Finally, a breath of fresh air amid all the stale rhetoric over wind-energy tax credits: The CEO of one of the nation's largest wind-energy companies says Washington should hold the subsidies, thereby enabling the industry's innovation and competition.
Patrick Jenevein of Tang Energy Group of Texas says the public subsidies are “misguided” and have effectively weakened the industry, which needs to “focus less on working the political system and more on research and development.”
To wit: the rising cost of wind power. The federal government has dumped $8.4 billion into wind energy since 2009, the Boston Herald reports. And what happened to its cost? Why, it increased, of course — from $37 per megawatt-hour in 2005 to an average of $54 today.
If communities can't afford increasing prices, then the case — moral or economic — for wind energy becomes moot, Mr. Jenevein says.
But rather than devote the requisite attention and resources toward innovation, industry executives instead spend most of their time focusing on legal and accounting matters, Jenevein says.
Sadly, his is but one voice. The overwhelming chorus of wind-turbine spinners insist that their industry is entitled to unending federal handouts regardless of initiative, enterprise or free market forces, which separate business winners from losers.
But that sorry status quo only generates a lot of hot air.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Public records: Updates needed