$3.7M loan earmarked to power wind hu...

$3.7M loan earmarked to power wind hub | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 17 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Dec 9, 2009, titled $3.7M loan earmarked to power wind hub | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

Confident that the large wind-farm projects pending in Ohio will win state approval, Hardin County officials say they have positioned their region to be the center of it all.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.


Columbus, OH

#1 Dec 9, 2009
Hey Mr. Stacy, would you rather have a coal fired electric power plant instead. If your neighbors have the land, they can sell it to anyone for theses turbine farms. And if you want to have the proposed egg factory being proposed in Union county in your back yard, I'm sure those residents will take a wind farm over an egg farm any day of the week. I for one see a way to keep the cost of power being produce for us from skyrocketing. Yes it will only serve a few tousand residents at a time but I see these farms in Indiana and Illonois wilth no harm to the envoriment .
Endo Calrisian

Toledo, OH

#2 Dec 9, 2009
I think Mr. Stacy has waayyyyyyyy toooo much time on his hands and has alterior and selfish motives.
Tom Stacy

Galion, OH

#3 Dec 9, 2009
Hi Pete. Hi Endo. I appreciate that you would jump to these conclusions about me. It is very typical of the thoughtless rationale used by those supporting technologies overwhelmingly supported by taxpayers, and not the free market sale of their product. Wind energy is one such marketplace.

Please attend the debate at the Garage Bar this Saturday afternoon at 3:00 PM if you would be interested in learning the basis for these claims.

Yes, my motives are ulterior to opposing wind energy, this is true. I am motivated to help America prosper by adhering to the principals of our constitution. are they selfish? I suppose you could say so. I want to live in the most prosperous nation in the world with the highest standard of living, and want the same for my children.

Coal burning power plants? I am not a proponent of them ecologically, but I am a proponent of inexpensive, reliable electricity. Electricity is a "master resource," meaning its quality and value leverage all other sectors of our economy.

Do I have too much time on my hands? It sure doesn't feel that way! I'd be willing to have a lot more time than I have left in this world... unless my government was offering to give me some that they took away from someone else.

I look forward to our further discussion on these issues.

Merry Christmas!
Puger G Calabalini

Columbus, OH

#4 Dec 9, 2009
Windmills simply have narrow and limited usefullness in the energy generation mix. Let them contribute where they can but don't subsidize them or artificially tax coal and nuclear to make wind and solar more competitive. Evidence is over whelming....government turns everything it touches to "crap".

Findlay, OH

#5 Dec 9, 2009
Mr Stacy i understand that you are trying to drive costs down. However you should change your focus from eliminating turbines in Ohio to how to create the most jobs and produce the cheapest most stable wind energy possible. You should focus on this because SB 221 mandated renewable energy last year, so renewable energy is coming. SB 221 also put a cost cap in to protect the utilities from having to pay for a more expensive energy solution. The Hardin facility offers the State a great location to lure a manufacturer and also a great place to handle the logistics of the turbines. By offering competetive logistics costs you lower the energy costs and also allow for more development in Ohio. Lets focus on working with SB 221 to take advantage of the potential economic impact, otherwise Indiana, Michigan, etc will beat us to the punch
Tom Stacy

Galion, OH

#6 Dec 9, 2009

Thank you for weighing in. I respect your point of view and your concern that Ohio has a high unemployment rate. Perhaps we come from different schools of thought with regard to our economy. My philosophy would point out some important considerations your logic might more fully consider. First, I believe healthy employment figures are a consequence of good economic policy, not the goal. Low taxes, low energy rates, an educated workforce with a strong work ethic, and a stable political environment all help business leaders feel confident locating here in Ohio.

On the other hand, we could promise to steadily increase energy rates, and keep corporate and personal income and sales taxes in Ohio some of the highest in the nation. With half of the proceeds of this treasury boon, we could create new jobs. This would happen by funding a new industry which would dig large holes in the ground every quarter mile all across the state. With the other half, we could have the dirt and rock from each hole moved to the next hole, and fill it back in. Employment would increase in the short term, but the human resource would be utterly wasted. Unfortunately, this is the case with the wind energy industry. It does some create jobs, many of them "filling in the holes" it digs, but does not create value or efficiency, which are the proper attractions for real, sustainable growth. Ultimately more jobs are lost than gained in this scenario. A focus on job numbers is similar to the idea that encouraging a reduction in the state's net energy consumption is a good thing. A better wish might be a large increase in electricity consumption due to a large increase in manufacturing. Reducing energy content of particular manufactured goods is fine, but this is a natural desire of business persons, and they do it well without government meddling.

Please do attend the meeting Saturday, referenced above, where we can discuss this at length.

Secondly, I will point out the ripple effects inherent in fiddling with economic dispatch of electricity, and its ultimate effect on the rate and tax payer. The annual rate increase cap in the new Ohio energy law is wholly fallacious and surely transparent to potential energy intensive manufacturers considering a facility commitment in Ohio. I believe the annual cap speaks more to the state's willingness to lavish funding on renewables than to its suggested safety valve. It leaves great opportunity for clever accounting and, combined with the other inducements for this "green energy bubble" sector, becomes more a self fulfilling prophecy than a ceiling or off-ramp.

again, energy's leveraging effect on every aspect of our economy points to keeping rates as low as possible.
The other Lewbowski

Windsor, CA

#7 Dec 9, 2009
Merry Christmas Mr. Stacy.
I applaud your understanding of the Ohio economic situation. I own a business in Central Ohio that is virtually shut down due to these conditions.
I moved my residence away from Ohio this summer. My next move is to relocate my business out here in California. People are leaving Ohio for all of the above reasons.

Saint Petersburg, FL

#8 Dec 9, 2009
I agree with Mr.Stacy views - it's easy too, it's called the free market and it works. Those who believe that government can create productive jobs are in error.

Using taxpayer funds for what should be private enterprise leads to a poorer state/nation, a lose, lose situation.

Unfortunately our government schools preach socialism rather than free enterprise.
Tom Stacy

Galion, OH

#9 Dec 10, 2009
To my democrat friends. Please understand that I believe our government has, and can contribute positively to our society. The US military employs many Americans. Our public schools have hundreds of thousands of dedicated, quality teachers and administrators. Our highway infrastructure is remarkable, and many people find important and stable work there. As much as I am disappointed with the pawn role they are playing today, there is even good reason to have an EPA!

I am not one to shun all government - "g-words", if you will - but I see our constitutional values have slipped, and are perhaps slipping at an increasing rate.

In the 1930s, Austria was seduced over a five year period through a very serious game of economic and social Jenga. We must remain diligent to ensure our constitutional values do not succumb to a similar fate, by any combination of means. We the people is us - all of us!

Saint Petersburg, FL

#10 Dec 10, 2009
Tom Stacy wrote:
As much as I am disappointed with the pawn role they are playing today, there is even good reason to have an EPA!
There may be a good reason to have an EPA but currently it is an unconstitutional agency.

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution is not a menu to choose those sections one agrees with.
Tom Stacy

Galion, OH

#11 Dec 10, 2009

I agree completely.

Grove City, OH

#12 Dec 10, 2009
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
There may be a good reason to have an EPA but currently it is an unconstitutional agency.
Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution is not a menu to choose those sections one agrees with.
The Air Force is not in the Constitution either... Why do you all hate the military?
Tom Stacy

Galion, OH

#13 Dec 11, 2009
Here in the blazes in Liberty Mills, Indiana? I live in Ohio, which I hope is clear from the information in Holly's article.

I also hope it is clear that I think CO2 is a non-issue. My comment about government's role and the EPA do not mean I support the dishonest chicken little, foregone conclusionalist "global warmers."


Cadillac, MI

#14 Dec 14, 2009
I appreciate all the wind energy and its impact on the local economy. I can imagine Mr Stacy in the early 1900s putting a sign in his yard saying “no horseless carriages” but I bet he drives one today. He probably also had a sign in his yard saying “no telephones” maybe later even “no cell phones” but I bet he couldn't live without it. I'm also certain he could not live without electricity. The automobile evolved over many years, many improvements were made in safety and emissions, but they had to build it first to figure out how to improve it. I see Mr Stacy saying why we should not do it, but I don't see him offering a viable alternative. We are trying to lessen our dependency on foreign oil, would you rather send our kids to some foreign country to die so we can sit in our comfortable house and just flip a switch to turn on the lights. Wind farms may not solve our foreign energy dependence but its certainly an attempt to make a difference, and may lead to further discoveries that will solve our energy needs. I would also guess Mr Stacy sits around and thinks about how good it used to be, but guess what, no matter how hard you try, we will never go back there, we are going forward, so get used to it.
Tom Stacy

Galion, OH

#15 Dec 14, 2009
Mr. "Sam"

FIrst, I wonder why you mask your legal identity here? I can take a guess.

The parable you offer is embarrassingly irrelevant. The automobile industry was never subsidized anywhere near to the extent the wind industry scam is supported. 65% or more of equivalent gross revenue from wind projects comes from taxpayer money that, as inefficiently as government spends it, would still be much more efficiently spent on other things - the most efficient of which is reducing our national debt.

This support has been ongoing in the US for most of the past twenty years since Enron got it started! Your parable assumes that wind energy will become as meaningful to society as automobiles have. This is ridiculous. Why, then, haven't wind powered cars succeeded? Why do we not have a naval fleet of sailboats to defend our shores instead of a fleet of nuclear powered vessels? I suppose the answer is obvious, isn't it? It isn't cheaper, it isn't as reliable and it would not be effective.

You may try to disparage my character with insinuations that I resist all technological advances, but you are dead wrong, and I think readers here believe me. I am all for progress. What I am against is false promises used to line the pockets of snake-oil selling entities using our tax dollars. Wind energy is a bunko scheme, plain and simple. The industry is purely fraudulent in its claims, and cannot prove otherwise. Every attorney general in the nation should proceed to force the industry to prove otherwise, and until they do, they are accomplices. I would LOVE to back these claims up defending a slander or libel suit. BRING IT ON!
Tom Tanton

Roseville, CA

#16 Dec 14, 2009
two fundamental facts need to be remembered. First, the U.S. became wealthy by constant improvements in productivity (a masure of the efficient use of capital, labor, materials, and energy.) Policies that reduce productivity are anathema and should be discouraged. Wind energy at scale is just such a technology. Second, wind energy is much like chocolate. A little bit goes a long way but too much leads to poor health and complexion. Amid all the fibs about reducing CO2 or fossil fuel, wind energy can actually cause greater emissions and fuel use. Because the output of turbines flutuates so wildly, fossil units (except in those rare places where hydro is the marginal unit) have to ramp up and down to compensate. Their efficiency in that mode of operation is abysmal. Imagine driving your car in stop and go traffic behind a Winnebago; you mileage is not what it would be on the thoroughfare.
"The State Controlling Board still must approve the loan, which eventually will be forgiven if certain conditions are met." so if the project 'fails' the developers cannot pay back and if they're successful they don't HAVE to pau back---doesn't that define a GRANT? Besides the already fat subsidies pointed out by Mr. Stacy (which by the way havae been going on for the 40 years I've been in the energy industry, not just the 20 alluded to by Mr. Stacy) wind energy is the only "development" that consistently gets prefential treatment. If the railroad was transporting anything other than turbines and towers, do you really believe it would be treated with such lamb-skin gloves. The real sad story here is that after 40+ years of being treated as an infant industry, the incentive to actuall improve has been destroyed within the industry. and btw, 65% of turbines installed in the US for each of the past five years have been builty outside the US.
Rural Grubby

Chatham, Canada

#17 Dec 14, 2009
Being a leader or tapping into the "potential" of wind is not analogous to attaining success in providing significant cost effective electrical energy. In my scant 3 years of research in Wind energy nowhere is it proven that wind (or combination of wind with other renewables) can replace dirty coal. The wind industry is working on marketing spin and the huge assumption that a kW of wind can replace fossil fuels. European experience has show us differently, yet because we are so wrapped up with the idea that doing something for Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Jobs,(whatever the goal post is) we must allow things like Industrial Wind Energy when in fact it's all a front to make MONEY!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dunkirk Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Just visiting and Ada is gorgeous 1 hr Kenny 5
Ada officer thinking he's underpaid Wed Mullins 2
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Ohio (Dist... (Oct '10) Tue You pharrt 16
Inbreds that voted for Trump Mar 17 Mullins 5
Anthony Dloniak is a paid informant Mar 14 Nonnie 1
Martin Fisher can't be retired Mar 13 brenda 1
Convicted felon working for ada ems Mar 1 Paybacker 1

Dunkirk Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dunkirk Mortgages