Tag Archives: John Droz

How Much Does Wind Energy Cost?

Posted on by

On December 9th, John Droz in his Media Balance Newsletter posted an article about the true cost of wind energy.

Here are the main points:

1- Production Tax Credit (PTC) —…nearly $24 billion from 2016-2020 according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

2- Other Federal Handouts —$100 million for wind energy in the 2022 “Infrastructure” bill.

3- Transmission Cost — … a very rough equivalent of wind energy will have: a) many transmission lines, and b) will be located a considerable distance from population centers. The transmission cost difference is substantial — but none of it is attributed to the root cause: industrial wind energy.

4- Auxiliary Power Cost —… 100% auxiliary power is necessary.

5- Dutch Auction Cost —… a Grid estimates that it needs 900 MWH next Tuesday. Five sources each bid to supply 200 MWH of it: Wind @ 1¢/KWH; Coal @ 2¢/KWH; Hydro @ 3¢/KWH; Nuclear @ 4¢/KWH; and Gas @ 6¢/KWH. The Grid takes the price of the highest accepted source (Gas), and then PAYS ALL THE SUPPLIERS THAT PRICE! Here is a good pictorial example of what happens.

What that means is that (in this case) wind gets 6¢/KWH (along with everyone else). But the wind people advertise that they are low cost (1¢/KWH) even though they got paid 6¢/KWH — and even though they knew that 1¢/KWH would never be the price they were paid (based on how the auction works). Dishonest.

6- No Penalty for Noncompliance —… Let’s say that Wind is unable to supply all their 200 MWH of electricity next Tuesday, as they had committed to (also in #5). In this case the Grid manager does NOT fine wind, even though the Grid manager now has to buy electricity on the spot market, which is quite expensive. This is an ENORMOUS concession to wind developers, which is NOT fair to ratepayers. Further (like everything above), this extra Grid expense is NOT attributed to Wind — even though they caused it!

7- Payments for Non-Usage —… But, stunningly, in most cases wind energy also gets paid for over-performance as well! In other words, if they produce 100MWH that is not needed, in many cases they get paid to dump that! Of course, those payments are not attributable to wind energy’s cost.

8- Direct Host Community Costs — There are numerous environmental costs to wind host communities — e.g., health costs to nearby residents (e.g., from infrasound), reduction of the values of nearby homes, etc., etc.

9- Indirect Host Community Costs — There are several of these costs, like farmers reducing or stopping their crop production (after they sign a lease to host turbines).

10- The High Cost of the Wind Supply Chain — Some major turbine components are extraordinarily problematic from several perspectives. Rare Earth materials are a fine example. (Note: some 2 to 4 thousand pounds of Rare Earths are in every turbine!)

The article concludes:

The Bottom Line

This is a somewhat complicated, technical subject, so the above is a layperson’s summary. The takeaway is that — despite what the lobbyists are pitching to the non-critically thinking public — the real cost of wind energy is 2-3 times the cost of nuclear and other conventional sources of electricity. Solar is higher than that!

It truly is time to end the green energy boondoggle!

With Apologies To Abbott And Costello

Posted on by

On Monday, John Droz posted an article in substack about the latest unemployment numbers.

The article notes:

Believe it or not (as this superb article explains), there are now SIX different US unemployment rates! Here are the latest (2023) government data for all six. The popularly referred to rates are 3.6% (U-3: unemployed) and 6.9% (U-6: out of work).

However, there is another large fly in the ointment: the unemployment rates (by-and-large) do not count illegal immigrants. When that number was low, it was ignored, as it was considered to be just statistical noise. Since 2020, that is no longer the case, as the current data says some six (6) million new illegal immigrants are in the US, just from the Southern border!

The article includes a spoof of Abbott and Costello’s Who’s On First routine. Here is a portion of that spoof:

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.
ABBOTT: Good Subject. It’s 3.6%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? 
ABBOTT: No, that’s 6.9%.

COSTELLO: You just said 3.6%.
ABBOTT: 3.6% are unemployed. 

COSTELLO: Right, 3.6% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 6.9%. 

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 6.9% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 3.6%. 

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 3.6% or 6.9%?
ABBOTT: 3.6% are unemployed. 6.9% are out of work. 

COSTELLO: But if you are out of work, you are unemployed. 
ABBOTT: No, Biden said you can’t count those “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to be looking for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who isn’t actively looking for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: It wouldn’t be fair to whom? 
ABBOTT: The unemployed. 

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work. 
ABBOTT: No, the Unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are Out of Work gave up looking. If you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the Unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the Unemployment roles that would count as less Unemployment? 
ABBOTT: Yes, unemployment would go down.

Follow the link above to read the rest of the spoof.

That is the reason the unemployment number is so low while so many people are out of work.

Wisdom From A Friend

Posted on by

John Droz, Jr., is a physicist who has spent a lot of time studying the impact of wind farms and wind energy. The following is the result of some of his research:

Wind Energy: Local Economics 101

What about the claim that industrial wind energy projects are a “financial boon” to hard-pressed rural communities? On the surface that sounds plausible, but to evaluate this assertion this we need to look a bit deeper. This is a two part answer…

First, we do not select our electrical energy sources based on the economic impact to host communities. Instead our electrical energy sources are chosen because of their reliability, true cost to ratepayers & taxpayers, proximity to demand centers, dispatchability, etc.

Wind energy fares poorly on ALL such metrics — which is why wind salespeople try the sleight-of-hand tactic to talk instead about local taxes, local lease payments, etc. We need to be careful about getting tricked by such marketing tactics.

Secondly, the only way that we can know if these projects are genuinely an economic asset, is if a proper NET financial analysis is done. In other words we need to do a comprehensive and objective investigation into the pros and cons of these projects.

We know the positives, as the developers and their proponents have done a fine job at spelling out the possible benefits: property tax income, lease payments to selected landowners, several construction jobs, a few permanent jobs, etc.

But what about the negatives? How do we come up with the numbers on the other side of the equation, so that we can do an accurate NET financial assessment? The answer is to carefully research studies done by independent experts — i.e scientists, academics, economists, physicians, etc. who generally have no dog-in-the-fight.

After carefully doing that research here are some reasons why a wind project can be an economic liability to a host community:

1 – Independent experts have concluded that local agricultural income can decrease as: a)bats being killed will reduce crop yields, b) turbines can affect local weather [up to 15 miles away!] which will also lower crop yields, and c) in some cases, farmers with turbine leases will reduce or terminate operations. For much more on this, see here.

2 – Studies from independent experts have concluded that there can be serious hydro-geological consequences from wind projects. Here is a sample study done in Vermont.

3 – Studies from independent experts have concluded tourism will drop in the region. For example, North Carolina State University (avid wind proponents) surveyed tourists. Although the majority of the visitors stated that they supported wind energy, 80%± said that they would not vacation in an area where wind turbines were visible. Some other studies that have concluded that tourism will be reduced are listed here.

4 – Studies from independent experts have concluded that property values will decrease for residences within 1± miles of a wind project. This was the conclusion of largest study in the world on this topic, done by the London School of Economics. Here is an extensive list of other studies and articles that came to the same conclusion.

5 – Studies from medical professionals have concluded that some nearby citizens will experience adverse health effects. The biggest concern is from infrasound (noise we can not hear). The World Health Organization has stated (p53) that infrasound is more problematic than audible sound. Infrasound can be so harmful that the US military is researching weaponizing it. Over a hundred studies have concluded that there will be health consequences (here is a representative sample, including cancer).

6 – Studies from independent experts have concluded that industrial wind projects can cause major eco-system damage. See this sample study (esp. pages 103-122).

7 – Studies from independent experts have concluded that industrial wind projects can harm wildlife and livestock animals. Sample reports: here, here, here, here and here.

8 – Studies from independent experts have concluded that industrial wind projects can adversely affect local hunting (and possibly fishing). Here is an explanation of that.

9 – Research by independent experts has shown that wind projects can cause serious interference with military facilities. Here is an overview of the topic.

10-Despite implications otherwise, leaseholders can suffer economic losses. See this explanation of 40+ possible legal and financial liabilities to signing turbine leases.

So what might the NET be after taking the positives and negatives into account? A sample analysis was done of the proposed NY Horse Creek wind project. The conclusion is that the NET economic impact would likely be a loss of $10± Million a year. For comparison, an analysis of the NC Timbermill wind project was also done. The conclusion is that there could be a NET economic loss of $12± Million a year.

So before any community can say that a “wind project is a financial windfall,” a comprehensive and objective financial analysis must be done. Right now, no one in any federal, state or local agency, is thoroughly investigating these wind energy liabilities.

Without such an analysis, all financial claims are simply one-side of the economic equation — and are not an accurate representation of the NET economic impact. The evidence to date indicates that wind energy is the “gift” that keeps on taking.

Let me know any questions (email: “aaprjohn at northnet dot org”). john droz, jr. physicist 5/31/19

PS — For additional information on all of these costs, please see WiseEnergy.org.

Wind energy is probably a good idea, but we are not there yet in terms of technology. If the free market were allowed to function in the energy industry, we might get there faster.

Note:  I have linked a few of the studies listed in this paper. To go to the original paper and get the complete list go here.