I don't want my home heating system driven by a bird shredder; particularly in the winter!

The entire article reads as though this was a profitable division of John Deere until you get to the last sentence.

"Shares of Exelon Corp. fell 19 cents to $40.33 Tuesday morning. Deere rose 55 cents to $63.53"

Nothing more than shedding a money loosing venture.

harnessing the Saddledome or Hoffbrau house

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2010/08/25/15135551.html

Renewable rainbows and carbon neutral unicorns EVENTUALLY get shot down by basic economics 101 ... although it takes a lot longer when it's the gubmint who owns those rainbows and unicorns.

Nothing runs (away from a scam) like a deere.

"wind energy business"

this is a greenie oxymoron.

There are no wind energy businesses . . . only subsidy sucking, rent seeking faux business organizations.

Ah! you beat me to it Ron...

Reminds me of the old joke...

[deleted - take that as a hint. ED]

Hard to believe anyone outside of government would want to buy into the windmill business. It's got to fail if only because it doesn't work.

Government doesn't work very well either, so we can see the connection.

Didn't they have a slogan, along the lines of, "Nothing runs for its life like a Deere"?

Related story in the Ottawa Citizen today providing an interview with the Ontario Energy Minister Brad Do-good. Rate Hikes are a Must for Green Energy:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Rate+hikes+must+reliable+green+energy+says+energy+minister/3462167/story.html

Deere, like a lot of other companies got into "green" energy primarily for the halo effect - not for the potential profits. A few years back companies were being stampeded by public opinion to "go green". that fad is now fading. And thus deere and lots of others are quietly dumping ventures like the one noted above over the side.

The reasons for the "go green" reversal are manifold, but a long-range cause for bigcos abandonment is that, while the future profitability of most of these projects was slightly negative a few years ago, they are now almost certainly doomed to be hugely unprofitable.

Why?

Because we are in the midst of the greatest bear market in natural gas the world has ever seen. To casual business observers the cause of this has been seen as a result of the economic slowdown -even the report above alludes to it:

"With energy prices persistently low due to a grinding economic recovery, stakes in the power industry have begun to shift."

This is almost completely wrong.

The primary reason for the price collapse is the boom in a low cost and plentiful supply of NG from shale formations.

How Low cost?

Easily below $6 per TCF - probably less than $4. In many cases cheaper than conventional NG.

How much supply?

At least a hundred years worth - quite possibly and order of magnitude more. And all at less than $6. Western Europe could become self-sufficient within 20 yrs. expect a massive shift to fueling the transportation sector over the next 15 (70% of US oil consumption is in transportation).

For all practical purposes NG the economical supply is limitless - on a par or even better than with Hydro and Nuclear

The Russians and the ME countries are about to lose their ricebowl...

And the Go Green sector with its windmills and panels will be seen as a quaint, inefficient anachronism within a decade (just as we view the old Dutch windmills today).

(Looks like a good time to buy pipeline and turbine makers and operators - and to short electric transmission and coal.)

If you've ever seen some of the larger John Deere diesel powered gen sets, you'd know that JD are not new to producing electricity. The diesel however keeps on ticking after the wind and the sun goes down.

All this garbage will eventually wind up in the hands of politically well connected scammers who feel capable of rent seeking from governments long after the well runs dry. Hope they and the elected and bureaucratic filth they partner with will get very severe jail sentences to teach other would be crooks a good lesson.

$6 a TCF ?
wow I want in.

I think you mean under $6 an mcf.

Sorry Cal2 you are correct

Recently Texas hit a demand record of ~65,000 megawatts of power in August. The state has almost 10,000 megawatts of wind turbine "capacity", but during this peak demand all it could get from the 40 wind farms was 500 megawatts - 5%. Wind farms are a waste of money unless they have storage capacity which could increase available power when needed, but would put an already uneconomic cost through the roof. Where are the animal huggers, these things are bird shredders......

UK NEWS
CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED

Tuesday August 31 2010

THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

The panel was forced to admit its key claim in support of global warming was lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The report was based on an interview with a little-known Indian scientist who has since said his views were “speculation” and not backed by research.

Independent climate scientist Peter Taylor said last night: “The IPCC’s credibility has been deeply dented and something has to be done. It can’t just be a matter of adjusting the practices. They have got to look at what are the consequences of having got it wrong in terms of what the public think is going on. Admitting that it needs to reform means something has gone wrong and they really do need to look at the science.”

Climate change sceptic David Holland, who challenged leading climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia to disclose their research, said: “The panel is definitely not fit for purpose. What the IAC has said is substantial changes need to be made.”

The IAC, which comprises the world’s top science academies including the UK’s Royal Society, made recommendations to the IPCC to “enhance its credibility and independence” after the Himalayan glaciers report, which severely damaged the reputation of climate science.

It condemned the panel – set up by the UN to ensure world leaders had the best scientific advice on climate change – for its “slow and inadequate response” after the damaging errors emerged.

Among the blunders in the 2007 report were claims that 55 per cent of the Netherlands was below sea level when the figure is 26 per cent.

It also claimed that water supplies for between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk by 2020 due to climate change, but the real range is between 90 and 220 million.

The claim that glaciers would melt by 2035 was also rejected.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

John Galt 11:56 PM

Excellant post.....

The real problem with the IPCC and the warmongers is that the COLD WAR IS OVER AND THEIR SIDE LOST.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

Especially when many of those glaciers are growing.....It's like the Ice in Disco Bay allegedly proof of Greenland's Icecap breaking up when simple logic reveals that to get icebergs a GROWING tidewater glacier is necessary.

Gord Tulk: ""With energy prices persistently low due to a grinding economic recovery, stakes in the power industry have begun to shift."

This is almost completely wrong. "

It's not entirely wrong at all, Gord. It is a fact that electricity demand is down heavily across industrial and manufacturing sectors. This is shown particularly in this document:
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketReports/18MonthOutlook_2010aug.pdf

With a peak demand during a summer heat wave of no more than 23,000 MW, Ontario is a very long way away from its summer peak record of 27,000 MW in 2007. Almost all of the lost demand is industrial load.

It's a large part of the reason why Ontario electricity prices have been averaging consistently about 4 cents during daily peak demands. That means the Lennox power station has been off all summer (when it comes on the price spikes). And with it, a lot of coal-fired generation as well.

Now it's still true that wind is utterly useless this summer. With more than 1200 MW installed, Ontario's wind fleet is still producing a daily average of less than 100 MW. On occasion, it's dropping to essentially nothing.

Another way of putting all this is that the Ontario Liberal Government's long term energy supply strategy only works with a permanent industrial recession in place. With any kind of industrial rebound in Ontario, the province will find itself in the same critical shortage of generation that it was in 2006-7 if it closes all the coal plants in 2014.