• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Wind Energy Subsidies Are As Useful As VHS Tape Subsidies

    The wind production tax credit is set to expire at the end of this year, which has the industry crying out for continued subsidies.

    Heritage’s Nicolas Loris has made the case that the wind energy tax credit makes as much sense as a VHS production tax credit. Can you imagine the logic: “We can’t afford to lose our VHS tape manufacturing plants. They provide valuable jobs. Americans need a variety of ways to watch recorded entertainment.”

    Loris says this is what proponents of wind energy tax credits sound like.

    Wasting taxpayer dollars on different but similar programs—claiming that these subsidies really are necessary to create jobs or prevent layoffs—simply creates a “subsidies for me but not for thee” mentality in Washington….Renewable energy production tax credits have received support from Democrats, Republicans, and industry groups, but that doesn’t make it good policy.

    The credit is a huge handout to wind producers, allowing them to sell their electricity for less than market price. They would profit even if they offered it for free—because they would still pocket the subsidy.

    The subsidy is already equivalent to 50 percent to 70 percent of the wholesale price of electricity. And that isn’t the only special-interest treatment wind producers receive, as Heritage’s David Kreutzer explains:

    Though you would not know it from wailing and gnashing of teeth over the expiration of the [production tax credit, or] PTC, many states also have renewable energy standards that force ratepayers to buy wind, solar, and biomass produced electricity regardless of how much it costs. These renewable standards are separate from—and, for wind-power producers, in addition to—the PTC.

    A business that cannot survive without taxpayers paying 50 percent of the costs does not help the economy. Instead, it eats up more value than it produces.

    Policies like the production tax credit concentrate benefits on a few recipients and spread the costs among the rest of us through higher taxes and energy costs. They hurt the economy by making production more expensive, which puts U.S.-based products at a competitive disadvantage. This means fewer jobs for American workers. Those production expenses also make necessities more expensive for consumers, who are already hurting from the higher energy costs. Higher prices across the board hit lower-income Americans the hardest.

    Congress should let the wind production tax credit expire as scheduled and offset the resulting tax hike with broad tax reductions elsewhere. And this should be only the first step toward eliminating energy subsidies—and seeing which energy producers can provide the best service at the most affordable prices for Americans.

    President Obama often refers to an “all of the above” energy strategy when he advocates for taxpayer funding of energy production like wind and solar. Heritage’s Loris puts it succinctly: “The only ‘all of the above’ strategy America should embrace is the answer to this question: Which of these energy sources should we not subsidize? A.) Fossil Fuels B.) Nuclear C.) Renewables D.) All of the Above.”

    Quick Hits:

     

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    63 Responses to Morning Bell: Wind Energy Subsidies Are As Useful As VHS Tape Subsidies

    1. Ned McCaffray says:

      How about an option for "None of the above"???

    2. sdfultz says:

      Why oil subsidies?

    3. ThomNJ says:

      There should be no subsidies for anything. If something is worth producing, the marketplace will desire it and buy it.

    4. Lloyd Scallan says:

      Amy, again you fail to grasp the intent of Obama's policies. When Obama states "all of the above", he's lying through he teeth. You must undersand Obama's "Green energy" policies are not ment to help this
      nation's energy needs. They are designed as a rat hole where Obama can throw billions of our tax dollars down to bring about a faster collapse of our economical system. Ask yourself, has any of Obama's green
      policies worked? Everyone of them has gone under, or about to go under, taking billions of our tax dollars with them.

    5. Joe McBride says:

      This is an apples & oranges comparison. VHS was a dying item with the evolution of the DVD. Wind energy is a new technology that should continue to be developed and promoted. And lets be correct, we are talking about a tax credit, not a subsidy. We all recieve "subsidies" in the form of tax credits from the government. There is nothing wrong with encouraging development of alternate energy sources, while continuing to use and support current ones.

    6. Pete Houston says:

      I am good with this tax credit coming to an end. I live in Houston and we see plenty of wind turbines coming in from overseas at the port of houston with several different company names on them. They are not made by GE in Greenville SC however. .
      They then get on the I10 hwy and are delivered to north and west Texas.
      They are not producing american jobs but jobs overseas. I think wind turbines are fine if they make financial sense. The lease rights to having them on your property is putting money into economies of pretty remote places in Texas.

    7. Tom says:

      Would you honestly expect that members of Congress would discontinue any spending bill that had to do with wind–or with hot air?

    8. The Bob says:

      If wind power is viable, it makes money, and helps people, then why should citizens pay for it through tax credit? If it is not viable, does not make money and help people, then do away with it and stop wasting money and switch to something that does work.

    9. J E Houser says:

      As Mr Jefferson said: history by telling us of the past enable us to judge of the future. The only times of great expansion of knowledge and wide-spread wealth has occurred when there was limited government and free enterprise, as great changes occur from unexpected places and persons. Government is only solipsism — the most employed but least known word in the human vocabulary.

      • Michael Berndtson says:

        It sounds good but you're not really correct. Governments expand knowledge through war, land grabbing and finally mercantilism. Initially and chiefly funded by the State or the other States. Who do you think paid for Jefferson's knowledge gathering Louis and Clark expedition? Who paid for the Transcontinental Railroad? No it wasn't L. Stanford's money. Private investment didn't come until free land and mineral rights were granted by Lincoln. The internet? That was because of the cold war freak out and fear one bomb could wipe out controls of all our bombs. I could go on and on. BTW, Jefferson went broke and spent most of his life in government.

    10. Guest says:

      China has the jobs making these wind turbines!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So who cares about them ??????????

      • bernie says:

        not 100%true in iowa we have two or 3 productions plants an lots and lots of wind farms

        they are something to see look at Mid american energy or Clear lake maybe for more info

        Thanks

    11. DWilson says:

      Will someone please explain to me when a TAX CREDIT became a SUBSIDY!

    12. David Wynne says:

      I have to admit that I don't quite understand how PTCs lower alternative energy rates while at the same time increasing production costs. I do understand the hidden costs due to taxpayer subsidies and the waste of non- wealth creating job creation. Still, I cannot connect all the dots in the article. Yes, the subsidies do amount to guaranteed profits for a few at the expense of the taxpayers, but don't the rate payers benefit from lower electricity rates? At what point do the subsidies and mandatory alternative energy rates create higher costs that diminish our ability to compete in the market place ? I totally agree with the article , I'm just having a little trouble seeing the big picture.

    13. Ann l. Owen says:

      We do not need to subsidize anything!!!!! If they cannot make it on their own, they do not need to be in
      Business. This is one cost we can eliminate. No more subsidies!!!!

    14. Michael Berndtson says:

      The VHS tape analogy is incorrect. I believe what you're saying is this: since VHS tapes got pushed out of the market by DVDs and eventually streaming it would be silly to subsidize VHS tape manufacturers since its a dead industry. The situation at hand is that wind energy as a serious and successful power generating source and is in its infancy and growing in importance. The fossil fuel industry is an old industry propped up by tax payers, consumers, and dictatorships (both here and abroad). If it wasn't for this silliness couched as "Serious Thought" oil and gas would be on track to becoming the next VHS and whale oil.

      To answer your question on subsidies – none of the above. Only energy conservation takes nothing but good old fashion conservative principals. The wasteful and bloated solutions after conservation will become apparent.

      • 2Dokie says:

        Your analysis is wrong because hydrocarbons are still the CURRENT technology and in case of America all forms are abundant and easily acquired by well established industries. Ethanol is a classic example of political stupidity gone into overdrive. Like Jeffrey Immelt's (GE's) compact flourescent light made in China and mandated by LAW, ethanol is a govt. mandated disgrace: it takes 11/2 gal.s of diesel to produce 1 gal. of ethanol. Boone Pickens got into Wind Farms for the subsidy, and to profit from the artificial market created by congressional duplicity!!!!

    15. Lester Olson says:

      Maybe ethanol should be next! I certainly do not see any wisdom in burning corn especially in the middle of the worst drought since the "dust bowl". Can anyone say famine or food riots?

      • muskegonlibertarian says:

        We can import ethanol from Brazil for less than we can make it here in the USA. They make theirs from sugar cane. The most promising biological producer appears to be algae so far. There is also a company here in Michigan called "ECOMOTORS" that has an opposed piston engine. This extracts more energy from its fuel than our conventional engines can. They claim with a small car that they can get 100mpg. (diesel most likely) If you compare performance of today's cars to those of the past, those of today fall into the same power class as did the "muscle cars" of the past. The first US car that could do 0-60 in 10 seconds was the 1955 Olds Super 88. Today almost any car you can buy here in the USA can do that or better…

    16. Oscar Brown says:

      I vote for "all of the above". We're broke and rapidly getting more broke. If it's a good idea and technicologically sound, someone wil invest. If they don't, wait 'til later.

    17. Theresa says:

      Isn't this what Washington is all about . . . Wind and lots of hot air?

    18. Kevin Trevor says:

      Compared to solar, you are likely to be right, more pork from momma hog. On the energy tip though from an over sight view which is cheaper or getting the most funding. Solar, wind, coal, nuclear, oil, gas. Man made energy VS natural energy.

    19. Ann owen says:

      We do not need to subsidize anything!!!!! If they cannot make it on their own then they shouldn't be in
      Business. Read the tax payers lips. No more subsidies!!!

      • 2Dokie says:

        HERE, HERE!! How this got started was politicians have subsidized difficult and monumental tasks throughout history ie.: the Erie canal, transcontinental railroad,etc. However they've taken it to the extreme and used it immorally to award buddies and enrich themselves lately and we're the BUTT of the joke. By the way, Vanderbilt got a 200 mile swath across the great plains as his incentive, and the railroads retained the minerals under a lot of it…see???

    20. Roger Brown says:

      I understand the problems and absurdity of subsidies, the most glaring and maddening probably being the Chevy Volt subsidy. And of course, the public transportation subsidies. I always ask, "What would the real cost per user be without the subsidies and how would that effect the users?". The wind towers, from what I have read, are horrendously expensive, something like $1M each for the average larger units. Tough issue locally here in Southern Colorado. There is a Vestas tower plant here locally where I have friends employed. They've already laid off 90 of their 450 employees. This is one of three plants in Colorado. A family member works for Vestas at one of their Northern Colorado plants. Conflicted, not wanting them or anyone to lose their jobs in this getting-tougher economy, but I realize the need to end senseless deficit spending of our governments, local, state and Federal…no easy answer that won't cause a lot of pain to a lot of people. I've always wondered how a wind energy entity can make any money with the huge cost per tower unit. Probably not without a subsidy which pretty much negates any advantage of the tower's energy produced. What a mess.

    21. jug says:

      Wind research is OK, but something that hasn't, and has no short, let alone long term chance of "paying it's own way, should NOT be in production or subsidized!

    22. Clearhead says:

      How about Marconi? How about Gates and Tesla? Were they subsidized by the gummint? Did Edison get a big load of taxpayer's cash when he made and developed his many inventions? A "guaranteed" loan would be feasible provided the "guarantee" was not only for guaranteeing the loan, but also contained a guarantee for repayment. If I had a great idea for something beneficial to my countrymen, and I needed financing. the gummint is the last lender I would consider — and even that with much skepticism. Gummint
      handouts are NOT the AMERICAN WAY. No matter how you cut it, you're not going to get something for nothing.

      • Michael Berndtson says:

        The internet your on right now was a government subsidy. Edison took full advantage of government subsidies throughout his career ending with Rural Electrification of American. Tesla? – radio wave spectrum was established by the government. Marconi was Italian so not really applicable. Gates? MSFT was subsidized by IBM to supply DOS for its nascent PC project. IBM was heavily subsidized by the Government including departments of revenue, defense, State and on and on. I know this is the Heritage Foundation – but you do know there is no such thing as a free market economy for pretty much any good larger than a bread box and services more interdependent than the world's oldest profession.

      • @rockermom53 says:

        Actually the electric ompanies got federal money to electrify the rural areas. c

    23. we replaced VHS with DVD and blue ray we have not yet replaced wind power with anything end we pay them extra to increase production to replace coal plants faster so fewer children die of heavy metal poising. VHS is not as important as renewable energy so comparing the 2 is pointless.

      • 2Dokie says:

        You have confused several environmental effects either out of ignoranc or political dishonesty. You should have paid attention in basic science class

      • Swemson says:

        Coal doesn't kill anyone from heavy metal poisoning.. don't be absurd.

        A more accurate comparison however would be equating the wind subsidy with a BETA tape subsidy…

        VHS is still used by many people…

        fs

    24. Casey Carlton says:

      Amen! Let all subsidies expire (energy, farm, etc.) and let the market decide who and what survives.

    25. Morton L. Friedman says:

      My answer of course would be D), all of the above. But with that, one needs to scrub all of the idiotic regulations that pander to the tree-huggers. It is patently ridiculous that every proposal initiates a 'study'. a study that will be years in the making. A 'study' that will open Pandora's box for every opponent. A 'study' that will often depend on the 'analyses' of ignorant incompetents.

      A final word about 'studies'. If the proponent wants to sell an idea, then it costs nothing. If the 'study manager' wishes to negate an idea, then the study contractor will publish a report saying it will cost billions, destroy the environment, etc.

    26. Debbie McLain says:

      I don't believe we should subsidize any of these fuel sources and deregulate free enterprises so they can continue the production of fuel from coal, nuclear and renewable sources. I also want to see the pipeline from Alaska to to Canada be allowed to come to the America.

    27. Sam Fairchild says:

      I am a conservative who served in both the Reagan Administration and the Bush 41 Administration. It is really quite tempting to trash any subsidy, especially one that is so strongly supported by our liberal opponents. I do know a great deal about wind energy and wind technology. The cost curves for utility-scale wind have been declining as engineering advancements have reduced the cost of blade manufacturing and generators while design advancements have eliminated other costs (gearboxes, etc.) We are nearing wholesale price parity, but have a modest way to go still. I advocate a transitional PTC extension designed to give adequate runway for this final set of transformations (2 to 3 years) with full-stop halting of Federal subsidies after that. In addition, there are several very promising wind energy designs in final engineering stages that target the enterprise-scale market (distributed generation, behind the meter) that may actually launch subsidy independent. It would be a mistake to choke off this progress right now for a political benefit that really amounts to chest-thumping, when a final slice of federal encouragement could solidify the import-deducting, security-enhancing, energy independence-enabling benefits of bridging the final gap on US wind energy. Finally, this needs to be accompanied by acceleration of cleaner hydrocarbon energy production, especially accelerated drilling for natural gas.

      • christensen411 says:

        Sam Fairchild — interesting. No doubt that wind represents a bi-partisan dive to the bottom by some. And clearly with you shilling for wind, well you know. Anyway, regarding your post — so many problems. Reduced cost of blades, design advancements, cost-curves, etc. etc. Bottom line: does it all change the nature of the source???? NO!! Subsidizing wind, something that produces no modern power and zero firm capacity (an exact amount of power when it is needed), is one of the silliest propositions imaginable.

    28. Jeanne Stotler says:

      We have our own solar and wind provider for elec. Thee is one fault wit the eind, IT DOESN'T BLOW EVERYDAY, Ours goes into house and does lower our bills in most months but about $25.00, since my son can and oes build his own panels and windmill only cost of material is involved. NOW if you buy these things you WILL NEVER save enough to pay for them for years. FACT: If electric companies go to solar and wind THEY ARe NOT going to pass savings to you, it will go to stock holders. IT WILL TAKE 365 days of sun and wind to be profitable, as a subsidy, it works fine for us, we have energy stored in batteries so we seldom see loss of electricity when there are power failures, then we switch to generator. We sure get dirty looks from neighbors in the dark when we have lights and TV in part of our house.

    29. Bob says:

      Your propaganda for all things dirty isn't as good as it used to be.

    30. Mo Hughes says:

      a huge handout to wind producers

    31. Dr. Henry Sinopoli says:

      While I do not support Barry Obama, perhaps some of alternative power sources should be considered instead of just believing your hero Limbaugh. A review of some back issues of "The Futurist" magazine features numerous alternative energy sources that may be viable.

      If you're looking for real 'wind' power, have the Heritage chairman harness some of the wind coming from the life-long politicians Heritage supports when he is having another free dinner in Washington…

      Boehner alone could power 5 to 10 automobiles…

    32. FmrUSMCRnTX says:

      Very well compiled & written narrative, Amy! Great job! It's time to end these STUPID subsidies along with ending the notion that our national government should pick "winners and losers" in energy or any part of the private sector. We're not yet a socialist country! Just look at how things have gone with Solyndra, Beacon Power, and all the rest of the taxpayer LOSSES generated by this wacky & radical administration! I never thought I'd live to see the day when our nation would be governed by such a corrupt & dishonest bunch of charlatans! We have PLENTY of energy sources here in our USA….all we need is for the government & the enviro-wackos to get out of the way and let us develop & use them! As they say in the current TV ads——>I'm an ENERGY VOTER!! :)

    33. christensen411 says:

      And for states who do not have an RES, there’s always this:

      “PURPA was passed by Congress in 1978 to encourage development of renewable energy technologies as alternatives to burning fossil fuels or building new power plants. The act requires that electric utilities offer to buy power produced from QFs at rates determined by the states. The rate to be paid the QFs, called an avoided-cost rate, is to be equal to the cost the utility avoids if it would have had to generate the power itself or purchase it from another source.”

      “The commission must ensure the avoided-cost rate is reasonable for utility customers because 100 percent of the price utilities pay QFs is included in customer rates.”
      http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/PAC/

      Idaho does not have an RES. But the wind contortionists found a way to work the system to their HUGE advantage under the federal PURPA law. They were taking their large single projects and breaking them into smaller 10 MW projects and spacing them 1 mile apart in order to fall under the PURPA law which forced the utilities to purchase their power (and at a premium rate, a rate being looked at right now in Idaho).

      In 2011, when the Idaho PUC put their foot down with this project disaggregation, what did one wind developer initially do – before even taking the issue to the Idaho Supreme Court? In an act so typical of the wind industry, the developer went straight to the United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for enforcement.

      Per their petition submitted to FERC:

      Pursuant to Section 21 O(h) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 ("PURPA"), Cedar Creek Wind, LLC ("Cedar Creek") hereby petitions the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("Commission") to initiate an enforcement action against the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Idaho PUC").
      http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/FER/

      And surprise – FERC ruled in favor of the wind developer (although, FERC would not be enforcing the ruling). And what’s that about states’ rights??? Well anyway…

      How did we get to this point?? It’s because the PTC is so fat (same with 1603 grants) it can hardly be called an incentive as it is the PRIMARY motivation, not an additional sweetener. Couple this other with multiple federal and state incentives — PLUS the mandates. And it’s easy to see why we are in this huge mess.

      And then we have this from 8/14/2012:

      “’You can expect to see this will be a top priority for the administration,’ a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters about the so-called Production Tax Credit, or PTC, in a teleconference on the report released Tuesday by the Energy Department.”
      http://wtax.com/White-House-hopeful-on-renewal-of

      Obama: trying to bring America to its knees. And Obama's plan to subsidize wind energy, a low-value energy source which can not meet our energy needs and certainly can not put a dent in reducing CO2 emissions when looking at the NET picture and how wind on the grid works is TOP priority in his plan. It's a double whammy to us from the standpoint as taxpayers and from the standpoint as ratepayers paying higher electricity rates for a VHS tape/ buggy whip product. It's a perfect storm per se — Obama's storm.

    34. tnw says:

      The author does not mention environmental or energy security benefits at all. You can't just ignore that part of the equation.

      • christensen411 says:

        Yes, but there is a fatal flaw in your post. Electricity production requires modern power and wind cannot produce modern power. Consequently, wind technology requires continuous entanglement with conventional power sources throughout the entire range of its installed capacity; wind's volatility causes those power sources to run inefficiently, using as much or more fuel in the process than would be the case without any wind at all. And thus subverting the very reason for wind in the first place.

        All things being equal, the more wind, the need for more fossil fuels. Which is surely the reason Big Energy companies in thrall to coal and natural gas are heavily invested in wind. Wind cannot be an alternate or an additive energy source. It can only be a supplement that requires a great deal of supplementation.

    35. Roberto says:

      There should be no taxes on wind power, VHS and every other bussiness, not even capital gains or personal income, just paid appraisements on what we need the goverment to do for us.

    36. Nathaniel Justus says:

      I seem to have missed the article & section of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the government to subsidize anything….. Can anyone share that with me?

      • Jeanne Stotler says:

        You and me both BUT then they don't give a fig about that nice paper they just change everything around to suit themselves, Obama issuses EO's any time on anything he wants.

      • Joseph McKennan says:

        It is not authorized by the constitution, but this leadership does not authorize the constitutioin. It seems they consider the constitution an obstacle to their desired ends

    37. Bobbie says:

      Remove government. Eliminate all subsidies from private businesses. it's the only FAIR WAY to compete! And do it NOW! Obama makes it a handicap and hazardous with unconstitutional government involvement putting us in various unconstitutional messes which all would've been avoided had the constitution been followed and the rule of law respected!

      Why did Joe Biden talk to black people stating derogatorily with mocking tongue, that Mitt Romney wants business owners to make their own rules like it's a new concept? It's what makes business sincere to their customers where the market will be the judge of business standing but Joe Biden implies as if government should set the rules for businesses because black business people can't without government backing?

      Whatever freedom and personal responsibilities are taken by government are the links to the chains the democrats will have us in.

      I find Joe Biden distinctively insulting, hypocritical and racist. Businesses of all skin colors should self govern putting all in the private business class so they set their costs/pricing efficiently less the cost of the controls of government, JOe Biden. Independence and freedom to the people! Once a business takes a penny from government, they give up their privacy. There's no such thing as public/private business when the ones footing the bill have nothing to do with the business but forced to pay so the private part gets their profits guaranteed off the publics' tax paying back. If a business can't make it on their own, they need to step down honorably without burden to the rest of the country like they did before the government siege.

      Intentional confusion and misunderstandings take place when contradicting terms are used. Public/Private! Not fair and where is it constituted?

      Government only adds cost and government rules that don't apply to the business adds burden. People shouldn't take this kind of condescension from government authority and be much wiser than to think Joe Biden and his government have any fair intentions. Government abuse has to stop! Joe Biden would rather bail out big business before they collapse then Mitt Romney having businesses take personal responsibilities leaving consumers to their business demise. Fair competition. Biden bailing out the big wall street banks when the customers would've bailed out under the dishonor of wall street handling. No Joe Biden. Nobody needs government to move outside the peoples' constitution to make unconstitutional rules for business owners and nobody in government needs to make or eliminate free market choices. Joe Biden, Chris Mathews, Bill Mahr, a few others, they're the racists playing themselves as all white people. Which in my opinion white people can't be stereo typed because they don't take a culture label of identity. They are their own…and I find it so hideous that people will call white people racist even though as Christians we all follow the same man's teachings, who isn't white…

      sorry, long one but tired of the lies, slandering, misconceptions from the left, when their governance is driving America into 3rd world ignorance as if they just got off the boat! No offense to anyone! If we'd all been on the same page this country and the world would be better off TODAY!

    38. Neil Levine says:

      Hydro, waterwheels plus hydrogen better.

    39. Joseph McKennan says:

      I was listening to talk radio about a year ago and heard that somewhere in Massachusetts residentswere complaining about the NOISE that the wind turbines made. In addition, the wind generated electricity produced was not enough to make it a viable energy source. This was in MASSACHUSETTS a liberal stronghold. Residents wanted it dismantled. I do not feel my best interests are at heart if I have to subsidize it then pay for the electricity it produces.
      I would be more inclined to favor little waterwheels on all the creeks and streams and big waterwheels on the rivers. Just think– it would only take about 200,000 little waterwheels to generate enough electricity to run 50 flashlights in every major city in the USA.—– That is progress. WE could save 400-500 batteries a year.

    40. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Nick Loris is right.

    41. Debbi says:

      I'm all for being self- sufficient with wind or solar. I like the
      Idea of it. Plan to use it on my home. I'd also love to
      Find an investor/partner to go into business with to
      Build household size windmills that will power a home
      With pure sine energy to run a home. You could be
      Independent of the grid. I'm not a tree hugger. I'm a conservative
      Who likes to be as self-sufficient as possible so the
      Government can't "necessarily skyrocket" energy prices
      On me. These would cost around $2500 and for most
      People they would get that back in savings in a few months to
      A year. I don't care about tax tricks…just give me the normal
      Tax rates for a decent small business under Romney and I'll
      Be fine. I won't need to force people to buy these. Heck the power
      Goes out ever summer and winter in parts of this country
      And people die from it…something like this would save lives.

      My trouble is finding an investor/partner who is interested.

      Debbi

    42. June says:

      We should not subsidize any of these scams. If there is a market, let independent businesses build it. If it works, good. If not, it isn't meant to be. But, we do not need to use our money. This is just a way of letting this administration pay off favors. A law needs to be passed that the government does not get into business. Even tho Obama would not bother to follow the law. We need a budget and make sure he uses it and we need to take about half of our money back instead of him using it and sending it out of the country.

    43. Rick says:

      I say let the tax credits expire. What happened with the cost of solar when solar subsidies were cut? Solar plunged in cost because the market was allowed to work. There was more demand for technological efficiency.

    44. John says:

      Obama has something new to blame for his failures. VHS tape is obsolete!

    45. FaithWalk says:

      175 coal fired power plants have closed since Obama took office. People will not be able to afford their electric bills. Rates have gone up 8 times, 800 percent. Jobs that require cheap electricity will go to China. They are building a plant every week. (And we know they have no EPA restrictions).Obama is replacing 4 Cents a Kwh electricity with wind and solar which is 22 cents per kwh plus 24 cents per kwh subsidized by the government. This is one campaign promise that Obama has kept: closing coal powered electric plants.
      This may soon be a national crisis.
      Soledad O'Brien interview– nation.foxnews.com/coal/2012/08/03/coal-ceo-lays-waste-lib-anchor-and-obama-regime-issues-epic-battle-cry-free-enterprise

    46. David Ward, AWEA says:

      Federal tax incentives have helped all of our domestic energy industries to grow and produce the energy that our economy needs to function and prosper. For new energy technologies to gain a foothold in the marketplace so that the U.S. can diversify its energy portfolio and reduce its vulnerability to fuel price shocks, some degree of initial support is needed. Given those facts, the key question is: are renewable energy incentives out of line with those that have previously supported other energy industries?

      One particularly informative study by DBL Investors says no: “Current renewable energy subsidies do not constitute an over-subsidized outlier when compared to the historical norm for emerging sources of energy. For example: … the federal commitment to [oil and gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each [subsidy’s] life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear."

      By comparing the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) to a VHS production tax credit, Nick Loris belittles the role the PTC plays in providing thousands of American working families’ jobs and the means to make a living in a challenging economic time. Additionally, the PTC has leveraged up to $20 billion annually in new private investment in our struggling economy.

      David Ward, American Wind Energy Association

    47. RennyG says:

      My comments not posted because they are to direct, honest and "real!"

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×