Xcel Energy: Wind power subsidies benefit developers, not utilities nor consumers
Excel Energy, the biggest wind energy producer in America, says that it may not sign up for more wind energy because the subsidies extended as part of the bill that saved 99% of Americans from income tax increases inclluded some $40 billion in pork for developers of wind power farms and their suppliers like General Electric.
The wind production tax credit (PTC) disguises the cost of wind energy and exacerbates the costs of other types of enery sources, Excel's lobbyist said in a statement reported by The Foundry blog, which is part of the Heritage Network..
Excel has raised rates to pay for its "clean energy" investments in Colorado and Minnesota. Many of its wind farms are around our farm in SW Minnesota. That it isn't likely to buy more towers is another reason for us to not put towers on our farm. I've been agaisnt the towers because they're ugly, noisy and likely to be eyesores for decades after they wear out and cease to produce energy. Most important, we don't like being part of an uneconomic enterprise subsidized at the rate of $8.5 billion $10 billion a year by consumers and taxpayers for no good reasons.
The Hidden Costs of Wind Energy; Why the full cost of wind generation is unlikely to match the cost of natural gas, coal or nuclear generation, By American Tradition Institute.
The hidden costs of wind power, by Institute for Energy Research.
Top wind utility: Wind subsidy benefits industry, not consumers, by Lachlan Markay, The Foundry blog.
Wind turbines 'Only lasting for half as long as previously thought,' by Energy Tribune.
The Democratic war on science, by Steven Hayward at Powerline blog.
Science must be seen to bridge the political divide; Scientists in the United States are often perceived as a Democratic interest grouip. For science's sake this has to change, by Daniel Sarewitz @ http://www.nature.com.
Agriculture • Farming • Congress 112th • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Taxes • Permalink
BP needs new CEO, top executives, board and corporate culture
Today’s House hearings showed that BP needs a new board, CEO, top managers and corporate culture. The British company’s board hired a CEO who has created or continued a corporate culture that puts cost cutting and making deadlines ahead of ensuring the safety of workers, the environment and shareholders.
The implied criticisms of BP dished out at the hearing by its peers at Exxon, Chevron and Shell were devastating for BP’s top managers. The other companies’ CEOs basically accused BP of cutting corners and taking risks that they wouldn’t take. Hindsight is great, but the comments make it clear that BP’s top executives are way in over their heads and must be replaced.
That all of the companies have the same disaster plan and that it was written by the same consultant only shows that consultants sell a lot of boilerplate solutions. And it shows that the companies’ risk managers aren’t doing their jobs and should be fired for not asking questions and participating in developing their worst case scenario recovery plans. Those risk managers are probably getting an earful from their bosses, and their careers probably are in trouble. The consultant also is probably in trouble with its clients for boiler plating them.
The idea that more laws and regulations would have prevented the oil spill and that more will is very debatable. Extensive FDA regulations don’t keep big pharmaceutical companies from marketing drugs that cause deaths and have to be withdrawn from the market. No regulations can prevent human errors.
What we have here is a tremendous failure of big government, which has failed to marshal the resources needed to protect the environment after the spill and continues to fail in providing leadership in the fight against the spill.
A smaller government with fewer competing power centers, agencies and conflicting laws and regulations would have a stronger chain of command and would have been much more flexible and aggressive in coordinating an effective response to the disaster.
PPC • Ethics • Trust • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Permalink
Should Feds be pouring $45 million into UQM Technologies? Buying votes for Betsy Markey?
Vice President Joe Biden is coming to Colorado to boast that the government has granted Longmont-base UQM Technologies $45 million that the company will use to build a factory, Chris Hubbard reports.
I’ve been following UQM off and on for about a dozen years, mostly because my former investment club owned it a few times.
The stock peaked at the beginning of the year at $7.45 and is trading at $4.10 now. It’s been trying to sell its technology for years, but investors haven’t seen enough potential to fund its expansion. When a company needs government support to stay in business and/or grow it, you know that the smart investors don’t think much of it. And if they don’t like it, it’s a loser. You can research UQM by searching “UQM stock” or by reading about it on Yahoo.
So we have the Democrats trying to pick winners and losers in the energy business. And, as usual, they’ve picked a long-term loser to back. You have to wonder about the political connections that brought the funding to UQM. Which top executives, directors, consultants, lawyers, lobbyists or large investors used their political influence to bring $45 million of taxpayers’ money to UQM?
Or is this just another effort by the Obama administration to use taxpayers’ money to buy votes for appointed Democrat Senator Michael Bennet and hard left Democrat U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey (D, CD-4) who represents Longmont in Congress?
Why hasn’t anybody bothered to buy this wonderful company and grow it? Why has the stock dropped so sharply since the beginning of the year? Why are its charts saying sell big time? The stock’s point and figure price objective is $1.00.
This is truly a big Biden/Obama deal that shouldn’t be happening.
For educational purposes only. Investigate before you speculate. I am not recommending any trades and take no responsibility for how others trade stocks, ETFs, commodities or anything else.
PPC • Economy • Ethics • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Permalink
Almost 2,800 energy, climate and environmental lobbyists are writing checks for Congressmen
Although leading members of Congress are telling the White House to shelve the cap and trade bill until 2011, almost 2,800 lobbyists for alternative energy, traditional energy, energy consuming and other companies are gearing up to fill the campaign coffers of Congressmen. Whether they are fighting for government subsidies and regulations that would make otherwise uneconomic alternative energy companies great investments or they are protecting oil and coal producers, the lobbyists stand to make a killing helping politicians further distort the U.S. and world economies. Because Colorado is an important natural gas, oil and coal producing state, it will be affected by these battles. Of course, with five lobbyists for every member of Congress, the best way for a lobbyist to gain access to a member is to contribute to his or her campaign. Votes are for sale and money talks. Politico’s impact graphs:
Colorado • Energy • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
7 Colorado stocks look strong on their charts: MWE, PENX, Q, TWTC, TIE, WLL, XEC
If you’re a chart or technical trader who buys and sells stocks based on their technicals regardless of their fundamentals, you might like the seven Colorado-based stocks listed below.
Out of 75 Colorado-based stocks that I screened, these seven are
Speculation • Technical Analysis • Stocks • Colorado Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Exxon expanding Colorado natural gas holdings, buying XTO
The natural gas markets and Colorado must look pretty good long-term to Exxon, which many call the best managed energy company in the world. Exxon, which already operates in Colorado, is acquiring another natural gas company that has extensive operations here, XTO Energy Inc., Fort Worth.
XOM fell sharply yesterday while a Colorado-based natural gas stock, Berry Petroelum (BRY) and Colorado-based Whiting Petroleum (WLL) rose. Here are charts for XOM, XTO, BRY and WLL. Click on a chart for hourly, weekly and point and figure charts.
XOM’s charts have turned bearish. BRY looks moderately bullish, and WLL looks quite bullish.
I don’t own these stocks.
Colorado • Energy • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Envirofit, Fort Collins, sells low-soot cook stoves in India
Envirofit™ International of Fort Collins, CO, gets a nice play in today’s Wall Street Journal, which reports on low-tech approaches to reducing pollution and the production of green house gases. Envirofit™ has sold more than 100,000 low-soot cooking stoves in southern India, the Journal reports. Similar efforts are being developed for Mexico, Kenya and other third-world countries by consulting firms such as Berkeley Air Monitoring Group. Jeffery Ball’s impact graphs:
Colorado • Employers • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Steven E. Sondergard’s ‘Climate balance’ is an important book
For some time I’ve been planning to review Coloradan Steve Sondergard’s new book, Climate Balance: A balanced and realistic view of climate change.
I still plan to do that, but in the meantime, the book gets three positive reviews at Amazon. Bill Muehlenberg offers a long list of books that global warming skeptics like me might like. Every politician and policy maker should read this book. Links:
Draft rules for oil and gas development in Colorado
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has published “major provisions in draft rules” for oil and gas development in Colorado.
Current rules, initial proposal and draft rules are summarized.
Colorado • Economics • Employers • Energy • Politics • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Oil shale developers must make their case as clearly as Bill Ritter, environmentalists make theirs
Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott McInnis, Josh Penry and Dan Maes are attacking the tougher environmental regulations on oil and gas exploration companies that are being implemented by Gov. Bill Ritter and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Those new laws and regulations are driving oil and natural gas jobs out of Colorado, they say.
In a column in the Grand Junction Sentinel early this week, Bill Grant made the case for
Colorado • Economics • Energy • Politics • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
How many politicians know Colorado-based energy companies?
How many Colorado politicians know the stock symbols for companies based in the state and know much or anything about Colorado-based energy stocks?
Links to information about 11 of the larger Colorado-based energy stocks follow:
Colorado • Politics • Stocks • Colorado Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Bill Barret (BBG) faces hurdles to natural gas exploration on Roan Plateau
The NY Times reports on the challenges facing Bill Barret Corp. (BBG), Denver, which wants to explore for natural gas on the Roan Plateau in western Colorado. Looks like a pretty balanced report by Sean Patrick Farrell. BBG’s daily chart is showing
Colorado • Economics • Employers • Energy • Stocks • Colorado Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Heritage Foundation challenges think tanks to publish their replies to Waxman on cap and trade bill
David W. Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation, has challenged more than 35 other think tanks to publish their replies to questions from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) about the econometric models that they used to estimate the cost of Waxman’s controversial cap and trade bill. He will hold a live chat today at 10 a.m. Denver time.
Questionnaire may shed long-overdue light on cap-and-trade legislation, By David W. Kreutzer
Rep. Diana DeGette’s bill adds to Roan Plateau oil and gas drilling controversy
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) has introduced a bill that would create 34 wilderness areas, including Colorado’s Roan Plateau, covering 890,000 acres, according to a story by Dennis Webb in the Grand Junction Sentinel. Links: Bill would put Roan lease areas in wilderness. Grand Junction Sentinel. Charts for Bill Barret Corp. (BBG) and some other Colorado energy companies. Click on a chart for more details.
Colorado • Energy • Politics • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Permalink
Read the 7 myths about green jobs
Scholars show the seven myths about how going green would create new jobs.
The 7 myths:
Myth 1: Everyone understands what a ‚Äúgreen job‚Äù is.
Myth 2: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
Myth 3: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Myth 4: Green jobs promote employment growth.
Myth 5: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production
and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
Myth 6: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
Myth 7: Wishing for technological progress is sufficient.
Download the report to see why these are myths. Answers are on the first four pages of the 21-page study.