THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURING, REFUTING THE FAKE NEWS OF NET JOB CREATION WITH INDUSTRIAL WIND. IT WAS COPIED TO THE OPSB (Ohio Power Siting Board) and Rick Perry, Secretary of the DOE.
March 29, 2017
President and CEO, NAM, National Association of Manufacturing, Jay Timmons
C.c. Andrea Defelice, Officer Assistant to CEO Timmons, NAM
We kindly request distribution to the Board and Executive; please confirm
VP Energy and Resources Policy, NAM
C.c. Greg Bertelsen
Senior Director, Energy and Resources Policy, NAM
C.c. Rachel Jones
Director, Energy and Resources, NAM
National Association of Manufacturing (NAM)
733 10th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20001
Ohio Power Siting Board, LEEDCo Icebreaker Project, Case No. 13-2033-EL-BGN and 16-1871-EL-BGN Icebreaker Windpower
Mr. Matt Butler
(Mr. Butler, kindly distribute to Chair, Commissioners and Board)
Asim Z. Haque, Chairman, OPSB
180 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
C.c. Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
C.c. Interested parties
DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY AND BY HARD COPY
Dear NAM CEO Mr. Timmons, NAM VP Energy and Resources Policy, Mr. Eisenberg, Chair of OPSB, Mr. Haque, and OPSB Officer, Mr. Matt Butler,
We are writing to respectfully ask that you consider our comments and information in this letter as constructive to your policies around “renewables” and sustainability, and hopefully the comments may at some point positively mitigate the regulatory capture we have all until now experienced with industrial wind and all of its environmental and human health costs, and also on the cost of power, the cost of “doing business.” The North American Platform Against Wind Power is a collection of researchers, experts and writers, concerned consumers, who continuously reflect on the negative impacts of industrial wind everywhere. We have a commitment to bring up to date information to our membership and the public, and to those with authority to effect energy policy. We number about 370 groups, and several million persons. Our platform liaises daily with Europe and all other sister platforms and groups, experts, who are involved deeply in the dissection of a now widely recognized as chaotic, rent seeking system.
As the NAM (National Association of Manufacturing) has already noted, the Obama years have not been kind to manufacturing: and as is already well known, the cost of power in manufacturing can range between 10 to 30% of total manufacturing costs and even higher in some primary industries such as steel making. Increases in the cost of power have an alarming amplified effect in determining the price of goods. For example, in the case of steel making, this cost must be passed on to their customers who are the stamping and roll-forming manufacturers, who in turn must pass this on to the product manufacturers, who in turn have to pass this on to wholesalers, who in turn have to pass this on to the retailers and ultimately which are passed on and absorbed by consumers, often making business prohibitive. Many of these manufacturers have financing in place in order to provide working capital to operate their businesses and in many cases, have margin percentage covenants that they must maintain. This covenant maintenance forces each of these manufacturers to further markup their pricing over and above the increase that they have received amplifying the harmful effects of power pricing increases. Considering the added multiple effect of a cost of power increase to each level of the manufacturing chain, you render manufacturing in North America uncompetitive. (This information was provided to NA-PAW by Michael Spencley, CEO of Power One Solutions Inc., a manufacturer of energy efficiency products.)
The NAM writes in its Affordable Energy Campaign:
- Energy and natural resources are the lifeblood of manufacturing. Manufacturers need adequate, secure and affordable energy and raw materials to compete in the global marketplace
The NAM Senior Director of Energy and Resources Policy, Greg Bertelsen, further indicates that
“Manufacturers are leading the way in minimizing environmental footprints, reducing emissions, conserving critical resources, protecting biodiversity, limiting waste and providing safe products and solutions so others in the economy can do the same. At the same time, we are providing good-paying, high-quality and safe jobs that allow for a high standard of living and build strong communities. Manufacturers have a great sustainability story to tell, and we are excited to help share it.”
The NAM promotes policies for manufacturing that are logical and reasonable with clear steps for conserving, protecting, limiting waste and providing solutions. In this statement, there is also clarity about high quality, good-paying and safe jobs…and building communities.
It is the sad reality that industrial wind has no such clear and positive path. The promises of domestic, long term and efficient jobs from building out wind, are hollow. This is one of the five BIG promises (clean, green, safe, free, jobs) that are “fake news.” In fact, the costs of electricity and attendant job losses are disastrous when pinned to wind power (an oxymoron). The world is presently dismantling these rather fantastical ideas, many experts, for some time. Rolling back to the ultimate question, we ask: How much does wind even produce world wide: Net zero in 2014 (some will say 3%, and the US Energy Information Administration, uses 10%). Breaking it down to wind’s participation is tricky business. Likely most now agree, the result for wind’s general ability to contribute world wide, several years’ with various reporting, is under 1%. (Solar is faring little better: less than 1% in the first half of 2016, US.) There are also parasitic costs to factor, which no one to date, in our view, has efficiently been able to detangle from other sources of energy entering the grid. Wind turbines must always be heated and cooled, articulate, and consume we don’t know how much, reliable base load power to do this. Some in the UK suggest that a project may eventually provide enough electricity to heat a few pots of tea.
Read more: link below.