"In addition to legislative aid, Excelsior also has received a large share of financial assistance from the public sector. The company received about $22 million in development funds from the U.S. Department of Energy before the federal agency decided to cut off its support for the morphing project this summer. Initially, Excelsior had been slated to receive $36 million in support of the “clean coal” technology it aimed to develop, but the federal agency chose to stop its funding $14 million shy of that original earmark when Excelsior’s focus shifted to natural gas."
– "Key land auction for Excelsior Energy slated for today", Peter Passi, Duluth News Tribune, 2012-12-19
See also "Report: Excelsior Energy project could run out of gas", Minnesota Public Radio, 2011-08-23.
Rather than decry all these subsidies, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a law in 2008 that made the financial records reported to state agencies secret.
It is interesting that many hold alternative energy companies to a different standard than fossil fuel companies. In the one case it is crony capitalism on the part of government, and in the other case it is creating jobs. "'At the end of the day, this is a project that has not hired one full-time worker on the Iron Range. Only lawyers, lobbyists and professional meeting attenders have gotten jobs,' said Rep. Tom Anzelc, D-Balsam Township, the only Iron Range legislator who opposes the project." See MPR article.
Showing posts with label wind power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wind power. Show all posts
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Friday, March 09, 2012
Wisconsin's Selective Free Markets
Many in the Wisconsin Senate want to relax the "restrictive regulations" on permits for iron mining. Others claim that those restrictions will ensure protection for the water and land near the proposed mine. "Updated:(Gogebic Abandons Mine Plans!) Wisconsin Mining Bill Sent Back To Committee", Eric Bau, Daily Kos.
A few years ago there was a big hullabaloo about a high-voltage line in Wisconsin. Many who lived in the area of the right-of-way were opposed. I don't remember what setback was required for the line, but many residents felt that it was too little. There were also strong complaints about property rights. The project went through and the line was built.
Now a company is trying to put wind turbines in several areas of Wisconsin. Some landowners object to the size of the setbacks and the amount of access to be granted the wind companies. Suddenly, the Wisconsin legislature is falling all over itself to increase the setbacks and other regulations on the wind companies.
What is so different about the third case that doesn't apply in the first two cases? That is, why do large companies' interests trump the rights of individual property owners in the first two cases, but the rights of individual property owners should be paramount in the third case.
I have my suspicions, but I would need a lot more documentation than I care to look for now.
A few years ago there was a big hullabaloo about a high-voltage line in Wisconsin. Many who lived in the area of the right-of-way were opposed. I don't remember what setback was required for the line, but many residents felt that it was too little. There were also strong complaints about property rights. The project went through and the line was built.
Now a company is trying to put wind turbines in several areas of Wisconsin. Some landowners object to the size of the setbacks and the amount of access to be granted the wind companies. Suddenly, the Wisconsin legislature is falling all over itself to increase the setbacks and other regulations on the wind companies.
What is so different about the third case that doesn't apply in the first two cases? That is, why do large companies' interests trump the rights of individual property owners in the first two cases, but the rights of individual property owners should be paramount in the third case.
I have my suspicions, but I would need a lot more documentation than I care to look for now.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Business-friendly? Friendly to which businesses?
One of the current political buzzwords is "business-friendly" or more likely "business-unfriendly". "Business friendly" generally means minimum or no interference with businesses or giving of breaks, tax or otherwise, to businesses.
Although some consider "business-friendly" to mean "people-unfriendly", one "business-friendly" act for one business can be "business-unfriendly" to another business.
I read a case of this in today's Star Tribune, "TCF gains in fight over debit-card fee limits", 2011-01-21. TCF and other banks are complaining that new Federal Reserve rules on exchange-fee limits will hamper their profits.
However, other businesses complain that the exchange fees cut into their profits. And of course, the exchange fees may cut into people's pockets with higher prices.
It wouldn't surprise me that many of the proponents of higher fees see no conflict with their call for lower taxes. It's all right for businesses to raise prices when their costs go up but not all right for government to raise taxes when its costs go up.
Another example of one business' gain being another business' loss is fuel costs. Maybe the producers will have more profits, but the truckers and the airlines, will have higher costs. The fuel users will do their best to raise their prices, but another fuel user, the governments that clear the snow will be constrained.
Maybe we should have a mantra to match "No new taxes" with a people-friendly "No new prices".
The same issue of the Star Tribune reports that the newly elected governor of Wisconsin want to increase the setback for wind-farms, "Wind showdown". On first glance, this would seem a business-unfriendly move. But I suspect it's only towards a new business many Republicans don't like - alternative energy.
Were these politicians opposing a high-voltage power line when many Wisconsin residents were fighting against it? The line went across, not near, their property, and they were forced to sell the right-away at a cost determined by others. Doesn't sound very free market to me.
I wonder if the Wisconsin Republicans will bend to the popular will if there is land-owner opposition to a new nuclear plant.
Although some consider "business-friendly" to mean "people-unfriendly", one "business-friendly" act for one business can be "business-unfriendly" to another business.
I read a case of this in today's Star Tribune, "TCF gains in fight over debit-card fee limits", 2011-01-21. TCF and other banks are complaining that new Federal Reserve rules on exchange-fee limits will hamper their profits.
However, other businesses complain that the exchange fees cut into their profits. And of course, the exchange fees may cut into people's pockets with higher prices.
It wouldn't surprise me that many of the proponents of higher fees see no conflict with their call for lower taxes. It's all right for businesses to raise prices when their costs go up but not all right for government to raise taxes when its costs go up.
Another example of one business' gain being another business' loss is fuel costs. Maybe the producers will have more profits, but the truckers and the airlines, will have higher costs. The fuel users will do their best to raise their prices, but another fuel user, the governments that clear the snow will be constrained.
Maybe we should have a mantra to match "No new taxes" with a people-friendly "No new prices".
The same issue of the Star Tribune reports that the newly elected governor of Wisconsin want to increase the setback for wind-farms, "Wind showdown". On first glance, this would seem a business-unfriendly move. But I suspect it's only towards a new business many Republicans don't like - alternative energy.
Were these politicians opposing a high-voltage power line when many Wisconsin residents were fighting against it? The line went across, not near, their property, and they were forced to sell the right-away at a cost determined by others. Doesn't sound very free market to me.
I wonder if the Wisconsin Republicans will bend to the popular will if there is land-owner opposition to a new nuclear plant.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
How about a good news story about energy?
I've often wondered why more effort hasn't been made to bring low-tech or at least low-cost tech to many parts of the world where resources are scarce. They cannot afford and really don't need mammoth electric networks. Commercial power sources meant for off-grid generation are often way beyond the means of people in poor countries.
Well, one boy did something about it in his small, rural village. Because his parents couldn't afford the $80/year for school, he had to drop out. He still wanted to learn and visited a nearby library where he found a book on generating energy for wind. With scrounged parts he built a windmill that would power a light in his bedroom so he could read after sundown. Then he built two more that provide electric light and much more for all in the village.
I first read about William Kamkwamba in Wired, "Teen's DIY Energy Hacking Gives African Village New Hope", Kim Zetter, 2009-10-02. "Hacking" in this context is not malicious tampering but making do with limited resources.
Kamkwamba now has his own web site, http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/. I hope he encourages many more like himself.
Well, one boy did something about it in his small, rural village. Because his parents couldn't afford the $80/year for school, he had to drop out. He still wanted to learn and visited a nearby library where he found a book on generating energy for wind. With scrounged parts he built a windmill that would power a light in his bedroom so he could read after sundown. Then he built two more that provide electric light and much more for all in the village.
I first read about William Kamkwamba in Wired, "Teen's DIY Energy Hacking Gives African Village New Hope", Kim Zetter, 2009-10-02. "Hacking" in this context is not malicious tampering but making do with limited resources.
Kamkwamba now has his own web site, http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/. I hope he encourages many more like himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)