Wind Power equals Jobs Loss

UPDATED
I suspect you are not reading this in many places. The MSM is not interested in it. An Editorial from Investors business Daily:
The Big Wind-Power Cover-Up
Posted 03/12/2010

Scandal: Spain exposed the boondoggle of wind power in 2009, discrediting an idea touted by the Obama administration. In response, U.S. officials banded with trade lobbyists to hide the facts.

It was a cold day at the Energy Department when researchers at King Juan Carlos University in Spain released a study showing that every "green job" created by the wind industry killed off 4.27 other jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy.

Research director Gabriel Calzada Alvarez didn't object to wind power itself, but found that when a government artificially props up this industry with subsidies, higher electrical costs (31%), tax hikes (5%) and government debt follow. Fact is, these subsidies have the same "Cuisinart" effect on jobs as wind-generating propeller blades have on birds. Every green job costs $800,000 to create and 90% of them are temporary, he found.

Alvarez made no bones about the lessons of Spain for the Obama administration, which has big plans for "green jobs." His report warned of "considerable employment consequences" from "self-inflicted economic wounds." It forecast that the U.S. could lose 6.6 million jobs if it followed Spain, and it "should certainly expect its results to follow such a tendency.

A few months later, Danish researchers at the Center for Politiske Studier came to the same conclusion about subsidized wind power from their own country's experience.

"It is fair to assess that no wind energy to speak of would exist if it had to compete on market terms," their report said.

Why or why do we not use what we have? We have nuclear,oil, gas, and coal.  We have many years of these products. We have engineered safe, clean ways to produce all the energy we need. Yet, we keep looking for something to appear that does NOT use these means.  Sure solar power and wind power are nice.  They are not the answer. All of the above can and should be used. Let's do some rational thinking on this.
This is a three page editorial, read it all.

UPDATE

From the Houston Chronicle:

The natural gas story

The nation has been given a gift by our energy sector. Let’s unwrap it carefully

HOUSTON CHRONCLE

March 13, 2010, 6:40PM

If there's a headline from the recent CERAWeek conference here that deserves to be flashed in neon to President Barack Obama and the rest of the nation, it is this one: “Domestic natural gas is clean, cheap and plentiful — look here for answers, Mr. President, as you seek energy security.”

Indeed. Natural gas appears to be all those things — and maybe much more. A report by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, released here last week, confirms that North American gas potential has tripled in just the past three years.

Thanks largely to the opening of large shale gas areas across North America, there are more than 100 years of supplies at current consumption rates. Daniel Yergin , the respected author and energy analyst and father of CERAWeek, calls this the most significant energy innovation of the 21st century. But it will reach full potential only if policymakers in Washington are paying attention.

Are they listening? Not closely enough, we would judge. That is the real heavy lifting ahead for natural gas advocates: getting the message about this plentiful, clean-burning resource to the highest levels of the Obama administration. It is not there yet.

This isn't all they have to say, read it all.