The Fate of Wind and Solar in Ohio
December 26, 2010
By: Guest Columnist Ann Marie
Non-profits
A couple of these initiatives consist of working with non-profit groups. Alternative Wind Solutions, LLC owner, Keni Morgan stresses, "the critical nature" of acquiring necessary funding for these important public facilities, which provide access to wide-range education in many areas of learning such as science and nature, at very little or no-cost to the public, and will allow them to reduce operating costs and remain within or even under their projected fiscal budgets. "This is an important step in ensuring the stability of these very worthwhile educational venues for future generations", remarked Morgan.
Residential/ Farm/ Business
While the curiosity factor is high for those looking into the possibility of wind power for their homes, farms or businesses, the urgent demand is obvious for the relief of an aging and overworked grid system. Morgan is quick to point out, "the clientele is generally a very educated and socially responsible group." Citing their concerns over the environmental effects of the continual burning of fossil fuels needed in vehicles, homes and to generate power for the utility companies are some of the reasons that bring these eco-minded customers to their doorstep.
There is of course, another consideration which is also a very important part of the equation for the prospective buyer. How much will my out-of-pocket expenses run?
Incentives and Rebates
While the 30% tax incentive being offered for qualifying individuals through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is still available, the expiration of the provider rebates funded by the ODOE and as offered by the four major investor-owned utilities, AEP, Duke Energy, Ohio Edison and Dayton Power and Light, are showing that residential installations are experiencing a sharp decline.
What lies ahead for the fate of wind and solar in Ohio?
"It is imperative for the general public to understand the importance of gaining independence from foreign oil sources which only serve to hold our economy hostage. Equally important is stressing the issue of the dire need to achieve some sort of independence from the utility providers", Ms. Morgan commented.
"We have heard a lot of complaining from homeowners about price increases from their utility providers. Even while being mindful to reduce their electrical consumption most customers are still witnessing a higher monthly bill. This is a trend which will most likely escalate as prices for manufacturing costs, wages, production and import fees continue to spiral." Morgan continued, "We don't have to look back very far into recent events to cite such things as blackouts, brownouts and major oil spills of epic proportions."
25 x '25
Far too many people are unaware of the proposed 25 x '25 bill in Congress which demands that all investor-owned utilities must generate 25% of their power from renewable energy sources by the year 2025. This unfortunately, will only afford the utilities the right to raise prices further. "It is becoming increasingly clear that we need to make ourselves more self-sufficient and with a more sustainable form of energy production", stated Ms. Morgan.
High demand. Dire need.
The demand for power is high. The need for a clean, renewable and sustainable form of energy production is dire. The call must be made for government officials to allot monies which will assist those responsible individuals, businesses and farm operators in their efforts to sustain the environment for future generations as well as providing a more stable economy. After all, the cost of feeding, clothing, manufacturing, etc. are all things factored into the price of the product for us- the end-users!
As responsible stewards of this earth, we need to take this task in hand by calling on our local and State governments to continue supporting education in the renewable energy arena; aggressively create jobs in a most important and innovative field thereby generating an economic upswing and putting these well-spent dollars back into our economy; and reinstate and increase subsidies for homeowners, farmers and small businesses making a concerted effort to employ these technologies.
Our earth- let's leave it better than we found it!
Contact:
To help in this effort you can contact Senator Sherrod Brown and voice your concerns or opinions about the state of our economy and the fate of renewables in our State:
Sherrod Brown (D) US Senator for Ohio
Washington, DC: (202) 224-2315 (phone)
http://brown.senate.gov/contact/ (email form)
In Ohio you can call:
Toll Free: 1-888-896-OHIO (6446)
Cincinnati: (513) 684-1021
Cleveland: (216) 522-7272
Columbus: (614) 469-2083
Lorain: (440) 242-4100
Its really a question of providing significantly reduced energy costs, vs a great investment to make more money than a fossil utility. We have designs for such, but, the economic climate seems to favor, "take it off the top" Sannerwind@gmail.com
ReplyDeletePosted by Jay Rosenberg
Great article, Keni. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Bob
Posted by Bob Shultis
Although we need to be committed to transform our energy infrastructure I am more concerned by the unspoken part of HB 221 (25 by'25). 25% by 2025 means that in 2025 Ohio will still be 75% coal fired baseload generation. Today the average coal fired power plant is approaching 55 years old and in 2025 that means the average coal fired power plant providing Ohio with the bulk of its power will be on the verge of 75 YEARS OLD!!
ReplyDeleteTHAT'S Frightening! We need a much more comprehensive approach to energy policy in the US and specifically Ohio. In the next fifteen years we could take Ohio from 92% coal to well under 50% coal if we supported spent fuel reprocessing at Piketon and tripled the nuclear generation capacity in Ohio with next generation reactors that are smaller scale, easier to build, safer to operate and cost effective.
Wind and solar have a role to play but from my experience the biggest difference in reducing dependence on coal in the shortest timeframe and for the cheapest cost is nuclear. I know it's not what people want to hear but I think its the pragmatic approach
Posted by Ray Miller
The rebate, credit and (in general) subsidizing wind and solar for residential, small business and community wind must find a different path. It is time for the renewable energy industry to stop asking, hoping and depending on handouts. Join with me and let's propose a structured Federal Program - Guaranteed Loans for Residential, Small Business and Community Wind Projects. Make this specifically available for North American manufactured equipment.
ReplyDeleteStop deficit spending to finance wind, bank on the utility bills that need not be paid once the equipment is in place, leverage assessed wind resources and bank capital to make jobs in design, manufacturing, installation, and servicing small wind of 20-100kW.
Posted by Chade W. Charles
Hmmm. What about the subsidies handed out to oil and coal? They dwarf the subsidies to wind and solar, buy a factor of 5 or 6 to one. Where is the sense in that, when considering the overall cost of oil and coal versus wind and solar, especially when factoring in national security (oil)?
ReplyDeleteSeems we need to reign in the PACs, and their influence on Congress.
Look at Germany, their government has supported alternatives for many years, and they are so very far ahead of us w/regards to alternatives, environmental preservation, and energy independence.
We need to think long-term here- invest in the short-term, even if it seems inconvenient, and prosper in the long-term.
Small wind turbines have a place, no doubt. But to really make an impact, we need gigawatt scale wind farms (the wind resource isn't going anywhere), and a smart grid to efficiently utilize that power. That will take government investment.
How many of us have not driven on an interstate highway in the last 12 months? What President Eisenhower started back in the 1950's is comparable to what we need to do with energy transmission now.
Best regards,
Bob
Posted by Bob Shultis
Who said that life is fair? Fact is subsidies need to go away, for everyone.
ReplyDeleteAs far as government investment goes, there is no vision, leadership or ethics there to make it work. So lets make it simple for them. Investment on the scale of Eisenhower needs to be something like a Superconducting transmission network (H2 DC) that spans the nation, not the archaic system that will come out of a addled tea sipping Congress.
As much as I believe that the future is in both large and small systems, you may be underestimating small wind from a position of big wind (Clipper, I see). The economics of small wind 20-100kW will surprise you. It has to do with producing energy at the point of demand, economics of local mass production, and service network synergy.
We don't need a 'Steve Jobs' of wind, more to the point we need a Henry Ford and a Model-T.
Posted by Chade W. Charles
We are more alike in our feelings than different. We do need a superconducting transmission network. Hopefully at some point we will have the vision as a country to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteI also believe in small and large wind systems. Large, to provide gigawatts of clean, renewable power, and tap this vast resource we have. Wean ourselves off of foreign oil. We are exporting $25 billion a month, much of it to nations that do not have our best interests at heart, for oil. That money would go a long way toward building a superconducting transmission network! Small, to power individual homes, farms, and businesses, get off the grid. Also to power small villages removed from the grid.
I still feel we need government involvement (real support) to kick-start this process. Just as Germany did years ago, and other countries (China) are doing now. It is money spent that could go elsewhere, true, but it is a huge investment in our future.
Best regards,
Bob
Posted by Bob Shultis
Every industry benefits from some forms of subsidy. From my perspective the best bang for the buck theory works best. If people want to use europe as the model as "they are so far ahead of us" then note the Spanish solar program is bankrupting their government, and all their renewable sources are almost all backed up by an expanding French nuclear infrastructure. France is building 30 more reactors right now. If you have to build generation to provide reliable energy back up for wind and solar then why build both???? Areva reprocesses european spent nuclear fuel so that for every 100 lbs of spent fuel they convert to to 96 lbs of new reactor fuel. That's pretty damn good. Cost per KWH of new projects for wind and solar, even with subsidies in the US are more than anything else as the utilities need back reliable energy to support industry. I think the long range answer is not necessarily an Eisenhower like program for new transmission, which is needed, but more of an Apollo like investment in fusion energy and breeder reactor technology which would make the second half of this century open to the possibility of "sustainable" energy unless we find the elusive dilithium crystals....
ReplyDeletePosted by Ray Miller
I don't think dilithium crystals will be widely available until the 23rd Century.
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Bob
Posted by Bob Shultis
Congress has subsidized renewable energy construction since 1992.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the cost of coal and natural gas is considered in the energy market place to be cheaper than wind, wind needs to subsidized.
Of course the debate as to how you define "cost" is key, but that debate will continue for many years.
So based on current energy price forecasts for coal and natural gas, new wind expansion projects need to be subsidized at current levels (30% of installation costs).
Even if we coal and natural prices increase, for renewable energy manufacturing to occur in the United States, we would still need subsidy in today's global market!
Unfortunately, there is not a level international playing field in renewable energy manufacturing, and to compete with China and Europe we would still have to offer expansion incentives to make wind component part manufacturing happen in the United States.
We can make the existing incentives work much better to create jobs and investment in the U.S. and still comply with WTO incentive limitations.
Please review the attached briefing paper I recently completed:
http://www.kriegdevault.com/userfiles/file/Recovery%20Act%20Section%201603%20Renewable%20Energy%20Grant-In-Lieu%20of%20Tax%20Credit%20Program%20Binder%20(3).PDF
Across the globe high paying manufacturing jobs are attracting premium government subsidy.
China has a largerrenewable energy market potential than the United States and lowest cost to manufacture, so many European companies are co-investing with China in China to expand the wind component part manufacturing capacity in China to serve both the China market and the U. S. market as the lowest cost provide with current state of art European technology.
China is aggressive offering incentives to buy the European technology and know how.
China values each job based upon its ability to reduce unemployment and poverty for its 1 billion plus population, and has our trade surplus to invest!
For the first time in history, China will out manufacturer the U.S. in 2010.
We have to start structure our incentives to compete on a global basis and create jobs and capital investment in the United States all with the context of WTO limitations.
Posted by Frank Hoffman