Senator Schumer Misses the Full Picture on A-Power's Joint Texas Wind Farm 38 comments
-
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
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 38 comments:
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.
On Nov 06 01:03 PM sail.rick wrote:
> A few comments about wind power.
>
> 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.
I support the development of wind power, but also understand its flaws. Keep in mind that wind power is only one piece of a larger movement towards clean energy that will be met through a combination of sources, most importantly nuclear power which is the elephant in the room right for this whole debate.
Moreover, we need to accept that with the right investment and economies of scale, wind power will become more effective. China is dumping cash into this sector and it is in the United States' national interest to maintain a strong competitive position in the global wind energy industry.
See the trees for the forest please.
colinjsmith.com
THE COST AND PRICE OF ELECTRICITY IN SWEDEN IS AMONG THE LOWEST IN EUROPE, AND THE WORLD, WHILE IN THE PROMISED LAND OF WINDPOWER, DENMARK, THE PRICE OF ELECTRICITY IS AMONG THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. And according to the calculations of a brilliant economics teacher- ME- Swedish taxpayers AS A GROUP have not paid a dollar in subsidies. That is all that amateur energy economists need to know about this issue.
Incidentally, the figures that I gave above are for capacity. For energy, nuclear supplies more than 50 percent. Jerrydyd - show how smart you are and tell us why.
I am going to attend a meeting/conference on nuclear energy monday. I want to guarantee that anyone who showcases any nonsense about wind and nuclear will not be very happy by the way I respond to it, because I take no prisoners on this subject. How I would love to hear from Jerrydd on that occasion.
Jeff Siegel, Denmark fills in the electricity gaps with power from Sweden and Norway. As for the capacity factor in that country, it is probably is about 22 percent - which is what it is in Germany, and why the Germans are going to eventually start building nuclear plants again.
.
Ferdinand E
You should stick to oil where at least you have a clue. You are as arrogant about wind as you are about your oil.
Sweden built their reactors yrs ago. If they were to build them now they would have to have subsidies to be competitive.
The recent Finnish reactor by the so called French is way over budget at $8k/kw vs wind now being done at about $1-1.5k/kw. Even including a capacity factor of 4 wind still easily wins.
Maybe someday nuke will be better with smaller, more innovative designs but not now. And we can't wait 10 yrs for them to be done.
What should be done is build robust tidal/river kinetic generators that are base load units and only cost $.01-.02/kwhr for power or $1-2k/kw to install. There is enough resource in the US, Europe to completely replace coal and nuke.
And far better is home size RE because utilities double their costs, saves 2x's as much.
On Nov 07 07:01 AM jerrydd wrote:
>
> Ferdinand E
> You should stick to oil where at least you have a clue.
>
> What should be done is build robust tidal/river kinetic generators
> that are base load units and only cost $.01-.02/kwhr for power or
> $1-2k/kw to install. There is enough resource in the US, Europe to
> completely replace coal and nuke.
>
> And far better is home size RE because utilities double their costs,
> saves 2x's as much.
The stimulus idea was not to help renewable energy in any form , it was to stimulate the US ECONOMY in the production of renewable energy. So what jobs will be created in the US by this project? VERY FEW. What are the long term advantages to the US economy from this project. VERY FEW. I agree whole heartedly that if we really want to see the US economy improve we need to make things in the US. If GE has a stake in the Chinese company that is great for the GE stockholders but it SUCKS for the US worker and ultimately for all those that live here-including those GE stockholders. Free trade is a joke. Workers can not move easily so they are basically discarded here in the US. We are now paying for the wholesale dismantling of many industries. We need to follow policies to increase our industries or we are toast. So let us make the wind turbines here, the solar cells here and hopefully much much more. Otherwise we will be in a GREAT DEPRESSION.
It would appear the A-Power storey has moved from one of stock volatility and perennial technical critique (Zacks), to stock and political volatility. Granted reported earnings have not been very consistent at least on a quarterly basis, and as reported, financials can be a little confusing, but the Group has a new CFO now and is gaining some considerable structure and mass.
Management have this year put in place a structure, following alliances and acquisition – bringing together interests from China, Japan and the US, to support significant growth and some diversification through renewable energies and potentially related product.
A recent blog posted by Douglas Macintyre on 24/7 Wall Street, outlined below, highlighted criticism by New York Senator Charles Schumer of A-Powers Texas project with US entities US-Reg and Cielo. Schumer appears concerned that manufacture of Wind Turbines will occur in China through A-Power’s alliance and that Chinese jobs will be created, albeit only temporarily if further contracts are not won.
His criticism and concern is that the $1.5B project may attract US economic recovery aid. This criticism appears somewhat off-beam, in particular for the following reasons:
1. Chinese investment – financial institution and corporate – will create US jobs in the wind farm construction phase – possibly the biggest wind farm to date in the US; and
2. US multinationals manufacture by choice in China, creating Chinese jobs and repatriating profits or dividends from China. Why is this so?
Why wouldn’t Schumer focus on helping the emergence of new industries in the US rather than looking to jeopardise a Chinese – US project that will actually create US jobs and help further develop two US entities and potentially new US industry? Especially at a time when Obama, Geithner and Chinese officials have been building US / Anglo – Sino relations, for very good reasons.
Does he want to create a Trade War?
Does he want US multinationals banned from China or banned from selling in or to China? For example bans on Microsoft product in China. Or for that matter HP, Dell, Sun Micro, Adobe, Apple or Research in Motion?
Does he want wholesale sale of US treasuries by China?
Does he want a response by China, which has growing per capita income, or the rest of the world, in the form of – Don’t Buy US Goods?
Does he want a permanent ban on Chinese export of Rare Earths or the products they are used to manufacture, including wind turbines?
Does he want a US and possibly Global Depression?
Douglas Macintyre is correct. Schumer is grandstanding and he is naive. I will add to that, he is a moron, stupid and short sighted. He might be best to keep his mouth shut for fear of a Chinese Dragon jumping into it.
Andrew D Turner (adt)
China Goes To Texas: The Great Wind Farm Dispute
Posted: November 6, 2009 at 6:35 am
Print Email Subscribe Free Newsletter Follow us on Twitter 24/7 Wall St Real Time 500
Chinese interests and private capital will build a huge wind farm in West Texas. China-based wind turbine firm A-Power Energy Generation Systems (NASDAQ:APWR) will lead the project. It will cost as much as $1.5 billion and could supply energy to nearly 180,000.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York State does not like the Texas project, although he might like it more if the turbines were destined for up-state New York. Schumer believes that $450 million in federal stimulus funds could go into the project from the government’s stimulus package. That would help to create as many as 3,000 jobs at turbine plants in China according Reuters.
Schumer wants to have the best and worst of the stimulus programs. He wants job creation and improved alternative energy prospects for America so it can break its addiction to fossil fuels. That may mean a sacrifice which is that China, the growing threat to US global economic dominance, will get a few jobs.
Schumer is naive, or is grand standing. Supplies for alternative energy has to come from somewhere and not all of its will not come from US manufacturers. That is a simple reality which cannot be changed.
Douglas A. McIntyre
This line of reasoning seems vaguely familiar.
Troubled Asset Relief Program. If we don't act in the next 12 hours the entire world economic system will collapse!
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. If we delay in passing this bill, unemployment will skyrocket to 10%! There is no time to decide on a coherent and strategic way to spend this $787 billion.
Healthcare bill. There is no time to waste on reading these 1,990 pages before voting on it. There is no time to address the actual reasons for the high cost of health care. We must seize control of the health care sector now!
any green energy for USA is a gift to Mother Earth to stop the melting process! This Texas Wind Farm from China is a very large deal for (APWR) and one must remember, this is the FIRST OF MANY coming deals one will read about with the Obama China Trip Nov 15th!
On Nov 06 09:24 AM Alphameister wrote:
> Schumer is just another posturing politician playing to his base.
> As long as we accept that wind power is an inevitable part of our
> future, this APWR deal is win-win for both countries.
Having been inside 50% of all the nuclear units in the USA, IF U had the eye I have had of how nukes operate inside the usa, you would NOT be in favor of nuclear power.......ask the folks at Vermont Yankee as the cooling tower crumbled and rotted!
Piping over 60 years ??? Reactors getting reworked for another 20 years even though they are over 45 years old. DO U want to ride in a 60 year old Jet ??? nope, U dont want to be next door neighbor to a 60 year ole nuke plant!
On Nov 06 09:56 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> I am for SOME windpower, though definitely not as much as certain
> people. Here is the CORRECT argument.
>
> 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.
then, is the deal OK then ???
On Nov 08 07:28 AM adt wrote:
> China Goes To Texas: The Great Wind Farm Dispute
>
> It would appear the A-Power storey has moved from one of stock volatility
> and perennial technical critique (Zacks), to stock and political
> volatility. Granted reported earnings have not been very consistent
> at least on a quarterly basis, and as reported, financials can be
> a little confusing, but the Group has a new CFO now and is gaining
> some considerable structure and mass.
> Management have this year put in place a structure, following alliances
> and acquisition – bringing together interests from China, Japan and
> the US, to support significant growth and some diversification through
> renewable energies and potentially related product.
> A recent blog posted by Douglas Macintyre on 24/7 Wall Street, outlined
> below, highlighted criticism by New York Senator Charles Schumer
> of A-Powers Texas project with US entities US-Reg and Cielo. Schumer
> appears concerned that manufacture of Wind Turbines will occur in
> China through A-Power’s alliance and that Chinese jobs will be created,
> albeit only temporarily if further contracts are not won.
> His criticism and concern is that the $1.5B project may attract US
> economic recovery aid. This criticism appears somewhat off-beam,
> in particular for the following reasons:
> 1. Chinese investment – financial institution and corporate – will
> create US jobs in the wind farm construction phase – possibly the
> biggest wind farm to date in the US; and
> 2. US multinationals manufacture by choice in China, creating Chinese
> jobs and repatriating profits or dividends from China. Why is this
> so?
> Why wouldn’t Schumer focus on helping the emergence of new industries
> in the US rather than looking to jeopardise a Chinese – US project
> that will actually create US jobs and help further develop two US
> entities and potentially new US industry? Especially at a time when
> Obama, Geithner and Chinese officials have been building US / Anglo
> – Sino relations, for very good reasons.
> Does he want to create a Trade War?
> Does he want US multinationals banned from China or banned from selling
> in or to China? For example bans on Microsoft product in China. Or
> for that matter HP, Dell, Sun Micro, Adobe, Apple or Research in
> Motion?
> Does he want wholesale sale of US treasuries by China?
> Does he want a response by China, which has growing per capita income,
> or the rest of the world, in the form of – Don’t Buy US Goods?<br/>Does
> he want a permanent ban on Chinese export of Rare Earths or the products
> they are used to manufacture, including wind turbines?
> Does he want a US and possibly Global Depression?
> Douglas Macintyre is correct. Schumer is grandstanding and he is
> naive. I will add to that, he is a moron, stupid and short sighted.
> He might be best to keep his mouth shut for fear of a Chinese Dragon
> jumping into it.
> Andrew D Turner (adt)
>
> China Goes To Texas: The Great Wind Farm Dispute
> Posted: November 6, 2009 at 6:35 am
> Print Email Subscribe Free Newsletter Follow us on Twitter 24/7 Wall
> St Real Time 500
> Chinese interests and private capital will build a huge wind farm
> in West Texas. China-based wind turbine firm A-Power Energy Generation
> Systems (NASDAQ:seekingalpha.com/symbo...) will lead the
> project. It will cost as much as $1.5 billion and could supply energy
> to nearly 180,000.
> Senator Charles Schumer of New York State does not like the Texas
> project, although he might like it more if the turbines were destined
> for up-state New York. Schumer believes that $450 million in federal
> stimulus funds could go into the project from the government’s stimulus
> package. That would help to create as many as 3,000 jobs at turbine
> plants in China according Reuters.
> Schumer wants to have the best and worst of the stimulus programs.
> He wants job creation and improved alternative energy prospects for
> America so it can break its addiction to fossil fuels. That may mean
> a sacrifice which is that China, the growing threat to US global
> economic dominance, will get a few jobs.
> Schumer is naive, or is grand standing. Supplies for alternative
> energy has to come from somewhere and not all of its will not come
> from US manufacturers. That is a simple reality which cannot be changed.
>
>
> Douglas A. McIntyre
On Nov 06 10:48 AM jerrydd wrote:
> Ferdinand E,
>
> 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?
On Nov 06 09:14 AM Jeff Siegel wrote:
> Haha. Talk to me when we stop subsidizing conventional energy at
> rates that are much higher than what renewables get.