Wind Farms being Paid to QUIT producing Energy...Is this the final Straw?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Max E., Mar 8, 2012.

  1. Max E.

    Max E.

    This is it.... This has to be the final fucking straw when it comes to the government..... Its not enough that we have to pay to put these expensive windmills up, now we actually have to pay the fucking companies when we dont need their energy.....

    It is unfathomable that we have gotten to this point..... Surely this is someones idea of a sick fucking joke...... For the life of them, these bastards in congress can not figure out how to cut the budget, at the same time we are paying companies to QUIT producing energy.....

    I cant even believe this......

    Wind farms in the Pacific Northwest -- built with government subsidies and maintained with tax credits for every megawatt produced -- are now getting paid to shut down as the federal agency charged with managing the region's electricity grid says there's an oversupply of renewable power at certain times of the year.

    The problem arose during the late spring and early summer last year. Rapid snow melt filled the Columbia River Basin. The water rushed through the 31 dams run by the Bonneville Power

    Administration, a federal agency based in Portland, Ore., allowing for peak hydropower generation. At the very same time, the wind howled, leading to maximum wind power production.

    Demand could not keep up with supply, so BPA shut down the wind farms for nearly 200 hours over 38 days.

    "It's the one system in the world where in real time, moment to moment, you have to produce as much energy as is being consumed," BPA spokesman Doug Johnson said of the renewable energy.

    Now, Bonneville is offering to compensate wind companies for half their lost revenue. The bill could reach up to $50 million a year.
    The extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more.

    "We require taxpayers to subsidize the production of renewable energy, and now we want ratepayers to pay renewable energy companies when they lose money?" asked Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment of the Washington Policy Center and author of "Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment."

    "That's a ridiculous system that keeps piling more and more money into a system that's unsustainable," Myers said.
    Green energy advocates also oppose BPA's oversupply solution.

    "It sends a very poor signal to the market about doing business in the Northwest," said Rachel Shimshak, executive director of the Renewable Northwest Project. "We want the Northwest to be a good place to do business."

    BPA says its hands are tied by environmental regulations. Officials contend if they shut down hydropower generation instead of the wind farms, endangered salmon would be harmed.

    It's counter-intuitive because for decades environmental advocates have complained about dams killing fish by sending them through the turbines on their way to the ocean.
    But spilling too much water over the dam can apparently also be harmful. It can create too much oxygen in the water at the base of the dam, which has also killed salmon.

    Interestingly, fish advocates are unconvinced. Save Our Wild Salmon is encouraging BPA to test salmon downstream of the dams to determine if their being impacted by high oxygen levels, and only stop the overflows when they have proof fish are being harmed.

    Pat Ford, the group's executive director, said Bonneville is using the salmon as an excuse to keep hydropower dominant over wind power.

    "I think it's driven by Bonneville's customers who are worried about the increases in wind generation in the Northwest and what it means to them," Ford said.

    BPA submitted its plan Tuesday to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission for approval. FERC has to decide if the oversupply compensation plan is fair to wind producers, utilities and ratepayers.

    Read more:
  2. Key word is "farm". They been doing it for reason why I have to laugh when the "welfare" argument gets made. Almost all of rural America is one some kind of welfare if you farm anything.
  3. That was going to be my comment again. We've been paying giant ag companies for decades to NOT GROW things. And we've paid for gov't cheese that just spoils, never understood that kind of corporate welfare.

  4. From the 'dead people's post started by Mr. 666.

    Priorities change. The more specific a law, the faster it becomes obsolete. In the 1930s, when many farmers were struggling, Congress enacted farm subsidies. The crisis ended by 1941. Now, 70 years later, farm prices are at record highs, and much of farming is done by corporations. But the farm subsidies continue -- $15 billion in 2010.

  5. pspr


    This must be why Obama is asking for another $1 Billion to give to green energy companies. I'd rather keep my and my wifes $6.66 share. I don't want to give Obama another dime.
  6. Out here in "the corn" as I call it, the farmers who are near the end of life have told me many many things. Im too old to do anything about it now, but I knew what I know now, I would have become a farmer:D

    BTW, farmers are good, hard working people. Small town people are, in general. Want a wife? Find her in a small town if you can.

    That said, free money is free money, and one thing farmers are stupid.
  7. Green energy is junk science, pure and simple.

    When Obama was promising all the "green jobs" and economic revolution in his campaign speeches, it reminded me of "Red Light-Green Light" trading seminar. The fact that over 50% of the population bought into the snake oil is downright scary.
  8. pspr


    Like, "get the hell out of my corn field!!"

    Or - "put those ears of corn down or I'll shoot"

    Or - "get off my property - I'm calling the Sheriff"

    Or - "that's wheat you jackass, the corn field is over there"
  9. Cute.

    You need to get out more. Put down the Fox news, and sloooowly back away. We will make sure you get a fair trial.:D
  10. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
    #10     Mar 8, 2012