Mitt Romney, a gentleman who is running for president of these United States, finally formalized his opposition to extending a key tax credit for the wind industry. The production tax credit, or PTC, provides incentives for growth in the wind industry and is due to expire at the end of the year. While his staff had previously suggested that the candidate opposed it, a spokesperson was direct yesterday: let it die. From The Des Moines Register:

Shawn McCoy, a spokesman for Romney’s Iowa campaign, told The Des Moines Register, “He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits.”

The statement makes very clear what the game is here: politics. “Stimulus boondoggles” and “level playing field” are code words, shorthand for “corruption” and “fossil fuels come first” that need no explanation from the Fox News set. Romney’s argument isn’t that the return on wind investments doesn’t pay off or that he has a better strategy for increasing the use of renewable energy to achieve the goal of energy independence. It’s talking points.

Fine. We get it. We’ve got fewer than 100 days until the election. But here’s what spiking the wind energy credit means for Iowa, according to the Register:

Iowa has five major manufacturers: Acciona in West Branch, Clipper in Cedar Rapids, Siemens in Fort Madison and TPI and Trinity in Newton. Together they employ around 2,300 people. Counting suppliers and other wind-related smaller businesses, the job count is 6,000 to 7,000, industry representatives said.

The uncertainty of the wind tax credit’s fate has already caused orders for turbine production for next year to drop steeply. When Congress delayed extension of the tax break twice in the past, wind projects faltered and workers were laid off. Clipper laid off 90 people in 2009 when projected orders for turbines fell from 450 to about 200.

Nationally, an expiration of the tax credit could cost 37,000 jobs.

But if Romney wants to play politics, let’s play politics. The offered rationale for these losses — “Boondoggles!” “Level playing field!” — aren’t going to play well in Iowa. A poll done by the not-without-bias American Wind Energy Association suggests that 57 percent of Iowa voters (including 59 percent of independents) would be less likely to vote for an opponent of wind generation [PDF]. Eighty-five percent believe that wind generation has been a boon for the state. So Romney’s anti-wind stance certainly won’t help in the state (though it’s not a death blow). And Iowa is already leaning Obama, according to the polling gurus at FiveThirtyEight. But the Romney campaign clearly hopes this position will help elsewhere.

Instead of talking points, I’d be more interested in seeing an economic analysis provided by the campaign that makes the case for why ending the tax credit is good for the country, the government, and local communities. It seems unlikely to happen, since evidence points to the contrary — that the credit has broad benefits to everyone except the easily spooked fossil fuel industy.

A final note. Romney’s position is further to the right than even some of the Republican party’s more excited partisans. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a regular opponent of rationality, wrote the bill that created the PTC and told the Register that he supported an extension. (And, then, a phaseout. He’s not that far outside the orthodoxy.)

Most telling of all: Mitt Romney is now more conservative on renewable energy than Karl Rove.

Half of the water we use goes to power generation. Michael Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, finds that worrisome, given our recent water-access difficulties. (Yes, we’re talking about the drought again. Get used to it.) He wrote an editorial for The New York Times titled, “Will Drought Cause the Next Blackout?“

During the 2008 drought in the Southeast, power plants were within days or weeks of shutting down because of limited water supplies. In Texas today, some cities are forbidding the use of municipal water for hydraulic fracturing. The multiyear drought in the West has lowered the snowpack and water levels behind dams, reducing their power output. The United States Energy Information Administration recently issued an alert that the drought was likely to exacerbate challenges to California’s electric power market this summer, with higher risks of reliability problems and scarcity-driven price increases.

Image courtesy of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

You may remember how power plants work. In a coal plant, as illustrated above, coal is burned to heat water, which becomes steam. The pressure of the steam is used to rotate a turbine, which spins a magnet that creates electricity. The steam is then cooled back into water and pumped back out to the source. Without water, there’s no steam. With no steam, there’s no power.

Webber’s article isn’t the first time the link between drought and power generation has been raised. A survey of electricity providers earlier this year suggested that water availability was a primary concern. But the nexus is worrisome: Increased drought means less water. Increased drought also means higher temperatures. Higher temperatures mean increased power usage.

Webber suggests ways in which we can soften the impact. Conservation; reduced water use for extraction, as in fracking; increased use of reclaimed water. And, of course, increased use of renewables:

A plan proposed by the Obama administration (requiring new power plants to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour generated) would encourage utilities to choose less carbon- and water-intensive fuels. Conventional coal plants, which are very thirsty, exceed the standards proposed by the president. But relatively clean, and water-lean, power plants that use wind, solar panels and natural gas combined cycle, would meet them. Thus, by enforcing CO2 limits, a lot of water use can be avoided.

Wind turbines, for example, use very little water. By which we mean no water. More wind turbines, less water. Done and done.

None of this should come as a surprise. Back in 1999, Yasiin Bey (then known as Mos Def) wrote a song, “New World Water.” (Seriously!) An excerpt below.

You can laugh and take it as a joke if you wanna
But it don’t rain for four weeks some summers
And it’s about to get real wild in the half
You be buying Evian just to take a fuckin bath …
See I ain’t got time try to be Big Hank,
Fuck a bank; I need a twenty-year water tank
Cause while these knuckleheads is out here sweatin they goods
The sun is sitting in the treetops burnin the woods
And as the flames from the blaze get higher and higher
They say, “Don’t drink the water! We need it for the fire!”

The hip-hop community and academics agree: The time to address our water problem has arrived. Without power, after all, how are we going to listen to music?

Some day, Massachusetts’ Cape Wind project could generate 454 megawatts of power for the state, using 130 turbines located off the shore of Nantucket. It could tap into an innovative, undersea backbone — supported by a partnership including Google — running along the East Coast.

Some day. The project has been plagued by opposition and government intervention; most recently, a D.C. appeals court ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to revisit its assessment of the risk to aircraft. And if Mitt Romney — who’s become increasingly hostile to wind projects — becomes president, he just might heed the wishes of one of his richest backers and let the project die.

Computer-generated view of Cape Wind from Nantucket. Click to embiggen.

Some of the strongest opposition to Cape Wind has come from grassroots community groups like Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The Alliance opposes the project because of how it might impact the views of those who live along the shore. (The image above demonstrates that impact. If you enlarge it, you’ll notice some white specks along the horizon.)

One of the reasons the Alliance has gotten so much attention is that one of its sponsors has a last name that acts as a media magnet: Koch. William Koch, brother to the more-famous Charles and David, has invested heavily in stopping Cape Wind. In part, it’s because he’s a local resident. And, in part, it’s because he is rich because of the fossil fuel industry.

Bill Koch is also a major contributor to getting Mitt Romney elected president, so far ponying up $2 million to a pro-Romney political action committee. The two became acquainted when Romney ran Bain Capital, and the relationship lasted through Romney’s tenure as governor. In that role, Romney publicly opposed Cape Wind, though he supported other regional wind initiatives.

Recently, Romney expanded his opposition to growth in the wind industry. As we’ve discussed previously, a vital renewable energy tax credit for wind is due to expire at the end of the year. Expiration of the credit could substantially curtail investment in wind energy, meaning, by one estimate, the loss of 37,000 jobs across the country — and a slowdown in an industry that is set to reach kilowatt-hour cost equivalence with fossil-fuel electricity within five years. Earlier this week, Romney campaign staff indicated that the candidate opposes the credit — though it’s not clear if he supports a short-term renewal. As ThinkProgress notes, Romney staunchly defends tax breaks for fossil fuel companies.

Photo by vaxomatic.

The wind industry has recently (and belatedly) started donating more heavily to Republican members of Congress. The CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) gave $2,500 to the Romney campaign in the first quarter of 2012 — a mere $1,997,500 shy of Koch’s contribution to the pro-Romney PAC. Since Romney’s campaign announced its opposition to the tax credit after this donation, it appears that AWEA still has some work to do.

Meanwhile, Cape Wind is stalled, waiting for the FAA to reevaluate its impact. The Obama FAA initially signed off. It’s not clear what a Romney FAA would do, but we suspect we can guess. After all, Charles Koch seems pretty adamant that his view not include any wind turbines.

Perhaps he’d prefer a view of a fracking rig.

As of yesterday, 96.5 percent of that power has been claimed by customers.

From the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Large customers such as military bases and universities have tentatively agreed to take 102,730 megawatt-hours, and Utilities’ existing Green Power customers will take another 1,578 megawatt-hours of the pool, leaving 3,800 megawatt-hours up for grabs. …

Council members said they were concerned that Utilities wouldn’t find enough customers willing to pay a premium for renewable energy, leaving other ratepayers to foot the bill, which would have increased bills by as much as 2 percent. The short-term contract with Xcel will be cost-neutral to average ratepayers, Romero said.

The city considered a 20-year contract for a large amount of power, but worried that a lack of demand would commit all of their costumers to higher rates over the long-term. Based on initial response, that concern seems to have been unfounded. A 20-year contract would have had additional benefits, as noted by the Sierra Club’s Bryce Carter: locking in a cost that, while higher now, promises to become cheaper than fossil fuel-based power as extraction costs of the latter climb. If the federal production tax credit for wind is renewed, the utility will consider a longer contract next year.

Colorado law mandates that public utilities generate 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. In Colorado Springs, customers join the “Green Power” program to have renewable-generated energy. According to The Gazette, “the program has been sold out for seven years, with more than 400 customers on a waiting list.”

This made me laugh way, way harder than it should.

(From Around The Internet, but it looks like it’s originally from here)

Bad news, coal. A massive study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) modeled the impacts of a national energy grid with renewable power comprising between 30 and 90 percent of the mix — including the requisite generation, transmission, and storage. In short:

The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.

That quote scratches the surface of the NREL’s findings, which follow collaboration with 110 contributors from 35 organizations inside and outside the government. (The list of abbreviations used in the report itself runs two-and-a-half pages.) Another study released in 2010 found that Europe could similarly make a transition to a renewable-heavy energy infrastructure.

The United States currently generates 3.6 percent of our energy from renewable, non-hydroelectric sources, meaning that a target of 80 percent renewable generation by 2050 seems, well, optimistic. Even if the political will for such a transition existed — which it very much does not, as reinforced by those turnpike billboards — such a shift would require a massive investment and shift in energy economics. But it’s by no means impossible.

While this analysis suggests such a high renewable generation future is possible, a transformation of the electricity system would need to occur to make this future a reality. This transformation, involving every element of the grid, from system planning through operation, would need to ensure adequate planning and operating reserves, increased flexibility of the electric system, and expanded multi-state transmission infrastructure, and would likely rely on the development and adoption of technology advances, new operating procedures, evolved business models, and new market rules.

In short: daunting.

We’d be remiss if we didn’t note the most broadly engaging aspect of the NREL’s findings: the projection maps.

The animation above is an inelegant representation of the NREL report’s animated map of possible growth of renewable energy over the next 38 years. More amazing: an hour-by-hour look at energy flow in the year 2050. Watching these provides more than a little sense of living in a world of science fiction. But the more important point is what they demonstrate. We can build the renewable energy we need and even project how it will work in a national grid.

Even in 2050, the NREL projection indicates, coal has a role. But it’s unlikely our self-driving cars will pass any billboards touting it.

Other findings from the full report [PDF]:

• Electricity supply and demand can be balanced in every hour of the year in each region with nearly 80 percent electricity from renewable resources, including nearly 50 percent from variable renewable generation, according to simulations of 2050 power system operations.

• High renewable electricity futures can result in deep reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use.

• The direct incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios. Improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost.

• With higher demand growth, high levels of renewable generation present increased resource and grid integration challenges.

Beneath an innocent pastime lies a radical agenda to destroy America.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) now sees children flying kites as a major threat to society.

Earlier today, I opened my email box to find an uproarious AFP promotion for protests in Asbury Park and Ocean City, N.J., this Friday.

What are they so upset about?

An event so dastardly and maniacal, it has the potential to tear down everything we love about our freedoms as Americans. I almost couldn’t stomach it when I found out more.

Yes, it’s “extremist” kids flying kites in support of offshore wind energy.

Don’t worry, AFP is on the case (as explained on their website, accompanied by a picture of a smoking wind turbine):

You heard that right! Friday is “Global Wind Day” and environmental extremists throughout New Jersey will be celebrating by flying kites at beaches along the Jersey Shore and calling for more and more of our tax dollars to be used to subsidize their crazy offshore wind pipe dreams!

AFP will be going toe to toe with the environmental extremists to combat their radical agenda and tell the truth about the costs of offshore wind.

Yes, that’s right. With monetary assistance from the Koch brothers, AFP will be going toe-to-toe with these kite-flying kids who represent such a threat to the free market.

Here’s how the Sierra Club describes the event in support of Global Wind Day: “We’ll be gathering at a beach near you for a kite-flying rally and celebration of NJ’s offshore wind potential. Bring your family, friends and kites.”

The horror!

In order to combat these “extremist” families and their kite-flying antics, AFP is throwing in all the resources it can — chartering six buses (yes, six) to bring people in from around the state.

How will this battle unfold? Will the crusading free-marketeers be able to withstand this beach full of radical children? Tune in Friday on Global Wind Day …

Last year, global investment in renewable energy passed the quarter-trillion-dollar mark, hitting $257 billion, according to the United Nations Environment Program.

In other words, investors spent about $38 for every human being on Earth. Someone needs to tell these job creators that they’re ruining a lot of people’s arguments about the green economy.

Much of the growth came in solar. Between 2010 and 2011, investment in solar firms grew 52 percent to $147 billion, though wind investments dropped 12 percent globally. The United States, which had been getting outpaced in recent years, moved back into second place — spurred in part by fears that tax incentives for renewables would expire and not be renewed.

Perhaps the most optimistic finding from the report:

Renewable power, excluding large hydro-electric, accounted for 44% of all new generating capacity added worldwide in 2011 (up from 34% in 2010). This accounted for 31% of actual new power generated, due to lower capacity factors for solar and wind capacity.

In other words, nearly half of the new power generation in the world in 2011 came from renewable sources. That’s still a small fraction of the electricity generated, but moving in the right direction.

Job creators. Is there anything they can’t do?

The renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) is an incentive provided to energy producers equal to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, adjusted annually for inflation. If you generate electricity using a renewable system — geothermal, wind, solar, etc. — you’re eligible.

For now, anyway. The credit is expiring for most forms of energy creation at the end of 2013. For wind, it’s up at the end of 2012.

Which has wind energy producers understandably nervous. But don’t worry, wind energy producers! Karl Rove has your back!

Cue “scratching record” sound. Or whatever the digital equivalent thereof might be.

Mr. Rove, last seen looking over his shoulder as he trotted away from his office in George Bush’s West Wing, has come out in favor of extending the PTC. As relayed by Bloomberg.com:

“We’ve got a growing economy that’s increasing energy consumption and wind energy should be part of the solution,” Rove said today on a panel at a wind conference in Atlanta. Extending the so-called production tax credit “should be a priority.”

Which … yes. It should. But this comes from one of the less popular figures in modern American politics, a guy firmly committed to leveraging our upended election laws to fulfill his long-standing goal of conservative political dominance. It’s like discovering that the obnoxious guy on the bus who’s annoying everyone is wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the logo of your favorite team.

On the plus side, Rove still has plenty of juice in Washington, D.C. Extending the PTC is a good move for wind energy producers and for the country at large, making it easier to generate renewable energy.

On the minus side: Karl Rove is wearing a “Wind Energy No. 1!” T-shirt.

Wisconsin is a proud state, with a unique political legacy. Its track record of progressive independence and long-standing commitment to political comity make today’s recall election an aberration, a rare example of a Wisconsin turned against itself — and a rare national example of political turmoil.

The last recall election of a governor in the United States was California’s in 2003, a campaign I worked on. A friend from those days, Clark Williams, is today in his home state of Wisconsin working to turn out voters to recall Walker. I asked him how the two elections compared. “Night and day,” he responded, noting the “venom” that has polluted any rational conversation about the election. It’s a common refrain: A recent poll found that one in three Wisconsinites had stopped talking about politics with someone because of their disagreement. There are reports of physical altercations between supporters of either side. This is not exactly the ebullient, cheese-loving Wisconsin we picture.

Neither are the decisions being made by the governor the ones many state residents expected. The fuse for the recall was lit with Gov. Walker’s move to cut collective bargaining rights for the state’s public sector unions, but that’s not the only gripe state residents have with the governor.

The environmental community has its own (good) reasons for complaint. The Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters is very engaged in the recall, with lawn signs opposing Walker throughout the state and a robust collection of “Failure Files” online outlining Walker’s anti-environment policies. And I mean robust. They’re worth a perusal.

For those pressed for time, or on the way to the polling booth, here’s an overview we assembled: Scott Walker’s Murky, Polluted Environmental Record.

An open door to the Koch brothers

We’ll start with everyone’s favorite bad guys: the Kansas Kochs, the Emperor Palpatines working the controls of a sprawling fossil-fuel empire. If you’re not familiar with the Koch brothers, welcome to planet Earth.

Within a month of Scott Walker taking the oath of office, the Koch brothers (who’d contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign) opened a new lobbying office across the street from the state capitol, more than doubling their lobbying force in the state from three to seven people.

Walker, despite having never met the brothers at that point, was very willing to hear them out. When a prankster from the site Buffalo Beast phoned Walker, pretending to be David Koch, Walker happily discussed fundraising plans, his war against the unions, and how much he’d enjoy being flown out to California for some recreation.

In February, the real David Koch reiterated the brothers’ commitment to Walker, saying, “We’ve spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We’re going to spend more.”

Weakening pollution standards

So why would the Kochs care about Wisconsin? Simple. Walker’s willingness to roll back environmental protections that get in the way of the Kochs’ profits.

Take phosphorous. The Kochs own Georgia Pacific paper, the Wisconsin plants of which spent years dumping excess phosphorous into the state’s waterways. In 2010, an appeals court ruled that the public could challenge the permit that allowed the company to do so, while the state’s natural resources board adopted new regulations to cut down on the dumping. Enter Walker. His first budget bill included a passage that would reduce the board’s new limits; a separate announcement put a two-year moratorium on the 2010 phosphorous rules.

Stunting wind power

There’s not a lot of reason to oppose wind power, unless you’re simply making decisions to score political points. Ahem.

Prior to Walker’s taking office, the Wisconsin legislature established setback rules determining how far from nearby homes a wind turbine could be built. Gov. Walker — with the support of the now-infamous American Legislative Exchange Council — championed a bill that made those setbacks much, much larger — a jump from about 450 feet to 1,800 feet. The change prompted at least one wind company to cancel plans to build in the state.

Undoubtedly, Walker’s move made fossil-fuel companies smile wanly over their hot, steaming mugs of evil.

Accepting rail money, but not for high-speed rail

To be fair, Walker campaigned on stopping high-speed rail. The campaign owned NoTrain.com, probably because MeHateTrain.com was taken. But that didn’t stop him from asking for $150 million from the federal government for other rail upgrades given that, you know, rail is important to states. Scoring political points by opposing hippie green rail is a good thing, apparently, but that doesn’t mean you have to oppose rail. Or … something?

Facilitating fracking across the country

Wisconsin may not be over the famed Marcellus Shale formation, but that doesn’t mean that Scott Walker can’t get some of that filthy fracking lucre.

Instead, Wisconsin sits atop the remnants of an ancient ocean, the sandstone from which is ideal for fracking. In July of 2011, there were between 22 and 36 sand facilities approved or operating in Wisconsin. Seven months later, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing facilities. Residents who had petitioned the natural resources board to limit the amount of silica allowed in the air around the mines found the board’s Walker-appointed head unresponsive to their concerns. Which was as Walker intended; he explained his choice to head the board as wanting “someone with a chamber-of-commerce mentality.” He got it.

Deregulating open-pit mining

What happens if Walker remains in office? That’s to be determined. But he’s already outlined one planned change: deregulating open-pit mining. Open-pit mines create an enormous amount of waste and pollution and are generally tightly controlled by the areas in which they’re present.

As noted above, these issues are just the tip of the melting iceberg — and for the residents of Wisconsin, just one aspect of why Walker faces such stiff opposition. Clark Williams, my friend in the state, says that no matter the reason people oppose Walker, “the narrative remains the same: recall the governor to end the civil war and restore the Wisconsin Way” — that is, working together for the good of the state.

Including, presumably, breathable air, drinkable water, and a state not pockmarked with unregulated mines.