We'd be better off with zero electric windmills in the US. The article forgets to mention the other added benefit that these pieces of sheet; they're supposed to have a useful life of over 20 years, and typically break down in 7-10 years. They also require massive maintenance because the complex gearboxes used to spin up the internal generators to speed break constantly.
Trump Speaks Truth to Wind Power
He says wind farms only work because of subsidies. He’s right.
By The Editorial Board, WSJ
Jan. 12, 2025 4:30 pm ET
Every once in a while Donald Trump says something that shocks Washington with its blunt truth. So it was during last week’s discursive press conference when he observed that wind power isn’t economic without subsidies.
Wind farms “only work if you get a subsidy,” Mr. Trump mused. “The only people that want them are the people that are getting rich off windmills, getting massive subsidies from the U.S. government. And it’s the most expensive energy there is. It’s many, many times more expensive than clean natural gas. . . . You don’t want energy that needs subsidy.”
The media’s fact-checkers pounced and proclaimed that wind energy is among the cheapest and fastest-growing power sources. But that’s only because of rich subsidies, which were sweetened by the Inflation Reduction Act. Federal tax credits can cover 50% of the cost of building an offshore wind farm and more than 80% of the cost onshore.
Even the Biden Energy Department, in a 2023 report, estimates that power from new onshore wind farms costs more than from gas-fired plants on a per-megawatt-hour basis if you exclude subsidies. Wind with tax credits is about 25% less expensive. On the other hand, offshore wind costs two to three times more than gas power even with subsidies.
These estimates notably don’t account for the cost of backing up wind generation. Power from so-called peaker plants and batteries costs three to four times more than from baseload generators. It’s far cheaper to run gas, coal and nuclear plants around the clock than to use wind (and solar) some of the time and have to back them up with other forms of energy.
In any case, rising interest rates and inflation have rendered offshore wind uneconomic even with fat subsidies, which is why developers are canceling projects and begging for more largesse. Orsted in 2023 announced $4 billion in write-downs after walking away from two projects off the New Jersey coast.
The reality is that most wind projects wouldn’t be built without federal subsidies and state renewable mandates. The wind production tax credit was established in 1992 to boost an “infant” industry, but Republicans from wind states like Iowa, Kansas and Wyoming have joined Democrats to extend it every time it comes close to lapsing.
Democrats used a budget reconciliation trick to ensure that the wind and solar tax credits never expire by sunsetting them when U.S. emissions decline by 75% from 2022 levels. But that won’t happen before 2050 under the Energy Department forecast—if ever. Perhaps Republicans should use the same nebulous sunset when they extend the 2017 tax cuts.
It’s encouraging that Mr. Trump says he wants to end the renewable subsidies, which would reduce power-market distortions that are driving up electric rates. Perhaps he can persuade Republicans from wind states that, after 33 years of subsidies, wind power should be able to stand on its own as an adult.
Why is the U.S. giving welfare to wealthy wind developers when gas power plants don’t need taxpayer dollars?
Comments