(A) front page headline (May 3) read “Holcomb signs solar energy bill.”
Why? Apparently, he had not read the Google Report referencing renewable energy sources. Initially, Google was a huge booster of renewables. The report's first paragraph reads: “At Google, we're striving to power our company with 100 percent renewable energy. In addition to the environmental benefits, we see renewable energy as a business opportunity and continue to invest in accelerating its development.”
Four years and $3 billion later, on Nov. 22, 2015, the report continued: “A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the program. After four years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy 'simply won't work.'”
Under the guidance of President Obama, Congress renewed federal energy tax credits to $13 billion a year. These taxpayer dollars primarily benefit the manufacturer, developer and operators of and investors in industrial wind turbines, solar panels and storage battery sources. Warren Buffett, the king of IWT advised a group of investors, “In the absence of federal energy tax credits, IWT are worthless.”
The world is rapidly turning against present-day renewable energy sources. Even Australia, which heavily invested in IWT, diverted its 2016 $7 billion annual IWT maintenance budget to “research and development of renewable energy sources that will work.” Bill Gates publicly stated the cost of renewable energy sources “is beyond astronomical.”
Many localities oppose IWT and solar sources because the wind and sun are not always available at time of greatest need. The World Health Organization is opposed to IWT for documented reasons that they are a proven cause of animal and human illnesses — including heart ailments. Location of both are critical. Developers of IWT do not want their “setback” (distance from turbine to a residence) greater than 1,000 feet. WHO, today, recommends 5,000 feet setback. For those interested in the I governor's program, read the article carefully. What is obvious, it includes the reduction and/or elimination of monetary benefits to participants — even before the program gets off the ground.