handout 1_19_18 fnl.pdf

Iowa’s 476C program is a production tax credit for renewable energy that rewards actual energy production from
renewable energy over a period of time. The program provides a tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour of energy
produced by eligible wind, solar, and other renewable energy facilities
Click to expand...

Here’s your boy Chuck taking “credit” for coming up with it, not me. I’m just informing you of the facts.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...eered-renewable-energy-rise-wind/72522048007/

One such example is my bipartisan Wind Energy Incentives Act. Now 30 years since it became law — and complemented by connected efforts along the way — I’m proud of the legislation’s continued outcomes. The law helped catalyze Iowa’s leadership in renewable energy development. There wasn’t a single wind turbine in Iowa until after my wind energy tax credit. Today, clean energy sources account for 60% of Iowa’s electricity production. That is proof that tailored, targeted and consensus-driven policies can make sustained impacts.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays · Apr 28, 2024 at 1:22 PM

557 said: ↑

I didn’t come up with it. Chuck Grassley claims he is responsible for it. It’s a tax credit. Transferable.

Page 5.

Here’s another source.

https://www.iaenvironment.org/webres/File/Iowa Solar PTC Handout 1_19_18 fnl.pdf

Here’s your boy Chuck taking “credit” for coming up with it, not me. I’m just informing you of the facts.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...eered-renewable-energy-rise-wind/72522048007/
Click to expand...

Boom! Chukka-lukka-lukka!

AFM · Apr 28, 2024 at 1:28 PM

And the Boom! Chukka-lukka-lukka! continues:

After reaching a settlement with some of its biggest customers this summer, the Warren Buffett-owned utility company MidAmerican Energy may soon build a massive new wind farm in Iowa. The thing is, electricity is far from the only thing it will generate. Known as “Wind XI,” the proposed 2,000 megawatt wind farm—Iowa’s largest ever—has the potential to produce a lot of electricity, but even more tax credits.

In total, Wind XI could generate up to $1.8 billion in tax credits for its backers over the next decade.

{mosads}The winners? Warren Buffett; MidAmerican Energy’s other investors; and Facebook, Microsoft, and Google—MidAmerican’s biggest customers, who will receive tax benefits of their own for using wind energy. The losers? Taxpayers and other ratepayers footing the bill.

Unfortunately, this is part of an ongoing trend in wind energy across the country. It’s not the demand for more electricity that’s driving construction, but rather the government’s preferential tax treatment and counterintuitive energy mandates.

The demand for electricity in the U.S. has been nearly flat over past decade, due to slow economic growth and gains in energy efficiency. Despite the lack of new demand, new wind farms are popping up across the country because of the tremendous tax credits they generate for their owners.

Warren Buffett has admitted as much. In 2014 he explained: “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate [. . .] 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.”

And the tax credits Buffett mentions are substantial. Although MidAmerican Energy likes to note that Wind XI is not receiving any financial incentives from Iowa, that’s only half of the story. The federal government provides $23 in credits for every megawatt hour—the large-scale unit of production for energy– of electricity produced by wind and other alternative energy sources. Known as the production tax credit (PTC), this government giveaway means that MidAmerican’s new wind farm could generate $180 million in credits each year.

The federal government does even more than that to ensure green energy producers get ample benefits. MidAmerican Energy can use the PTC for up to 10 years, after recent regulatory changes expanding the life of the credit. In addition to the tax credits, government regulators set a fixed rate of return for MidAmerican Energy to charge its customers. MidAmerican will receive a guaranteed 11 percent return on equity for Wind XI, meaning it will rake in $395 million in profit over the roughly 30 year life of the project.

Another set of reasons why new wind farms are in high demand are energy mandates at both the state and federal level. Currently, 29 states have renewable portfolio standards mandating utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from sources such as wind and solar. On the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent carbon regulations—if eventually upheld by the Supreme Court—will shutter many traditional power plants, leaving wind farms to take their place.

In other words, government policy is doing everything in its power to set the stage for wind. Those investing in wind stand to reap guaranteed profits, while taxpayers and ratepayers have to pay more in the end. In terms of tax dollars, the production tax credit for wind is estimated to cost taxpayers $13.8 billion between 2014 and 2018. Energy mandates, meanwhile, will drive up electricity prices as traditional energy sources are phased out for costlier power provided by wind and solar. The EPA’s carbon regulations that would potentially go into effect in 2022, for example, could raise electricity bills for the average American family 14 percent higher than they were a decade prior.

Public officials must stop gearing energy policy around the promise of guaranteed profits for well-connected energy investors like Warren Buffett. This hits average Americans once in their taxes and twice in higher electricity bills, which raises the prices on goods and services as well as utilities. If wind farms like the one Iowa will soon get are worthy investments, it should because of the power they generate—not the tax benefits.
Click to expand...

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...ts-than/#:~:text=After reaching a,is a senior

AFM · Apr 28, 2024 at 1:35 PM

And more...

Where to start? First, industrial wind and solar make no sense economically. Both past and present CEOs of MidAmerican Energy (“we delivered 61.3 percent renewable wind energy to our customers,” their website boasts) admitted that the turbines in Iowa will be 100% paid for by tax credits.

The first indication of this was on Simon Conway’s WHO Radio show. Simon interviewed CEO Bill Fehrman in 2017, who admitted that 100% of the cost of the turbines comes from taxes. In a May 30, 2018, article written by the Des Moines Register’s Donnelle Eller, current MidAmerican CEO Adam Wright said:

MidAmerican will receive about $10 billion in federal production tax credits for the investment, covering the capital costs needed to build the wind farms.

Even though the production tax credits are being phased out, MidAmerican’s newest project will qualify for the full amount of credits for ten years under federal law.

Rick Olson, the president of Iowa Lakes Electric Co-op, told me that the entire cost of the wind turbines they built in 2007/2008 were also 100% paid for by the federal government. With the PTC set to phase out by 2020 (or 2021) the Rural Electric Co-ops could not afford to build new turbines because the the RECs are tax exempt.

Recently those public power utilities are asking for a piece of the pie. Iowa Lakes Electric Co-op has recently reported that their turbines, though in good condition, are making less energy than projected because of a simple lack of wind. This makes their energy even more expensive all around.

MidAmerican’s Matt Fehr told me recently that it was “not real” money, because the government does not balance its books. Perennial competitive problems is why wind and solar have recently hatched a coronavirus-inspired plan to ask the IRS to not hold them to the PTC deadline for two years and that they receive cash instead of a tax credit.

How is it that in 2018 wind installations were being built that will qualify for the “full amount of credits,” when the PTC was supposed to be declining every year starting in 2016? It has to do with “safe harbor”:

The safe harbor clause comes from the “Fiscal Cliff” legislation of 2013 that led to an IRS interpretation allowing wind projects to have begun construction by year-end if a minimum of 5% of the project’s total capital cost is incurred before January 1st. This means that ground doesn’t have to be broken for a project to have “started construction” in the eyes of the IRS.

A second way of satisfying the clause is through the Physical Work Test, which delineates certain construction tasks that are significant enough to contribute towards PTC qualification. Whatever method is used, it doesn’t change the fact that the project has to be in service within four years of the start of construction. No matter how it qualified at the time, the clock starts ticking.

In addition to the federal PTC, Iowa wind developers barely pay any state tax on these structures as well. Iowa Code 427b.26 requires only that turbines pay 0% the first year, 5% the second year, 10% the third, increasing by increments of 5% until a cap of 30%. Yet in Huron County, Michigan, we see wind developers contesting their taxes.

Also, wind companies are taking advantage of a piece of legislation from 1986 that allows the wind company to replace some of the wind turbines and begin the 10 years of tax credit over again:

Repowering is an opportunity for a developer to requalify an existing wind project for the renewable electricity production tax credit for wind projects under Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 based on new placed-in-service and begun-construction dates while retaining some of the existing project. (North American Windpower, August 2017)

Does this make any difference to anyone else? It’s all a matter of private property and private contracts, right? No. Wind developers admit a long list of negative impacts for neighbors up to a half-mile from any 500-foot wind turbine by offering contracts called “Neighbor Agreements” (click for example) that seek to get neighbors to sign off on negative impacts (as well giving the wind developers a blanket easement to their property) for some money. By the time they offer you this “deal,” though, your County Supervisors have already allowed them to build turbines 1,200-1,500 feet from the foundation of your home.

This is part of the reason that since 2015, 260 government entities across the US have banned or blocked industrial wind at the urging of their constituents. Many more communities have fought and lost to lawmakers that sought the money over the security of their constituents. In Iowa Code 331.301, Supervisors are not tasked with making money for the County but rather to “protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the county or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents.” We are not the only country having problems with industrial wind. Even Germany’s wind industry is at a standstill because of rural backlash. Norway, too!

Data from the US Energy Information Administration show that in the US, we use the more than 100,000 MW installed wind capacity only a third of the time. The only way we would be able to utilize wind like mineral energies to generate electricity is for the wind to blow 24/7, 365 days a year, at a steady 30 mph or so.

Energy companies plan to instead squeeze out more reliability installing massive batteries and thousands of miles of new transmission lines, which only underscores the problem with using a diffuse intermittent source such as wind on a large scale. And they never count these costs when they talk about industrial wind being “cheap.” Industrial wind replaces nothing; it can only displace the energy from traditional sources for a short time. This is a grand scheme of the Averch-Johnson Effect., where utilities make more by inflating the rate base upon which a rate of return is multiplied. (Look to see who is behind pushing these projects and you will see large investor-owned utilities.)

Conclusion

Iowa boasts that 40% of our electricity is generated by wind turbines. But remember that that is still only about 4% of all the energy we consume, and we are only 1% of the US population. That 4% has already covered about 1,500,000 of our acres with industrial wind projects, negatively affecting homes and businesses within as well as on the perimeters of these project areas. And taxpayers around the country have to make up the taxes that Iowa-based wind projects allow utilities to escape.

While wind turbines reduce emissions at the final point of generation, once you take the emissions of manufacturing, transporting, and construction, as well as batteries, excess power lines, and grid inefficiencies, not much is left to offset the huge amount of money and angst. The opportunity cost is switching from coal to natural gas and forgoing wind power altogether. The same people boosting industrial wind and solar because of a concern from carbon emissions are also shunning nuclear even though it is emissions free.

Wind turbines have shown that they last 20-25 years all told and 10–15 before they require a million dollars each in “repowering.” A traditional power plant, in contrast, lasts 60-75 years with incremental replacement and upgrading.

We can have traditional power without turbines or solar, but it is not possible to have it the other way.
Click to expand...

https://www.masterresource.org/prod...bsidies/#:~:text=Where to start,the other way.

557 · Apr 28, 2024 at 3:08 PM

Jack Hays said: ↑

Boom! Chukka-lukka-lukka!

Click to expand...

It’s odd folks all twitterpated about wind power don’t know anything about it. That’s the world we live in.

Media_Truth · Apr 28, 2024 at 7:05 PM

557 said: ↑

It’s odd folks all twitterpated about wind power don’t know anything about it. That’s the world we live in.
Click to expand...

Your article is very outdated.

557 · Apr 28, 2024 at 7:11 PM

Media_Truth said: ↑

Your article is very outdated.
Click to expand...

No. If you actually read my sources you will find the enrollment period kept being extended to construction in 2018. The contracts are at least 10 years so payments will continue under current law until at least 2028.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Your boy Chuck says his plan is responsible for where Iowa is today. Says there were no wind farms until his subsidy. A champion of wind power wouldn’t lie about something like that, would they?

Media_Truth · Apr 28, 2024 at 7:21 PM

557 said: ↑

No. If you actually read my sources you will find the enrollment period kept being extended to construction in 2018. The contracts are at least 10 years so payments will continue under current law until at least 2028.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Your boy Chuck says his plan is responsible for where Iowa is today. Says there were no wind farms until his subsidy. A champion of wind power wouldn’t lie about something like that, would they?
Click to expand...

Chuck Grassleyis a Republican. Like Rick Perry in Texas, he saw a good thing and took advantage. Both of these states are ahead of the 8-Ball as a result. BTW - Iowa now gets almost 70% of its power from wind, so your article is very outdated. Don’t blink when it comes to renewables as they are expanding so rapidly.

557 · Apr 28, 2024 at 7:56 PM

Media_Truth said: ↑

Chuck Grassleyis a Republican. Like Rick Perry in Texas, he saw a good thing and took advantage. Both of these states are ahead of the 8-Ball as a result. BTW - Iowa now gets almost 70% of its power from wind, so your article is very outdated. Don’t blink when it comes to renewables as they are expanding so rapidly.
Click to expand...

What’s outdated? You asked for information on subsidies. I provided what Iowa is getting for subsidies today.

Unfortunately fossil fuel usage is expanding as well.

Your replies are irrelevant to the conversation. You were unaware of subsidies. I provided information on what subsidies are being paid TODAY. I couldn’t care less if Grassley is a Republican. I couldn’t care less about what percentage of power comes from wind. You asked a question, I provided the answer. I’m sorry you didn’t know subsides are a major factor in wind installation in Iowa. Now you do.

Media_Truth · Apr 28, 2024 at 7:59 PM

557 said: ↑

What’s outdated? You asked for information on subsidies. I provided what Iowa is getting for subsidies today.

Unfortunately fossil fuel usage is expanding as well.

Your replies are irrelevant to the conversation. You were unaware of subsidies. I provided information on what subsidies are being paid TODAY. I couldn’t care less if Grassley is a Republican. I couldn’t care less about what percentage of power comes from wind. You asked a question, I provided the answer. I’m sorry you didn’t know subsides are a major factor in wind installation in Iowa. Now you do.
Click to expand...

I stated what was outdated.

557 · Apr 28, 2024 at 8:58 PM

Media_Truth said: ↑

I stated what was outdated.
Click to expand...

Well, since the subsidies continue through 2028 and your boy Chuck says Iowa wind power exists because of those very subsidies, it’s you who are behind the times. Your denial of facts doesn’t change the facts.

Sunsettommy · Apr 29, 2024 at 10:07 AM

557 said: ↑

Well, since the subsidies continue through 2028 and your boy Chuck says Iowa wind power exists because of those very subsidies, it’s you who are behind the times. Your denial of facts doesn’t change the facts.
Click to expand...

Daily Caller

Warren Buffett: I Build Wind Turbines To Lower My Corporate Taxes

MICHAEL BASTASCH

Billionaire Warren Buffett would do anything to lower the tax rate of his company Berkshire Hathaway, including building unprofitable wind turbines to get federal government tax credits.

“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffett told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend. “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.”

LINK

Media_Truth · Apr 29, 2024 at 10:29 AM

Sunsettommy said: ↑

Daily Caller

Warren Buffett: I Build Wind Turbines To Lower My Corporate Taxes

MICHAEL BASTASCH

Billionaire Warren Buffett would do anything to lower the tax rate of his company Berkshire Hathaway, including building unprofitable wind turbines to get federal government tax credits.

“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffett told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend. “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.”

LINK
Click to expand...

Wow - a link from 2014, and a quote from before the link. We were at the very beginning of wind power in the US in 2014. The technology has improved immensely since then. More disingenuous nonsense being posted.

Sunsettommy · Apr 29, 2024 at 10:36 AM

Media_Truth said: ↑

Wow - a link from 2014, and a quote from before the link. We were at the very beginning of wind power in the US in 2014. The technology has improved immensely since then. More disingenuous nonsense being posted.
Click to expand...

It is still valid today since it has been reported he has accumulated 6 BILLION in tax credits over it.

LINK

557 · Apr 29, 2024 at 10:50 AM

Media_Truth said: ↑

Wow - a link from 2014, and a quote from before the link. We were at the very beginning of wind power in the US in 2014. The technology has improved immensely since then. More disingenuous nonsense being posted.
Click to expand...

Dude. I just told you about a $0.015 per kilowatt hour subsidy paid by Iowa to Iowa wind farms. Look at the federal subsidy!

https://windexchange.energy.gov/projects/tax-credits

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which became law on Aug. 16, 2022, extends and increases investment and production tax credits through 2024 for wind energy projects that begin construction prior to Jan. 1, 2025.
———
Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC)
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) allows owners and developers of wind energy facilities (land-based and offshore) to claim a federal income tax credit on every kilowatt-hour of electricity sold to an unrelated party for a period of 10 years after a facility is placed into service.

The IRA extends the renewable energy PTC through 2024; it previously expired for wind at the end of 2021. Wind energy projects placed into service after Dec. 31, 2021, that satisfy the new wage and apprenticeship requirements will receive an inflation-adjusted credit of 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 10 years of electricity generation.
Click to expand...

There are producers in Iowa getting $0.041 per kilowatt hour sold right now! That’s about 1/3 of the retail sale rate in Iowa just in subsidies. So instead of selling power for $0.14 per kilowatt the developers are actually pocketing $0.181 per kilowatt hour. That matters. According to the Iowa government and the U.S. government sources. And you want to deny these subsidies exist? Unbelievable. Why deny it? How does that make your arguments more credible?

Media_Truth · Apr 29, 2024 at 11:59 AM

Sunsettommy said: ↑

It is still valid today since it has been reported he has accumulated 6 BILLION in tax credits over it.

LINK
Click to expand...

Your quoting of this Warren Buffet statement is not valid.
“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.”

Buffet's statement in 2014 had some credence, because wind power was new, and was a relatively small and inconsequential player in the US power market. Extremely out-of-date.

Log in or Sign up

Thailand - Renewables and EV Mecca

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Thailand - Renewables and EV Mecca

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

557 Well-Known Member

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

557 Well-Known Member

Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches