Vestas To Cut 2,335 Jobs Worldwide; 1,600 U.S. Jobs May Be Next

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
January 12, 2012 | 44 Comments

Denmark-based turbine maker Vestas announced Thursday that it would lay off 2,335 employees worldwide, cease production at one of its 26 facilities, and warned that more cuts could be on the way.

The announcement underscores the difficulty even the largest global companies face as they work to keep pace with sinking prices and uncertain policy.

Perhaps the most uncertainty currently facing the wind industry is in the United States where the Production Tax Credit is set to expire at the end of the year. The credit pays wind producers 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour generated, and is regarded as crucial to maintaining the market’s development and manufacturing momentum. Vestas has recently threatened that such an expiration could cause it to halt its American operations. On Thursday, it hardened that stance, saying that if Congress fails to extend the credit, it is prepared to shut down key U.S. operations, and that doing so could mean an additional 1,600 jobs lost at manufacturing facilities.

”We are now preparing Vestas for the situation where one of our largest single markets, the USA, may be facing a tough 2013,” said President and CEO Ditlev Engel. “This will have a huge impact on our business if we do not act now.”

The savings from its layoff announcement Thursday would be 150 million euro. The company would save more than that if it were to shut down American operations. Of the 2,335 employees to be laid off, about 1,300 will come from Denmark. After the 10 percent reduction in staffing, Vestas will have 20,400 global employees, including 5,300 in Denmark.

It’s the third time Vestas has announced layoffs in three years, including its elimination of 3,000 positions in 2010. That has prompted Engel to address the perceived instability in a release issued by the company.

”I can certainly understand if employees as well as people outside Vestas consider us to be in a state of crisis,” said Engel. The challenges we have faced in the fourth quarter of 2011 have given us a credibility problem. It is not undeserved. We have to work our way out of this situation and the only way we can do that is by proving that we with our global presence, high customer satisfaction and the industry’s best performing wind power systems will come out stronger after the elimination race which is currently taking place within the renewable energy sector.”

Vestas also announced a major reorganization on Thursday. Engel will remain president and CEO; Henrik Nørremark will be manufacturing COO and deputy CEO; Juan Araluce will be sales CSO; Anders Vedel will be turbines CTO; Nørremark will act as finance CFO and Vedel will act as global services and solutions CSSO while the positions remain vacant. Ander Søe-Jensen, Bjarne Ravn Sørensen, Finn Strøm Madsen and Peter
Wenzel Kruse will leave the company following the reorganization.

44 Comments

Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012

Yes indeed, people have ideas & discussions & more ideas & more discussions. Nothing's perfect in our world, including wind power. That's life.

Eric McCartney
January 20, 2012

What I want to know is how does an article about laying off nearly 2500 people from the wind industry gets people to go off on a tangent that is sooooo far away from the point. Too many people with too much spare time on their hands. Maybe if that energy were focused and channeled in another direction, the world would be a better place!

Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012

Ahhh, now we know you know we know you're desperate there Yeager. Indeed you haven't read or you'd know from all you've been given that whether you understand or like something has nothing to do with reality. So blather on with desperate idiocies like JFK's assassination.

www dot greenprophet dot com/2012/01/saudis-china-nuclear-energy/#comment-29470 (a market loss)

Maybe you'll get that I've no interest in convincing you of anything, because you reveal your obdurateness. Feel free to be part of the problem rather than of the solution. My only concern is that others aren't misled.

Yeager Breidenbach
January 19, 2012

I read just fine gramps. They are going to do the same thing that we do with the waste. Let it sit at the plants like it always has. Why would they send it to China? I don't live in China obviously, so how would I supervise it? You are being snide not clever. And it compounding effect. 50 tons per GWe per year for each country. Year after year after year. 50 tons times 50 years is 2500 tons. After 50 years the nuclear plant is old but the waste is relatively young.

You and the thorium thing again. I have seen your talks about thorium there Dr. And you get this woe is me because no one wants to listen. Maybe no one wants to listen to you because your a terrible public speaker and that video on the link you sent was terrible. Time I wish I had back. That's right its a big conspiracy starting with the Kennedy report. Maybe that is why he was assassinated. Thorium doesn't make plutonium which we need for bombs. I have already said to much.

Thorium has been around for a long time and yet not even one reactor. If thorium does come to forefront of energy production you wont be around to see it. I might not be around to see it.

P.S. Why do you say eh so much. Are you from Canada? This will be my last message on this post. My years down the road. But you don't have to worry about that.laptop runs on thorium power so there is no way for me to charge it now or in the foreseeable future. Life is now not 30 years down the road. But you don't have to worry about that.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 19, 2012

Still not reading, eh Yeager. What are those poor Brits, Czechs, Aussies, Koreans, Norwegians, Swedes, Italians, Indians, S. Africans... going to do with all that waste? Send it to China, where you can supervise polluting their populace more than their coal plants do? Oh yeah, that's not possible with only 50 tons of stuff per year per GWe.

I guess people who actually think about solutions will come up with something, eh? www.thoriumremix.com/2011

Yeager Breidenbach
January 19, 2012

Yea China is willing to go nuclear. They will put every citizen in the country at risk to get an economic edge and dispose of nuclear waste wherever they want. Where do they store nuclear waste in the U.S. Why don't you give me an example of a first world country. Like this one.

http://ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-29-02.asp

Dr. A. Cannara
January 19, 2012

Note we have an AP1000 under construction & China, Korea, Russian, etc. have tens of reactors now being built and over a hundred in short-term planning...

http colon slash slash tinyurl dot com/4t5ojde

www dot reuters dot com/article/2012/01/17/us-siemens-energy-idUSTRE80G10920120117

http colon slash slash spectrum.ieee dot org/energywise/energy/nuclear/siemens-says-germany-nuclear-phase-out-to-cost-trillions/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=011912

http colon slash slashanalysis dot nuclearenergyinsider dot com/new-build/political-delay-support-nuclear-damaging-uk-economy?utm_source=http%3a%2f%2fuk dot nuclearenergyinsider dot com%2ffc_nei_decomlz%2f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NEI+e-brief+0401&utm_term=Political+delay+to+support+nuclear+damaging+UK+economy&utm_content=136303

http colon slash slash spectrum dot ieee dot org/energywise/energy/nuclear/siemens-says-germany-nuclear-phase-out-to-cost-trillions/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=011912

http colon slash slash ibnlive dot in dot com/generalnewsfeed/news/only-nuclear-energy-will-help-india-produce-more-electricity/946894 dot html

www dot monbiot dot com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
www dot independent dot co dot uk/environment/green-living/new-life-for-old-idea-that-could-dissolve-our-nuclear-waste-2376882 dot html

www dot monbiot dot com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/
www dot columbiatribune dot com/news/2011/dec/13/used-nuclear-fuel-is-a-good-energy-source/

...for starters.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 19, 2012

Know you're excited Yeager, but this silly comment interface doesn't like lots of links per comment, so I'm doling them out to you...
http colon slash slash oilprice dot com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Full-Speed-Ahead-For-Chinas-Nuclear-Program.html

Of course, you could have read most of what I'll send, as others already have.
;]

Yeager Breidenbach
January 19, 2012

Did you read this because this has not been built. Ground has not even been broken. So try again there Mr. Cannara. Oh and maybe there is a reason that nobody pays attention to that report that Kennedy ordered. Because it is a pipe dream. Give it a rest. You are 72 people will understand. Get a glass of wine and enjoy one of those Menlo Park sunsets with Barbara while walking through Sharon hills park.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 19, 2012

Speaking before reading is never a good idea, Yeager...
www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/australian-and-czech-consortium-announce-thorium-j

Yeager Breidenbach
January 19, 2012

I am sure you know the last time they built an nuclear power plant for the US grid, 1974. So if wind is going then nuclear is already gone.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 18, 2012

Snarkiness wins what facts can't, eh Yeags?
;]
Yes, wind is indeed going, thankfully.

Yeager Breidenbach
January 18, 2012

Yea well, I got bored writing to a nuclear fanatic and the Ontario anti wind crusader. And thanks for the compliment on my work. It means a lot to me.

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WIND TURBINES!

Dr. A. Cannara
January 17, 2012

Wow, how to defeat your own arguments via snide remarks. Good work Yeager!

Yeager Breidenbach
January 17, 2012

Colette, you should move. I'm sure the neighbors wouldn't mind.

Alex, I think you might have a brain tumor form all that nuclear talk.

P.S. is people really that long of a word that you have to use ppl.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 17, 2012

As to real costs, Germany had around 19 GWe of nuclear power so this works out to 90 billion euro per GWe. Compare that to the cost of new nuclear at 5.6 billion euro for 1.6 GWe or 3.5 billion euro per GWe

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026110866409848.html.
www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/us-siemens-energy-idUSTRE80G10920120117

Even with cost overruns this estimate for 'renewables' it 10x the cost of traditional nuclear. And, we'll be doing far better: www.thoriumremix.com/2011 www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI&mid=5618117

Well, at least the Chinese, Aussies, Czechs, Indians... will, with our stuff.

bruce gladstone
January 17, 2012

There is nothing wrong (and everything right) about taking time to carefully assess the costs and value of wind and other alternative energy developments. There were many well meaning environmentalists who championed ethanol as a gasoline substitute, but now nearly all agree this was a huge mistake. Well intentioned and intelligent people sometimes get it wrong, but they can learn and adjust.

I don't have the time to dig up all the data, but could colette above or someone give an approximate figure : how much of the CO2 savings of wind power will be nullified by maintenance and other factors ?

A billion dollars sounds like a lot, but in the long term effort to find the best solutions there will be many billions spend where, in hindsight, they ought not to have been spent. This is natural technological progress and capitalism. Yes, the subsidies are a distortion, but temporary distortion can and will have great benefits. (But not every time.)

Colette McLean
January 17, 2012

As a scientist, I choose to search out sound scientific studies to substantiate my points rather than launch ad hominens and invented doomsday scenarios which have no basis in the real world. Mr Yeager's denial to understand that wind equals 400 to 500 ft Industrial structures placed close to ppl, many who are abandonning their homes and suffering huges financial losses is another eg. of the selective green thinking of those who wrap themselves in the cloak of green allowing them the moral high ground of clean, green and free energy which continues the PERCEPTION that they are attempting to do something about global warming or provide green jobs. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Here are 5 article that show the avoided CO2 emissions/kWh due to wind energy is very much less than claimed by promoters, because of the extra fuel/kWh and extra CO2/kWh required by the gas turbines due to part-load-ramping operations.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent
http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
http://www.clepair.net/Udo-okt-e.html

Yeager Breidenbach
January 17, 2012

Those 24 turbines sound great to me, mostly because they are over your head. But then again I think most things go over your head. You should talk to Alex maybe he could take those down and put a uranium pit mine there instead. Then your drinking water would give you super powers.

Colette McLean
January 17, 2012

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/01/cbs-news-12-clean-energy-companies.html#links

As a resident having to live with 24 industrial wind turbines incessantly twirling and swooshing over my head and a consumer who is mandated to pay not 2cents but 13.5cent/kWh for wind and up to 80 cents/kWh for solar electricity here in Ontario, it gets very difficult to read the sanctimonious ramblings of Mr. Yeager & wind developers in general, who are allowed to wrap themselves in the cloak of clean, green and free energy which merits them the moral high ground based on the PERCEPTION that they are attempting to do something about global warming or provide green jobs etc when clearly wind & solar are simply green impostors who are gouging Ontario (&U.S.) taxpayers of billions of dollars for a source of electricity that will not solve our energy issues, will not reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and contrary to popular perception, will not solve our environmental problems.

bruce gladstone
January 17, 2012

May cool heads prevail! The only good reason for a subsidy is to incentivize industry to develop new technolgies and production methods, and to spur similar changes in the supporting technology and supply chain. Wind has had good subsidies for a bit, now let's take a breather. Its only 2 cents ! Let the grid and the utilities take stock of wind power and its value. Even advocates must concede the variability is a liability. As cost effective storage technologies mature, wind may look a lot better in a few years.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 17, 2012

RF -- 'renewable' efficiency has not to do with nameplates, but with actual, delivered power over required periods of time. Thus solar PV & hot water have very stable integrals of energy delivery, in sunny climes, but wind has more unpredictability, as well as high-frequency (minute-by minute) variability, which is more demanding of expensive grid control, etc. Add the already superior power delivery per sq. meter of solar PV, especially local, & windmills, yielding <<200W/sqm (losing another 10% in transmission) are meaningless for mass generation. They do make subsidy $ for a few folks though!

To scompare solar/wind behaviors in Calif. www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
Note the variability of wind, despite our huge installed base. This is a particularly problematic issue in places like Denmark, where dependence is higher on wind, thus on having some large thermal generation capacity quickly available for dispatch -- 300MW for each ft/sec Denmark's next-day wind forecast is wrong. Solar hasn't this issue, as seen in the above CAISO record, or this real installation on a Calif. church...
http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b
Even in dead of Winter, output is predictable & nearly equal to integrated consumption. From Spring through Fall, it delivers surplus power to the grid & occupies no land.

Bottom line for choosing a 'renewable' is power capacity per unit of consumed land, per unit of resource, & per unit cost. For local solar PV (or hot water) land cost is zero, resource consumption is about 1kWHr/Watt, & build cost is now $1/Watt, decreasing. For wind, land cost is ~2 acres/MW (not counting roads & transmission corridors) resource consumption is about 700 tons/MW (iron ore, coal, limestone, aggregate...) & all 700 tons are produced via fossil-fuel combustion in steel making, limestone kilning, transport, etc., not to mention >100 tons of water/ton of steel. Only in special, remote places, does wind make sense.

Robert Freehling
January 16, 2012

1. RE: Wind Capacity Factor & Nameplate Rating: The US producted 4125 TWh/year in 2010 and had 1130 GW of nameplate capacity; this is only a 41% capacity factor for the whole US fleet. So wind is not far from average, similar to hydro and higher than the US natural gas fleet that only averages 24% capacity factor. Furthermore, wind turbine capacity is a somewhat arbitrary rating on a label and does not by itself determine actual performance. Thus, criticism about wind capacity factor--or the relation of "nameplate" rating to share of power generated-- has very limited meaning.

data on US generation: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm

Dr. A. Cannara
January 15, 2012

So Bill, you've never lived anywhere where you might have breathed some coal ash? What about Mercury, from coal plants? What about radon? What about Selenium...?

EPA is just now beginning to address a few of the reasons coal emissions (burned & otherwise) kill >10,000 of us per year (forget the miners, eh?).

Don't get the goofy ice analogy, and no one's accusing you of not being against unnatural emissions. Although, biofuels are themselves causes of unnatural emissions, as well as unnatural soil depletion, hunger via food inflation, and consumption of 100x the water used to make gasoline.

Colette McLean
January 15, 2012

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Documents/2011-03-02-S1603 Overview.pdf

People use the word "subsidy" all the time. Like it or not, our government "subsidizes" lots of things, from roads to education to electricity production. A corporation can take subsidies many ways, including routine write-offs or deductions at tax time. But subsidies can be more blatant, like cash grants to pay for 30% of a wind "farm" construction. Here's a look at how much we subsidize various forms of electricity generation, measured on this basis: $ amount in subsidies per amount of electricity produced. From the EIA / US Dept of Energy.

William Fitch
January 15, 2012

Hi:

Tell me Colette, are you playing the "drums" for all the Wall Street multi-trillion dollar public money bailouts?? ....or is your focus strictly the nascent RE industry in the USA...

.....Bill

Colette McLean
January 15, 2012

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/14/cbs-11-more-solyndras-in-obama-green-energy-program/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+globalwarmingorg+%28GlobalWarming.org%29

CBS News is reporting that there are 11 more Solyndras in the Obama Administration's green-energy program:

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra. . .Standard and Poor's had given the [Beacon] project a rating of 'CCC-plus.'

So stating that the funding came from ARPA-E budget doesn't erase the fact that this money still came from public $$$.

William Fitch
January 15, 2012

Hi:

LOL...

"...because just coal ash itself has more radioactive material in it than Uranium ore..."

Humm...and an ice berg has more heat in it than a burning match, but an ice berg will not burn you, where as a burning match will.

..on another point though, the ice berg can sink you, even if stated by "man" that you are unsinkable.... But of course we knew it really could sink even though we said the opposite...gee, why would we do that... it MIGHT be a stretch but MAYBE it was for profit and money...

.....Bill

PS: Just for the record if you have not been reading my posts for well over 7 years, I am against all conventional ("Mined") fuels for burning purposes... Not counting bio CH4 or bio created alchs.. additionally, I do not equate carbon neutral with pollution free...

William Fitch
January 14, 2012

Hi:

....ah yes.... but a wind farm will never produce a 5 leaf clover... but so what...who cares about a few broken strands of DNA between friends...
As someone once said, "you only can get humans from other humans."

.....Bill

Dr. A. Cannara
January 14, 2012

Thanks Colette, those numbers are even worse than I thought! Wind is a really good business, for a few. So ~10 billion was spent to erect ~6GW of peak capacity, or <2GW average. That's equal to the total cost of a typical 2GWe nuke that'll run for ~60 years or so; or to ~5 coal plants (which we hate) -- both including construction.

Colette McLean
January 14, 2012

http://docs.wind-watch.org/US-subsidy-2010.pdf
According to the EIA's report, Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010, wind energy received subsidies of $4.986 billion from the federal government for Fiscal Year 2010. This amount is equal to approximately half the cost of new wind power installed during that period. State and local subsidies would be in addition. (The US Wind Energy Association shows that 6034 megawatts of new capacity was installed between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010, so the subsidy per megawatt was $826,318. This compares to an average cost per megawatt of about $1.4 million, excluding construction and connection costs.)

Anatoly Arov
January 13, 2012

I saw all comments. Nobody mentioned a fact that wind energy is not getting to consumers real truth about wind energy cost which creates disappointment. Turbines are rated for mechanical dyno output at about 45 kmh wind. Real average yearly wind is in most places about 15 kmh, this brings 1MW rated turbine to 27 times less or 37KW, connection of generator takes another 25%, and after grid compatibility takes about 15%, so real output 25KW, how it can be competitive. Second - Vesta did not want to change, I offerred them 3 times more effective design, they did not want, this was not their priority at present time.
Somebody mentioned about need to come out with new energy source not requiring subsidy. I did offer to many principally new source of energy - utilization of static pressure of deep water (50m and over depth), developed device, but so far no offers to help me in development and testing. This technology is GigaWatts of energy output from relativelly small device, base energy, does not require subsidy but needs development cost, which small Company can not provide. Technology is based on creation a tsunamy inside vessel. Where are Universities and big Companies to jump into this project. Technology is safe, carbon free, invisible, does not affect marine life, best solution for islands and Countries with ocean and lakes. Patent pending, new 21st Century technology.
Thanks for effort to read.
P.S. renewableenergyworld, please, when notify about posting comments notification refer to actual article that I made comments.

Ron Peterson
January 13, 2012

With 30 yr treasuries yielding about 4%, I think that there should be some public financing of wind power instead of the 12% that is needed by the utiliities.
I live in an area that requires wind energy to be part of energy mix despite over 50% of the electric energy comes from hydro.

Yeager Breidenbach
January 13, 2012

colette
Don't get me wrong I never said anything about nuclear in the first place. Alex brought me into the whole nuclear thing. I don't dislike nuclear but don't bring up World War two, the cold war and tell me that wind kills more people than nuclear. I can't sit back and listen to that nonsense.

1. You keep referring to wind as inefficient. Nuclear is not efficient. It has the similar efficiency as any other steam generated electricity (coal, natural gas, wood products, crude oil). Nor is it dispatch able. You cant say how one thing is good and one bad while using the same means of comparison. Is wind unreliable? Yes. Is it intermittent? Yes. Is it the no good sham perpetrated by clever developers to make a buck on the backs of the poor people who don't know any better. Absolutely not. Wind mills have been doing work for hundreds of years and will into the future.

2. Ontario? Canada can do whatever it likes. It can fill the 20% on hydro alone if it stops selling it to the US. So stay in Ontario and don't use wind the ten people that live there will thank you.

3. Solyndra, Solyndra, Solyndra. There have we said it enough? Solyndra was a bad investment. It was investment from Arpa-E not subsidies! It was a tiny portion of the Arpa-E budget. Maybe we should not look into alternative energy sources if we can't take the bad with the good. And don't comment on this until you know what Arpa-E is. I know it doesn't have to do with Ontario.

4. I will go out on a limb and say you don't work in finance. Debt service coverage and interest add hundreds of thousands of dollars to each turbine unless you are a giant multi-national company that leverage assets mixed with strait capital. This is why municipalities can get lower kWh prices than private jobs. They can bond against themselves and pay it back from the profits, yes, profits. Oh, and did I mention they don't get the ITC.

5. Quote your source on Denmark. I say that 100% of Denmark is wind.See its ea

Colette McLean
January 13, 2012

So please explain to me Mr Yeager how putting up wind turbines will stop nuclear? Despite Denmark's 20% nameplate capacity dedicated to wind, wind is only providing at best 9% of this country's electrical needs. How does a modern grid which needs electricity 24/7 rely on intermittent, inefficient, unreliable, non-dispatchable & expensive wind? without some kind of backup.
As for Mr. Peterson remark about available financing which should makes wind affordable, clearly shows a misunderstanding that regions dealing with wind development are legislated to include wind (here in Ontario 20% of electrical generation must come from renewables) and legislated to subsidize the rates these developers receive. Not sure how availability of financing is suppose to reduce costs to the consumer other than hopefully stop the exorbitant U.S. federal subsidies to companies like Solyndra received.

Yeager Breidenbach
January 13, 2012

to Alex

"So, let's agree nuclear technology got lots of $, ended a war and provided our ability to prevent the Cold War from getting hot. What's the $ value of that subsidy?"
- No, I don't know what a subsidy to blow the entire world up is worth. Two, that wasn't a subsidy but the worlds largest black ops project and there is a dollar amount for that.

"And, given the 'subsidy' winning a World War & preventing another provides to all industries, how much more do windiies now owe?"
- This is no coherent. And why do anti wind people insist on derogatory names for wind proponents. Do you use racial epithets as well?

"Wind ruins lands, consumes water, mining energy/material and fossil fuel, for what? Investor subsidy, certainly not efficiency, dependability, reliability...
http://tinyurl.com/6lt3bwz"
- This link doesn't work. I will have to take your word for it that wind power has no redeemable quality.

"Again, the world is coming to realize, including even Greenpeace, that nuclear power is the safest form of mass power generation ever deployed -- safer than wind (killed 2 folks here this year alone) and even safer than escalators."

-The bomb that you refereed to earlier. That killed way more people than wind ever will. What about Fukashima, Mayapuri India,Coast Rica 1996, Tomsk-7, Goiania accident 1987,Soviet Sub K-431 and K-19, Morocco 1984, Church rock spill in New Mexico, Lucens reactor 1969, Santa Susana Field Los Angeles, Windscale Fire and there are more. You should also not trust Greenpeace because they are a bunch of "greeniies" and are talking about mass power generation not distributive generation.

Ron Peterson
January 13, 2012

Wind power costs are strongly dependent on the cost of capital so there needs to be a way to supply that capital to the wind industry. Many people are receiving a very low interest rates on their CDs, so the money is out there.
Consumers shouldn't have to pay a premium for wind power because of the current means of financing wind power.

Colette McLean
January 13, 2012

You obvioulsy did not get the point Frank, wind has never received a proper cost benefit analysis and a thorough examination as to whether it actually provides real value to the electrical grid. You can put whatever parameter in this analysis that you wish, economic, environmental, health etc. In fact there are several studies which shows that wind is a low value source of generation for very high cost and it's not effective @ cutting emissions because of its pairing with gas and coal generation that must follow at a drop of a hat intermittent, unreliable, non-dispatchable wind. See the CIVITAS review of electricity cost released just this month.

Frank Tettemer
January 13, 2012

If folks on this list are going to be crabby about subsidies to wind development, then I'd like to state, here and now, that I am outraged at the huge subsidies to the development of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is in the same negative grouping as the oil production in the Tar Sands. Both have a lot in common: They produce more money for their corporations than they produce power.
How many dollars does it take to produce a Kwh of nuclear energy, sold to the end user for 10 to 12 cents a Kwh?
How many dollars does it take to produce a barrel of oil from the tar sands?

The other common characteristic of the tar sands and nuclear energy is the destruction of the health of our planet.
Anyone want to convert that decimation and destruction into a dollar value, and factor that into their critique?
Wind energy is flawed in may ways. However, it is a useful alternative to de-stress the over-burdened grid, while the slow education of electrical consumers takes place, to learn to live a healthy life while cutting back on energy consumption.

Everyone can have a say in this:
You vote for nuclear energy every time you plug in your toaster.
Consume less electricity and vote with your frugal conscience.

Colette McLean
January 13, 2012

So just because other sectors receive subsidies, so should the wind industry @ a guaranteed, cost indexed rate for the next 20 years.(that the case for Ontario) As a farmer, I would give my eye teeth for that kind of agreement, which we clearly do not get in despite the fact that the Ag. industry is larger than the auto and foresty industry in Ontario. In the Ontario AG report,it clearly identified 'that billions of dollars in solar and wind projects were approved WITHOUT appropriate oversight, including and regulatory and planning procedures' If they had, policies makers would have found that there is no scientific proof that wind energy will be an effective cost-benefit solution. Due to aggressive lobbyists pushing for their multi-national conglomerate clients, none of this has been done for wind energy.
We must insist as taxpayers footing this green energy initiative, that any new alternative source of energy needs to have a thorough technical, economic, and environmental assessment, provided by the proponents. That's how real science works. They say they have provided this, but in fact they have NOT. This has been confirmed by AG report. http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en11/303en11.pdf

Only if we focus on this aspect of wind energy we will objectively know whether this new source is at least equal to our current sources of power, or not. If they are not, then we should not be wasting citizens' resources on them.

Yeager Breidenbach
January 13, 2012

All three of you realize that the whole energy sector is subsidized. Do any of you even want renewable energy because they all get subsidies. This website is for people that want news on renewable energy.

Yes these jobs are sustainable Bill, in the same way that being a builder is sustainable. Is the same person going to build the same house for the rest of there career. No. Both professions have to stay mobile to maintain sustainability. We have heavy subsidies on gasoline and diesel fuel. If these were cut the transportation industry would collapse. Is the whole transportation industry non sustainable? Farmers get subsidies. Is growing food not a sustainable jobs either. What about:
-telecommunications
-Aerospace
-industrial machinery
-pharmaceuticals/ medical products
-engineering and construction
-publishing/printing
-Computers, office equipment
-Information technology services.
-And more...
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/13/366988/over-half-of-all-us-tax-subsidies-go-to-four-industries-guess-which-ones/?mobile=nc

People like bill look at sustainability from a view similar to there life. Sustainable job is the office you go from 8-5.

Bill also says that the price per kWh payed went up in Canada but turbine investment did not. I remember something happening between 2008-2011. Maybe a giant global recession! Investment money is harder to get than in the 70's and these turbine projects require a large amount of up front capital. You can't blame the wind industry for poor performance under terrible economic environments.

Bill Palmer
January 13, 2012

The major driver of the renewable energy field for government officials, in many countries, is the jobs created. This is particularly true in the current climate of economic downturn. In Ontario, wind developers are flocking to take part in the planned expansion to 10,800 MW of new renewables (mostly wind) by the year 2018. Every government notice includes the promise that renewable energy will bring 50,000 jobs to Ontario.

The question though is how many "sustainable jobs" are brought? The Vestas case shows that with falling subsidies, the jobs are not sustainable. Currently, the article speaks of a $22 a MWh production tax subsidy in the US, and it's elimination has Vestas threatening shutdown. In Ontario, land based wind is currently guaranteed $135 a MWh, plus a $10 federal Eco-Action grant. The comparable average system energy price (depensing on how calculated) ranges from $35 a MWh to $75 a MWh ... thus the subsidy is $110 a MWh to $70 a MWh.

Note that in Ontario the Off peak electricity price (energy plus delivery) has increased from about 7.8 cents a kWh to some 13.6 cents a kWh from 2008 to 2011 (nearly doubling in 3 years), with only a small amount of new renewables added to the system (say 1600 MW), and the additional prices of major construction projects to enable new wind resource to be added, have not been factored in. Consumer angst is increasing, and the government have begun to muse - thinking about their political future - if they need to look at the feed in tariff prices.

Is wind really the driver of sustainable jobs, or just a manner of impoverishing consumers for the years to come while developers and manufacturers flourish? Justice?

ANONYMOUS
January 13, 2012

The energy sector as well as all other businesses should stop depending on the subsidies in building their business cases. It is time enterprises do their work based on long-term strategies rather than short-term incentives/tactics. The long-term prospects for wind/solar or any renewable is favorable and indeed great. If Mr.Engel does not understand this simple principle, he is the one that needs to go and not the employees he is planning to lay-off.

Dr. A. Cannara
January 13, 2012

Some good news! Subsidies do distort markets, until they disappear.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.