I think this is OK in theory, but in the current US environment, Federal intervention would be a calamity.

• They wouldn't use their buying clout to stimulate efficiency
  
• They'd favour their know-nothing cronies
  
• They wouldn't have any environmental location parameters

But I could see it working at State level. And read Chris Cook for how that might work. Legal cooperation between State (coordination+legal), Utility companies (buying say, 10 years supply of a certain megawattage at a fixed price), and consumers (buying 10 years supply as above). The State could also buy.

For consumers there might be two rates, one pay as you go, the other where you can buy as many units as you like providing you have the funds (which you could also borrow)

I would have thought that 10 years would pay back the investment,  however the funds come in.

But the US government might change in 18 months - then it could be proposed at a Federal level. Or rather, projects like this should be outlined and presented to selected Democratic candidates as very smart solutions to the energy problems.

You can't be me, I'm taken

There's a growing backlash against the use of property tax abatements for economic development in several states.

True & a Good Thing, IMNSHO.

What techno and his friend are proposing is different.  200,000 windmills (or even 20 windmills) plus all the infrastructure required cannot be placed onto a couple of trucks and hauled elsewhere.  Nor is the project, like a sports stadium, one of those nice 'economic development' projects where the private owner(s) gather all the income and the public entity gather all the bills.  

A cost/benefit analysis (hint, hint) will reveal the number of windmills for the project, the point at which manufacture of the windmills in-state is economically feasible (break-even,) the point at which manufacture is beneficial (don't forget to include making the spare parts for service & repair!,) and the potential for selling windmills to other installations.  

Speaking to the latter, the manufacturer would be much better off in the long term by selling the windmills at cost plus a little bit and taking the rest of their profit long term, either as a percentage of power, sales, or defined yearly payment.  

Also, selling service contracts is a real money spinner.  That's how IBM made their money in the mainframe days.  Their junk wasn't any better than anyone else's junk but, if you paid them, they would send a repairman out to fix their junk when it broke down.  A not-so-obvious benefit from this is - since you aren't an Idiot, you'll listen - the field service people will be able to tell you where the equipment is failing, how it is failing, and (sometimes) how to change things to fix the failures.  This is the best of all worlds since your customers are paying you to learn how to better manufacture your product and the better your product is the more you can sell.  

I'm not a materials engineer so take the following with much salt:  there are some very exciting materials being reported.  You & friend are in the position to take advantage of them as you do not have an established manufacturing base AND the producers of the materials are, putting it bluntly, hungry they should be willing to help you use the materials in your design.

And what most of this response has to do with MfM's comment escapes me, but WTH.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

...

And I think that if you end these property tax abatments and the like, ... and the city and county governments take a non conrolling interest in the project.

... that is, leaving out that particular mechanism and looking at the overall outcome, would be to do this:

if the State of South Dakota wanted to pursue that model, it could commit to building the long distance infrastructure, and fund start-up generators for wind farm coops, organized as owned by the farmers whose land would be used. In return for the wind generators, the coops would commit to investing a certain percentage of their revenue into expanding the wind farm.

If the coops are state chartered public interest corporations, the commitment to return a share of the revenue into generating capacity expansion, provided the available wind resource and market, could be built into the charter.

In reversing energy from being an import into the state to being an export from the state, then the increase in incomes generated within the state yields the state's financial stake in the individual cooperatives.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.