Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm 40 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Thursday, a report said Democrat Senator Schumer called to restrict the stimulus funds to be used in the 600MW wind farm joint venture in Texas, which is made up of A-Power Energy Generation (APWR), U.S. Renewable Energy Group and Cielo. A-Power owns 49% of the JV. The project is expected to get funding from the Commercial Bank of China (around $1.05B) and $450M from the US stimulus package. So Sen Schumer is supporting President Obama's policy to develop renewable energy, but assails the $450M being taken from stimulus. His reason is simple: the $450M will be used to create jobs in China, not in the US. Well, it looks that way, however, he ignores that $1.05B will be from China. China is financing the major part of the project! Let me list a few facts that prove Sen Schumer is not seeing the full picture here.
1. A-Power formed a joint venture with General Electric (GE) to develop wind turbines earlier this year. According to the announcement, GE owns a majority stake in the business that will serve as GE Drivetrain Technologies' Southeast Asia manufacturing center starting in mid-2010. Now it is clear that turbine shipped from A-Power is at least 50% owned by GE. In other words, China's $1.05B investment in the 600MW project is going to create jobs associated with GE.
2. Open your eyes wider Mr. Schumer and you'll see an even bigger picture as China recently granted First Solar (FSLR) a 2GW solar farm project when Chairman Wu Bangguo of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China visited the company. The four-phase 2GW solar power plant will receive total RMB$10B(~US$1.6B) from China's commercial bank according to a report. So again China is financing the project, and it's benefiting First Solar (creating jobs in the US).
3. It's all about free trade. If you restrict $450M to the wind farm project in Texas, why would China give this 2GW project to First Solar? China has better solar PV technology than the US. Companies such as Suntech (STP), Solarfun (SOLF), Trina Solar (TSL), JA Solar (JASO) and Yingli Green (YGE) all are capable of doing as good a job as FSLR. I do praise China for 9taking the first step to cooperate on renewable energy between the two nations. There is no reason the US should say no to A-Power's wind farm, especially when President Obama has been diligently promoting a renewable energy policy since he took office.
Disclosure: Long FSLR, SOLF and APWR.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
I see U changed your mind and NOW LONG APWR again heh??? its amazing how the WIND BLOWS for U
www.Wind4me.com
follow the story along as (APWR) will soar into the future cause this GE JOINT VENTURE is just an example of how APWR is building joint ventures with brand name companies, This Texas wind farm will be a done deal by the time Obama comes back from China Nov 15th
guess we can say U dont beleive in Wind Power heh???? How do U explain MORE MW's of Wind added in 2008 than Coal ????
whats YOUR solution Mr Expert EX power guy ??? and , it aint Nukes cause they cost too much and too long to build! Me 20 year EX Nuke guy
On Nov 06 07:28 AM expowerguy wrote:
> Wind Power is the new ethanol. All promise, little benefit. Unreliable,
> expensive, intermittent, all the things that should be avoided in
> plans for meeting future energy requirements. Every revolution of
> a wind turbines propeller is subsidized by tax and rate payers. When
> subsidies end, this conversation is over.
If windpower makes sense it would not need subsidies.
I learned a long time ago...don't PO your banker; most politicians know little to nothing about business, bankers or the real world psychology.
On Nov 06 07:28 AM expowerguy wrote:
> Wind Power is the new ethanol. All promise, little benefit. Unreliable,
> expensive, intermittent, all the things that should be avoided in
> plans for meeting future energy requirements. Every revolution of
> a wind turbines propeller is subsidized by tax and rate payers. When
> subsidies end, this conversation is over.
On Nov 06 08:12 AM epeon wrote:
> When windpower is described as the new ethanol, you are being generous.
> Windpower derived electricity is priced at $.18/kwhr. It is not
> competitive. For the US government to spend my money supporting
> this boondoggle is the heighth of stupidity. But, then again, its
> government money.
>
> If windpower makes sense it would not need subsidies.
1. Sweden has/had almost 50 percent nuclear and almost 50 percent hydro generating capacity. The electricity prices in this country are among the lowest in Europe - and would be the lowest if the morons hadn't closed two nuclear plants.
2. Denmark is the promised land of windpower, and has/had the highest electricity prices in Europe.
THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TELLS THE ENTIRE STORY!
About subsidies, if an intelligent person examined what nuclear did for Sweden, they would have to conclude that Swedish nuclear did not receive ANY susidies. Of course, intelligent people are few and far between these days, but that is another story.
Long ASTI, ENER, SPWRA
It's all part Obamanomics. Sell green energy support to the nation at election time, while taking money from the Illinois coal producers. Pander to the uneducated, wind fall tax "big oil" when XOM spends $10 billion on cap ex. etc, etc.
It's ok, Schumer will be on the Air America book tour by this time next year.
The JV is to build gearboxes in Shenyang China, with components 70%+ from China.
GE will own 0% of the turbines.
Shummer is protesting the trade blocks China has put up both in imports of US parts, equipment and their keeping their currency low by 30%. I wouldn't call that free trade. Do you?
China requires 70% Chinese content and still rarely orders US despite US being better quality and price. We should demand the same. no? Farther more we should put a 30% import duty on them until the let their currency float. Otherwise how can we ever balance our trade with them. It also screws up other countries that can't compete against such stacking of the deck.
Other countries selling us WG's make large parts of them here because we are cheaper than shipping.
Next China is overcharging, 50% higher than US windfarms have cost/mw. I think it's to get the US to pay the full cost, $450B grant of the project then guaranty the rest of pure profit. Do you think that is right?
Unless we start making things again you all are not going to be able to make money here anymore as those who buy things are going to stay broke. I don't mind free trade but this is anything but free. It's rigged.
And why should we guaranty Chinese quality? The way it's set up if they fail in 2 yrs the US still pays! Would you take such a deal?
Most of you right wing idiots are driving our country in the ground which I can only call traitors. Your money already lost 50% of it's buying power over the last 8 yrs and you still don't have a clue.
Despite energy being potentially the biggest issue in the U.S. today (and probably having contributed to the great recession) the U.S. does not have a comprehensive energy policy.
It is interesting that the author is now long APWR where he had flipped in and out of it before. It would be nice to know what long actually means for the author.
Sweden could have all hydro and tidal at far lower cost that nuke.
In Denmark they are below sea level in much of the country so rather hard to have hydro. And their high electric cost is from taxes, not from wind. So learn a little before spouting off.
Also most Denmark windgens are owned by the community thus make good money from them.
In the US wind is about $.04-.06/kwhr for big wind, similar to coal and far cheaper than new nuke. Home size wind can be far less since you can now buy one for $1.5k/kw including inverter.
Since they last 50 yrs and pay back in 2-5 yrs, home wind in suitable sites which 50% of US are, they are by far the lowest energy cost. If one doesn't have a good site they can buy a share in a large one, switch to PV which is dropping in price fast. At under $2/wt-2k/kw they are competitive. Now you can buy them for $2.38/wt retail so that time is coming soon.
Facts are even with the huge subsidies oil, coal and nuke get, RE is about as cost effective and getting cheaper. Fossil fuels, nuke is getting more expensive. Which is a better investment? What will happen when one of those Chinese, other nukes meltdown?
Wind is unreliable, intermittent, and expensive? Not. In the Great Lakes we could replace every megawatt of coal and nuclear generation and replace it with reliable baseload wind four times over. I end with the same piece I posted in response to epeon a few months ago:
"The issue is said to be the intermittency of wind and solar that requires large storage or other 1 to 1 backup capacity to make it work. We need to put this myth to rest, particularly for wind.
If one looks at a single wind power project, intermittency is an issue. For a large robust grid that includes wind power as the chief component, variability, not intermittency, is the issue. MISO and many others now agree that wind power, deployed across a diverse north-south and east-west regional grid, can be characterized as base load capacity. Variability can be addressed through the use of hydroelectric and pumped storage capacity (huge batteries that already exist in several major regions in North America).
For example, generating capacity in the Great Lakes region (Canada and US within the Great Lakes watershed) is currently 75+ gigawatts. This capacity serves a population of 42 million people in a very concentrated load center. The Great Lakes region is the third largest economy in the world (behind the US and Japan) and is responsible for roughly 10-15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The regional wind resource, both onshore and offshore, is estimated to be 300+ gigawatts, one of the best in the world. Under the DOE goal of 20% Wind by 2030, wind could, at a minimum, replace 15-20 gigawatts of current base load capacity within the Great Lakes region in less than a decade and 100% of our needs a decade or two after that. We also have available several gigawatts of hydroelectric and pumped storage capacity at Ludington (MI), Robert Moses (NY), and Sir Adam Beck (ON) within the Great Lakes watershed (plus Hydro Quebec) to balance out such a robust and diverse grid. No need to wheel wind power from the plains states and provinces to the Great Lakes, power which could better serve the regional needs of Omaha, Denver, Kansas City, Dallas, Calgary, Edmonton, and Saskatoon.
For more information, see the DOE 20% Wind by 2030 report and the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative website at <www.glc.org/energy/win...;.
It does not cost 18 cents/kwh more like 8 cents.
The US added 8.3 Gigawatts of wind energy just last year. That is the equivalent of 2.5 average nuclear power plants of 1 GW each, taking into account the intermittency that you deplore. Wind's intermittency gives it a 30% capacity factor, which is how I arrive at the equivalent of 2.5 Gigawatts comparison with nukes.
Intermittency hasn't stopped Denmark from achieving 20% wind energy, or Spain from achieving 12% wind energy.
China added over 6 Gigawatts of wind energy last year.
It would take ten years to build the equivalent nuclear plants, and at far higher cost.
Wind is the greenest of all energy sources.
Subsidies? How about the $49 billion annual subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?
$39 billion for oil alone.
Oil has been subsidized since 1919, and not one subsidy since then was ever phased out.
Globally, oil gets over $200 billion annually in subsidies.
And someone here is afraid of windfall taxes on oil? Oil companies pay less in taxes than almost any other industry when all their subsidies are factored in. They actually pay only about 8% in taxes
Subsidies are the worst argument against renewable eanergy imaginable.
China has set a goal of having 100 Gigawatts of wind energy by 2020.
Americans need to stop using China as an excuse not to develop renewable energy here.
As for economics. Stop blaming Obama for the mess that 30 years of trickle down economics has caused.