LETTER: Green energy bubble

Don't let our local government participate in the green energy bubble. Our government has mandated the use of solar a
Sandusky Register Staff
May 13, 2010


Don't let our local government participate in the green energy bubble.

Our government has mandated the use of solar and wind despite their lack of economic feasibility. Wind and solar power would not exist in the U.S. if not for the government using taxpayer dollars to subsidize them because our traditional sources of power are too cheap.

Many will point to the use of windmills in Europe. Europe's traditional power sources are higher than ours and look at what green energy has did to their economy. Spain's finance minister calculated for every green job created they lose two in the private sector which has led Spain into near 25 percent unemployment.

Michigan is huge in the wind and solar industry as is California and look how well it has helped their economies.

We now know man-made and possibly natural global warming has been proved to be a hoax and so then is the impetus for solar and wind energy.

Will the Sandusky City Schools wind turbine save the school money? Yes, it will. This is only because the government has mandated it so. It will cost all of us in the form of higher taxes.

People blinded by fundamental environmentalism or profits are now hailing the windmill and want to teach of its benefits.

When the bubble bursts these windmills will be monuments to special interests and radical environmentalism's ability to impose their will upon a people. These windmills should be used to teach school children the abuse of power of the government .

I urge you to look at history and the Carter years and see how identical policies helped to wreck a nation. Stand up and be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Jon P. Morrow



6079 Smith W

@ Mr. Morrow:

Economically, the U.S. was built on cheap energy. 'Green' energy, especially wind and solar is not cheap.

Also, govt. has a lousy track record at picking economic winners and losers.

BH Obama and others are only guessing that the promotion of 'green' energy will produce the jobs of the future. Throwing tax dollars in the form of credits in order to hide the true costs is an expensive and unsustainable smoke screen.

Lastly, China and other low cost producers will still undercut us on price - we will not be able to compete.

Global warming? In Earth’s history there have been an estimated five Ice Ages. The last one receded when human technology had not advanced beyond fire making.

What caused the previous Ice Ages and subsequent warming periods to occur?

Perhaps it was solar activity?

brutus smith

Hmmmm seems like these guys are all funded by Exxon-Mobil. Just must be a coincidence.

brutus smith

In a March 30 post on The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog, Johnson noted that Calzada's study "got conservative commentators excited," adding, "National Review's Planet Gore, for instance, notes that following that math, the U.S. could stand to lose at least 6 million jobs if the Obama green-jobs push is successful." But Johnson challenged a key premise of the study, writing:

Now, Spain's job-creation record is far from stellar -- the country has had double-digit unemployment since the restoration of democracy thirty years ago, and today has a 14% jobless rate. Renewable-energy leadership has not been a panacea, as much as the current premier hopes it will pull Spain out of the current crisis.

But the study doesn't actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending. What the study actually says is that government spending on renewable energy is less than half as efficient at job creation as private-sector spending. Specifically, each green job required on average 571,000 euros, compared with 259,000 euros in "average capital per worker" in the rest of the economy.

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It's simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: "The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to "green jobs", be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created."

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain's support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues -- there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it's hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.

And just where did that study come from? Professor Gabriel Calzada is the founder and president of the Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank founded in 2005. He's also a fellow of the Center for New Europe, a Brussels-based libertarian think thank than in recent years apparently accepted funding from Exxon Mobil.


Such as simple mind. You know if you did some of your own research you wouldn't look so foolish.

brutus smith

Scary huh?….. I dunno. Let’s back up a bit and take a look at the FACTS…all of them.

Let’s Look at How Calzada Reached His Conclusions

When you look at a complex issue, with many variables, and do not take into consideration those variables, you almost always inevitably end up with extremely skewed results. For instance, applying Spain’s experience to the United States, might be a faulty approach because the US does not have the same incentive structures that were instituted by Spain. Spanish incentives in support of Renewable Energy technologies has been in the form of Feed In Tariffs (FITs) that have reached levels up to $0.60/kWh of energy produced. This varies markedly from the typical U.S. approach of employing Producer Tax Credits (PTCs) to stimulate growth, which are typically on the order of $0.02/kWh.

Getting skewed results are even more likely if the numbers used are incorrect. Brad Johnson of the Work Room has pointed out that the number of green jobs cited in the study as resulting from Spain’s renewable energy program are way off. According to the United Nations, official estimates are 188,000, yet Calzada only lists green jobs 50,000 jobs and does not explain why he uses those dramatically different numbers.

The Brattleboro Reformer has pointed out a flaw in Calzada’s heavy use of the idea of “opportunity cost.” Opportunity cost is the true cost of something is what you give up to get it— or as The Brattleboro Reformer explains it…” that a dollar spent on green jobs is a dollar that can’t be consumed or invested by the private sector. Thus, a job that depends on consumption might disappear or not be created.” As the Brattlebore Reformer points out, this doesn’t apply in Spains’s case.

The study works from the assumption that public spending crowds out private spending. Most economist believe, and history has proven that public spending increases demand for resources, not decrease it. For example, after the Great Depression in the 1930’s spending to create roads, bridges and other infrastructure increased demand for labor, equipment and materials. Green jobs should not crowd out other types of jobs because the public investments are supporting the private sector. There is a great deal of historical data available that demonstrates that public investment in the nation’s physical economic infrastructure improves private-sector performance by raising average productivity and contributing to private-sector growth.


It's kinda fun debunking your claims goofus. It shows how shallow your research is.


Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources
by Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, Raquel Merino Jara, Juan Ramón Rallo Julián, and José Ignacio García Bielsa

In this paper, the authors examine Spain’s efforts to create “green jobs” through subsidies for renewable energy. They find that these subsidies have harmed Spain’s economy, destroying 2.2 jobs for every 1 job created. This study demonstrates how “green jobs” policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil. The paper marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact of “green job” policies have been made.

The following represent some of the study’s key findings:

The U.S. can expect 2.2 jobs to be destroyed for every 1 renewable job financed by the government.
Only 1 in 10 of the jobs actually created through green investment is permanent.
Since 2000, Spain has spent €571,138 ($753,778) to create each “green job,” including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1,319,783) per wind industry job.
Those programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Each “green” megawatt installed destroyed 5.39 jobs in non-energy sectors of the Spanish economy.
The total over-cost—the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at market prices—between 2000 and 2008 amounts to 7,918.54 million Euros ($10 billion).
The total subsidy spent and committed to these three renewable sources amounts to €28,671 million ($36 billion).
Consumer energy costs in Spain would have to be increased 31 percent to repay the debt generated by the green jobs subsidies.
Adding insult to injury, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Spain’s annual emissions of carbon dioxide have increased by nearly 50 percent since the nation began its aggressive push to subsidize and support “green jobs.”


To discredit a news source the left wing whackos always attack the source with no repudiation of the facts, except a vague denial. This the James Carville school of debate.

brutus smith

Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders.

And still no proof that Green energy caused Spain's financial condition. If you and your Free Republic buddies want to post things like this on your wingnut sights that's fine. But please stop with trying to pass it off as news.


3, 2010 - by Christopher Horner After two studies refuted President Barack Obama’s assertions regarding the success of Spain’s and Denmark’s wind energy programs, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the Department of Energy turned to George Soros and to wind industry lobbyists to attack the studies.

Via the FOIA request, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has learned that the Department of Energy — specifically the office headed by Al Gore’s company’s former CEO, Cathy Zoi — turned to George Soros’ Center for American Progress and other wind industry lobbyists to help push Obama’s wind energy proposals.

The FOIA request was not entirely complied with, and CEI just filed an appeal over documents still being withheld. In addition to withholding many internal communications, the administration is withholding communications with these lobbyists and other related communications, claiming they constitute “inter-agency memoranda.” This implies that, according to the DoE, wind industry lobbyists and Soros’s Center for American Progress are — for legal purposes — extensions of the government.

This is a defense commonly employed against FOIA requests when seeking to withhold certain communications with, for example, paid consultants.

As candidate and president, on eight separate occasions Barack Obama instructed Americans to “think about what’s happening in countries like Spain [and] Germany” if they wanted to know what successful “green jobs” policies look like, and if they wanted to know what we should expect here in the U.S. from his agenda.

Some European economists took a look. In March, a research team from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University produced a detailed, substantive, heavily sourced, two-method paper: “Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.” The paper concluded that Spain’s “green jobs” program was an economic failure, in fact costing Spain many jobs.

The president of Spain’s renewable energy association — along with a Communist Party affiliated trade federation — decried the paper’s lead author as being unpatriotic.

The former wrote in Spain’s leading paper, El Mundo, slamming the research paper. However, he did not critique the paper itself — he agreed with its conclusion. He was furious only that the study was publicized. By revealing the truth about Spain’s increasingly mythologized “green jobs” and renewable energy experience, the revealed study threatened the prospects for Spain’s companies to be bailed out by the U.S. repeating these mistakes.

Incidentally, this became a common refrain. After the Spanish study embarrassed the White House, prompting substantial media attention and even questioning at a press conference, Obama swapped out Denmark for Spain for later references to an enacted “green jobs” program.

Soon, Denmark produced a study (“Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark“) through the think-tank CEPOS. This paper also revealed tremendous costs, and that Obama’s claim about Denmark’s “renewables” experience was also steeped in mythology.

The response from windmill advocates in Denmark was similar: such studies threaten Danish industry by reducing the chances that the U.S. will serve as the hoped-for massive new market to make inefficient energy sources profitable for their foreign manufacturers (Danish Radio TV News, Thursday, February 25, 2010).

Back in the U.S., the American Wind Energy Association — the lobby for “Big Wind” in Washington, D.C., which includes a few Spanish wind giants — also attacked the publication of the Spanish paper.

Soon, the Obama administration published a five-page talking points memo assailing the economic assessment — written by two young, non-economist, pro-wind activists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Boulder, Colorado.

NREL is an extension of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). EERE is run by Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi, who, until assuming this post, served as CEO to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. Zoi is responsible for many millions of the “green jobs” stimulus dollars pushed for and designed by Van Jones (this according to Jones himself).

The Obama administration’s criticisms — drafted in often personal terms — distilled to two main points, which we now know were politicized, lobbyist-assisted complaints. These were:

– The Spanish paper suffered from a “lack of rigor.”

– The Spanish paper applied “consensus economics.”

NREL made the most noise regarding the latter, upset that the Spaniards refused to use the input-output (or Leontief) methodology designed for central planning, in which all is assumed to be knowable, controllable, and static. This method has been discredited outside of social democratic government agencies and select associations. Instead, the Spanish study relied upon methodology employed by real-world businesses in competitive fields when deciding how to deploy resources — which is not “non-traditional,” as claimed by NREL.

When the two studies had appeared, I wrote:

In the face of some recent pushback — for example, from the studies out of Spain and Denmark referenced in this space on numerous occasions — the windmill welfare queens over at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) have been cranking up the snivel volume to eleven.

Reading the group’s press releases it does seem that they even had a hand in getting the president of the United States to sic a taxpayer-funded agency on a foreign academic study about a foreign country’s experience with its own policies, because said academic team and its writings threaten the welfare if the word gets out.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we now know that the assertion was correct. The Obama administration produced this denunciation at the behest of, and with the active participation of, the wind energy’s lobby.

The first sign that something improper had occurred came when NREL responded to media inquiries claiming that the paper was entirely the DoE’s idea, while the DoE’s Office of Congressional Affairs wrote to a Senate oversight office to claim that it was all NREL’s doing.

As I noted in my FOIA requests to both DoE and NREL:

We note that one of two co-authors of the above-cited NREL paper, which paper attests that “This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government,” is on record in an E&E News story announcing of the project, “DOE requested the analysis be performed.”

However, DOE Congressional Affairs is on record saying the following:

NREL initiated the report on their own as part of their on-going analytical role to assess emerging issues and monitor external studies and develop internal memos or external documents to address research that is at odds with DOE/EERE scientific understanding.

We therefore seek documents revealing the origins of the effort and clarifying the alternating, mutually exclusive claims of NREL saying DoE told me to do it and DoE telling Congress that it was all NREL’s idea, fully aware of of DoE’s extant protestations to congressional offices that the above-cited paper is of like kind with other NREL products (noting here that no paper DoE cites is comparable on any level [citations omitted]).

The question “which time are you lying?” came to mind, though it was not at all clear that the answer could not be “both.” The FOIA documents — 900 pages, so far — show great internal concern among high level DoE political appointees when this question was pressed, and a resistance to put the answer in writing.

The provided documents conclude with emails citing late-night phone calls to get the story straight, and calling — with “high importance” — a meeting at 9:00 a.m., September 22, 2009, in the office of Ms. Zoi’s chief operating officer, Steven Chalk. The meeting was called to “huddle up” face-to-face to put things straight.

Congressman James Sensenbrenner wrote to Ms. Zoi two days later, asking five specific questions about how and by whose instruction this NREL paper was produced. On January 6, 2010, Zoi wrote back with a one-paragraph reply which either failed or refused to provide answers to any of the queries.

We now know that the prospect of such answers seeing the light of day was clearly of great concern to the DoE. This raises the question of whether, by refusing to share information sought by the ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Global Warming, Ms. Zoi lied to or misled a member of Congress exercising his legitimate oversight function.

Over the coming days I will produce specifics of these internal emails and emails between the administration and the windmill lobby (think numerous European companies, not merely a few utilities and GE).

Christopher Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.


brutus smith

Proof goof, proof. There's nothing that says green energy caused their problems.


Read the news dopey, the socialistic countries of Greece, Spain and Portugal are all failing.

brutus smith

goofus, once again you throw out meaningless right wing talking points. Where is your proof that green energy is causing Spain problems? Just a flame thrower. And please spare us by posting someone's blog.


Did you know that most of the stimulus funds for windmills is going to china. Spain was supposed to be the model for a socialistic eden with alternative energy, why is it Spain is almost bankrupt.

brutus smith

No one ever said it would supply all of our energy. To not want to use as much green energy as possible is just insane. Don't any of you find it ironic that in the 70's we were running out of natural gas and now that green energy is finally taking hold we have an unlimited supply?


When people point to the windmills in Europe, I point to the Nuclear Power plants France built to supply the rest of Europe with power. Wind power is not sustainable.