State of Ohio tax payers out 1/4 mil


#1

Another Green Energy failure. I’m surprised the Blade ran this story, they are an extremely Liberal paper. Folks from the Pittsburgh area my recognize the owners name, John Robinson Block. He has taken his show on the road and owns a paper there too.

Removal of wind turbines from One Government Center possible; upkeep, performance cited BY IGNAZIO MESSINA
BLADE STAFF WRITER

The wind has blown across downtown Toledo for nearly a year, but it hasn’t done anything for the state of Ohio except flap the flag flying in front of One Government Center.

The four column-type wind turbines installed in 2010 on top of the building downtown cost the state of Ohio $224,300. They were meant to produce annual energy savings of $13,000 to $17,000, according to the Ohio Department of Administrative Services Web site.

But the turbines have sat idle since about March, 2012, said Beth Gianforcaro, spokesman for the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

“Around March of 2012, the Department of Administrative Services shut down the wind turbines due to maintenance and performance issues that were associated with the turbines, and since then, the state has been looking at options,” Ms. Gianforcaro said. “Either to repair them, to replace them, or to remove them altogether.”

The state has no recourse with the company that manufactured or installed the four turbines because both went out of business, Ms. Gianforcaro said.

She identified the manufacturer as Helix Wind Corp. of Poway, Calif. The company’s Web site is active but the phone is not answered and its messaging system does not operate.

Removal of wind turbines from One Government Center possible; upkeep, performance cited - Toledo Blade


#2

Not really a green energy failure, as the failure wasn’t with wind power itself, but with the design of the turbines, apparently. Hence them considering the option of repairing them. Why they haven’t done so since March of 2012 is beyond me, but they should probably avoid that company in the future.


#3

They have the same problem all over California, miles of windmills that mostly are not turning because the constant expense of maintenance and the low yield make them a giant, cost prohibitive junk pile.

The only good thing ours do is kill birds on the rare occasion that they are actually spinning, watching the Enviro-Nazi’s melt down over that is almost worth the bottomless pit of government subsidy that is the only reason they exist in the first place.


#4

Yep another failure with green energy. Hey I am all for green energy but what I and everyone else is seeing is one disaster after the other which is costing taxpayers plenty.

On a private note, addressing computer links that point to defunct outfits or just do not work I wish that those involved would just delete them and take the web site down


#5

Because the City of Toledo is about to join many others in bankruptcy. It’s been run into the ground by over spending Lib’s since the early 80’s. The were giving a grant to “offset” the cost of buying the units with nothing in their budget for maintenance. These grants come as a package. “You buy this product from this person and we give you half the cash”, then you are on your own. It’s a lot like the federal grants that are forced on cities to that pay for four years of a new policeman’s salary, but then the city has to pay for the next 21 years and all the benefits.


#6

When something doesn’t work, it’s generally referred to as a "failure."

Hence them considering the option of repairing them.

Why would anyone repair something that didn’t work properly in the first place? Besides, they’re not broken; they don’t WORK!

Why they haven’t done so since March of 2012 is beyond me, but they should probably avoid that company in the future.

From the article:

**the company that manufactured or installed the four turbines because both went out of business,
**
I’d say! :howler:


#7

Trekky, RET and I have been subsidizing “Wind Energy” with every electricity bill we pay, for about as long as we have been paying electricity bills in CA. For me, that’s nearly 35 years. Something that has to be subsidized - whether directly from government or by government forcing utility companies to charge rate payers for the subsidies - is not economically viable. It wasn’t economically viable in 1978, when I started paying the subsidies in my electric bill, and it is not viable now.

Trekky, RET’s business - the way he makes a living - takes him through one (two?) of CA’s largest wind farms, located in the Altamont Pass. Depending on where RET was, roughly 1975-1985 or -1990, he may also have driven regularly through another of CA’s larger, now defunct, wind farms, near the City of Benicia. For personal reasons I’ve driven frequently through both areas, 1978-present. I/We have seen the wind farm near Benicia cease working one windmill at a time, fall into disrepair, rot, and eventually disappear. Nothing is now visible from I-680 (which is routed through that area) of those installations, though there may yet be debris or concrete pads where the mills were sited. The Altamont Pass wind farm has been around for about the same time. While it has lasted longer, it is as RET has described it (it is visible from I-580). Many mills have stopped working; some are missing individual blades or entire propellers (removed to be replaced or cannibalized to repair other mills). Enviros have recently “discovered” that the mills kill vast quantities (calculated from samples, not observed) of birds, so the chance of new mills replacing the old ones - ignoring the direct costs of new mills and installation - is extremely slight or less. Within 10 or 20 years the Altamont Pass windmills will almost certainly be junk rotting on site or junk carted off to rot or be used for scrap elsewhere.

Not really a green energy failure, as the failure wasn’t with wind power itself, but with the design of the turbines, apparently.

Do you really believe that IF, after >35 years of “wind energy” development, an economically viable wind turbine existed the Envirocrats wouldn’t know of and utilize that product?

If you look past the pap-n-crap the US MSM and schools have been feeding people in the US, that EuroLand is making wind power work, you’ll find the true picture is much less rosy. The bottom line they’re finding - pretty much the same as 30 years ago - is that some days there is no wind, some days there is wind too light for windmills to operate efficiently, some days the wind is too strong for windmills to operate safely, and some days are just right. For some curious reason, people want their electric power available every day, not just on the days when the wind is just right. That means that conventional generation stations sufficient to replace every watt-hour the wind turbines can generate have to be in place and online 24x7x52. So even when the wind is “just right”, windmills’ efficiency - energy and economic - is much reduced by the need for conventional generation stations to be online and ready to cut in when the wind cuts out.

Wind power is not an illusion, it is a delusion! And will remain such for decades to come.


#8

There are also success stories, though, like the small town of Rockport, Missouri that is powered 100% by wind power.

As for subsidies, I agree with you there. I think we should remove subsidies for corn and oil as well.


#9

That’s fantastic about Rock Port, MO. Sincerely.
However, there’s a part I don’t get. (Not to knock it; I just want to understand it)

There are currently 24 wind turbines in Atchison County, 24 in Nodaway County and 27 in Gentry County. MU Extension specialists say the wind farms will bring in more than $1.1 million annually in county real estate taxes, to be paid by Wind Capital Group, a wind energy developer based in St. Louis.

It’s the emboldened part that has me confused because, according to the article, Wind Capital Group doesn’t own the land their turbines are on. They lease it from homeowners.

The alternative-energy source also benefits landowners, who can make anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 leasing part of their property for wind turbines.

See what has me confused? How is it possible that they’re paying in that much (or any) in real estate taxes when their turbines aren’t on any land they own? Or is the article referring to all those counties combined, and perhaps WCG does own property it pays taxes on? (Doesn’t make sense; just trying to give it as much leeway as possible.)
But as we all know, businesses don’t pay taxes; they collect them.
So, the next obvious question is; at what cost to consumers? The article didn’t mention that.

I’m glad to see that, at least for Rock Port, they’re at the point where they can start selling off over-accumulated energy. A good thing.
I’m also one to never be against a business making a profit, but I’d also like to hope that some of that over-accumulation goes back to the customers who’ve been supporting the up-start of this company.


#10

Speaking as the son of a farmer who raised corn and wheat (among other things), the subsidies for corn - whether for corn raised to produce ethanol or any/all much older general subsidies - should be phased out over a 3-5 year period (to allow farmers a time to change how they use their land and capital equipment). Ditto for wheat, dairy, sugar beets, whatever.

Rock Port, MO is a slowly shrinking town of about 1300 people. I’m no big-city snob (despite living in one), but Rock Port’s size really is much too small to claim it as a “success story”, if scalability and broad applicability are meant by the word “success”.

More to the point, as the linked Wikipedia article mentions, the Rock Port’s wind farm is connected to and sells “excess power” into MO’s power grid. In other words: 1.) claims of self-sufficiency are almost certainly illusory, as the conventionally-powered power grid will be supplying power to Rock Port during calms, times of too little wind, and times when the wind is too strong for safe operation; 2.) the wind farm’s “excess power” sold to the Missouri Public Utility Alliance (a government-authorized co-op of MO municipalities) is almost certainly sold at rates set by the wind farm (possibly in conjunction with a MO regulatory commission), with the Utility Alliance being legally required to buy it at that rate (i.e., MPUA rate payers are being forced to subsidize the wind farm through artificially elevated rates). So not only is this “success story” not scalable or broadly applicable, it also proves to be an illusion when the full context in which it operates (i.e. needing conventional back-up power and being subsidized) is considered.

So, make Rock Port’s connection to MO’s power grid unidirectional (no power from the grid coming into Rock Port), let the rate at which the wind farm sells its “excess power” be whatever the conventional power market rate is, let MO utilities have not be under legal mandate to buy the “excess”, and let Rock Port’s users pay the true net cost of their wind power. Then we can see whether Rock Port is truly “powered 100% by wind power” (i.e. no slack wind or excess wind down times!) and be able to compare the true cost of that wind power to what conventional power costs others in MO.

Like I said above, “the pap-n-crap the US MSM and schools have been feeding people in the US”: I believe the Rock Port, MO is a domestic angle of that pap-n-crap narrative.

Like 2c posted, wind power and also solar power are economic failures except in in cost-being-no-object circumstances like NASA or possibly some military uses. That was true of the first wave of Enviro-Hype in the 1970s; it is just as true in the second wave of Enviro-Hype of the 2010s; I work in electronics, specifically in power conversion, and I do not see any new technology that is likely to change that Enviro-Hype into reality any time in the next few decades (IF EVER - how do you make the wind constant or keep the sun in the sky 24 hours a day?!).


#11

Pretty much all Eco-friendly energy devices can not recoup their cost within their usable lifetimes.


#12

See what has me confused? How is it possible that they’re paying in that much (or any) in real estate taxes when their turbines aren’t on any land they own? Or is the article referring to all those counties combined, and perhaps WCG does own property it pays taxes on? (Doesn’t make sense; just trying to give it as much leeway as possible.)

1.) Perhaps, as you suggested, WCG does own some property, on which they pay taxes.

2.) Perhaps the taxes claimed are from increased value of the land owners’ land (assuming the value actually does increase, something local governments may be able to manipulate), with WCG paying the increases in taxes.

3.) Perhaps it’s a bureaucratic shell game in which the taxes already paid on that land are now paid by WCG (or merely attributed to WCG), with no real increase in revenue to local counties and municipalities.

The cynic in me would believe that it’s #3 or a combination of all three, with #3 being either a significant or predominant portion of the taxes attributed to WCG. But the pols and bureaucrats might actually be honest this time - it could happen! - and it’s some combination of #1 and #2.


#13

Concur, tperkins. This whole discussion has been poisoned by Enviro-Hype, for decades. Not even the very popular Toyota Prius can recoup its premium cost in its lifetime gas/maintenance savings, and IIRC the article I saw several years ago on that assumed a $4.50 or $5.00 per gallon price of gasoline.


#14

In which case, as you know, they don’t pay, they collect.

2.) Perhaps the taxes claimed are from increased value of the land owners’ land (assuming the value actually does increase, something local governments may be able to manipulate),
THAT I would believe gov’t entity would do.
with WCG paying the increases in taxes.

Now, THAT is a hoot! As in, not hardly. LOL

3.) Perhaps it’s a bureaucratic shell game in which the taxes already paid on that land are now paid by WCG (or merely attributed to WCG), with no real increase in revenue to local counties and municipalities.

Even IF so, it’s the consumer who pays those taxes. Again, as you well know.

The cynic in me would believe that it’s #3 or a combination of all three, with #3 being either a significant or predominant portion of the taxes attributed to WCG. But the pols and bureaucrats might actually be honest this time - it could happen! - and it’s some combination of #1 and #2.

A good answer to the entire question would be to know how much per kwh consumers in Rock Port pay compared to their neighbors/same size town, etc., etc.

And who do they call if/when the power goes out?