“Obama’s quixotic wind program”
Suprisingly, the title isn’t referring to the Obama Administration more generally. Rebekah Rast:
Wind power only accounts for about 1 percent of all the energy used in the U.S. today. In 2010, it accounted for 2.3 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S. These numbers aren’t low due to a lack of turbine farms in America, they are low because turbines only generate a percentage of their theoretical maximum output—the wind does not always blow.
What’s more ironic from an environmentalist perspective is the fact that these giant turbines (some can reach 400 feet tall and turn at speeds of 200 mph in peak times) kill a half-million birds and bats without penalty every year. Knowing the typical response of true environmentalists, if any other industry other than a “green” one caused that much damage they would be there with a lawsuit threatening to shut it down.
In mass, if wind power seems to kill more birds than it produces energy, why does it remain such an integral component in Obama’s energy plan? Why does America continue to spend millions of dollars on an unstable energy source when there is no shortage of other much cheaper, reliable industries?
The city of Reno, Nev., is probably asking itself the same question.
Windmills were installed in Reno between April and October of 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of President Obama’s stimulus package, which passed in 2009.
Unfortunately, to date the turbines haven’t performed well in the city.
In one example, the city of Reno paid $21,000 for a particular wind turbine only to have it save them $4 in energy costs. Furthermore, a total cost of $416,000 worth of turbines has netted the city $2,800 in energy savings—in two years.[…]
This problem extends beyond just Reno. Since the city’s risky “green” investment was part of a larger renewable energy grant from Obama’s stimulus, all these wasted dollars once belonged to taxpayers.
— Some of whom are probably even women who may have been able to use the money the government throws away tilting at windmills on, say, super nice condoms, or the “luxury” of staying at home to raise their wee bourgeois “punishments”! Similarly, these same women could use the savings from lower gas prices and lower food prices and lower clothing prices and lower energy costs to buy themselves the “gender equality” that the Administration promises to champion — and without the need for Big Daddy government to step in and save them, or provide them with the kinds of special dispensations that, to the progressive, somehow promotes “equality” and “fairness.”
Instead, this Administration’s plan seems to be to throw money away on every last green energy boondoggle their cronies can gin up, then demand even more tax payer money to pay off each individual identity group its waste of taxpayer money hurt in the first place — by demanding the private sector contribute even more revenue to the government, which it will then spend on more failed projects that disrupt natural markets.
That is, the government seeks at once to be the source of all largess — from its benevolence will flow all that you need and deserve — and yet disclaim any responsibility for how it spends the money it demands it be allowed to gather and allocate at its own discretion.
Nice gig if you can get it.