In our last post, we looked at Sen. Mark Udall’s claims that Colorado’s renewables mandate had been a “great success.” This time, let’s look at his claims that “…wind, now, competes with coal and some would argue is actually cheaper than coal.<\/a>”<\/p>\n

The only way that someone could make that claim is if they ignored the subsidies<\/a> that wind gets in comparison with anything we get electricity from today (that CBO report was issued just a few weeks ago at the behest of the very committee in which Udall serves and made his remarks):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The jobs that Bennet brags about include those from Vestas, which the company admits only exist because of those subsidies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The proof, of course, is in the markets. The energy that could successfully compete with a power source that has its capital expenditures almost completely amortized – most coal plants were built decades ago – would seem to be a natural for investors. Unfortunately, well…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Proponents of wind energy will point to the various externalities associated with coal. Of course, wind has a few externalities of its own, like bird kills<\/a>, higher local temperatures<\/a>, and downwind crop & building damage<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sorry, Mr. Udall.\u00a0 Wind isn’t competitive with coal, and although the Obama administration seems hell-bent on driving up the cost of coal, they’ve got a way to go, notwithstanding all the damage they’ll do to your wallet in the process.\u00a0 It’s not even close, and they still<\/em> try to cheat.
\n