Surprise! Most German Wind Park Investors Losing Money …Duped By Exaggerated Wind Projections!

German ZDF public television here brings a report on the performance of wind turbines in Germany titled: “Wind energy – a loss business?“. In summary: Investors are losing money and many are finding themselves the victim of overblown promises.

ZDF Wind Park output chart

ZDF public television wind occurrence chart above based on data provided by the German Association for Wind Energy. It shows that actual wind occurrence fell below expectations most of the time. Chart cropped here.

Everywhere in Germany monster wind turbines, which at times soar over 200-meters, are popping up. They are supposed to eventually supply the country with clean, environmentally-friendly energy, the ZDF reports. But according to an analysis of 200 wind parks carried out by Werner Daldorf, an expert certified accountant, they are failing economically. It turns out that wind energy investors often see returns that fall far short of what they were originally told to expect – despite all the subsidies designed to make wind parks risk-free and profitable for their operators.

At the 0:30 mark, Daldorf tells ZDF:

About two thirds of the investments are not paying out as expected. The capital that the investors paid is at risk and possibly will not be recovered.”

The problem, ZDF reports, is that without wind there is no money. ZDF says that future projections of wind occurrence appear to have been overblown, and “are well below what was expected and produce far less power than first thought” – see chart above. Most of the time the wind blows below what investors were told to expect. As a result, not only is wind energy making German power exorbitantly expensive for consumers, but it is also hitting rosy-eyed investors.

At the 1:25 mark, The ZDF tells viewers:

Not only have a number of small investors, communities and towns been misled, many investments are doing poorly. But the exact data is being kept under wraps.”

The City Utility of Mainz, which invested heavily in wind energy, wrote to ZDF:

The actual wind yield coming from these turbines has been far less than expected – despite the safety buffer that had been assumed.”

ZDF clarifies: “In plain language, the investment aren’t paying off.” The only ones making money, ZDF writes, are the builders, land leasers, banks and turbine manufacturers. The losers, Daldorf summarizes, are often the investors.

No surprise there. With charts like the one shown above, it’s becoming clear that wind energy is in large part just a ruinous scam.

 

68 responses to “Surprise! Most German Wind Park Investors Losing Money …Duped By Exaggerated Wind Projections!”

  1. Curious George

    Wind park investors losing money. Electricity prices skyrocketing. Where does the money go?

    1. Doug Proctor

      The salaried managers. Even firms heading to bankruptcy pay well – even above scale with bonuses.

      Investors lose. Management, lawyers and bankers don’t.

  2. Jeff Wood

    So, we have reached Peak Wind. That was quick.

  3. A C Osborn

    GOOD!

  4. DirkH

    “Not only have a number of small investors, communities and towns been misled, many investments are doing poorly. But the exact data is being kept under wraps.”

    Lying has become a lifestyle in Germany. (warmunism, wind scoundrels, media + politicians + police about illegal immigrant crime)

  5. sod

    I am actually surprised about the interest in wind park investments here!

    Do you really think that nobody who did invest in wind power over the last 5 years had a look at that graph from 2011 before he dropped the money?

    I can give you folks some relevant information before you start your investment:

    1. Surprise, 2015 was a very good wind year.

    http://www.taz.de/!5268523/

    2. Even Mainz (mentioned in the film) is making money:

    http://www.allgemeine-zeitung.de/lokales/mainz/nachrichten-mainz/mainzer-ob-ebling-im-interview-weniger-geld-von-stadtwerken_16551205.htm

    3. AboInvest (also mentioned in the film) obviously has reacted. They are selling bonds on old projects, which are already running (so you can look at the real output before you invest. And that is what i would advice you to do!)

    4. I would also tell you to look at a reliable source, before you invest heavily into wind. The (very left and very green) Manager magazin would be a good starting point.

    http://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/energie/infraschall-etc-windenergie-leidet-unter-eigenen-aufstieg-a-1022926-5.html

    Their conclusion is very strong: INVESTMENT IN WIND IS RISKY.
    About as risky as all other energy investments are.

    So if you are not decided to invest into a 10$ oil bet yet, why not go for wind?

    1. DirkH

      Thanks for the investment advice, sod, but no, thanks.
      Investing in a politically rigged / destroyed market is only profitable for the political insiders, to which I do not belong.
      But if you are a crony, and get the advance inside information, go for it, it is ensured that you make a killing.

      Politicians FORCE operators to buy a crappy product; delivered irregularly in arbitrary quantities. No sane businessman would enter into such a contract, or if, only at next to no cost. There IS no more electricity market in Germany, only a walking corpse of one.

      So, I’ll just hoard Gold which has a -0.4 correlation to risk assets. I’ll buy the remainders of the energy infrastructure for pennies on the Dollar once sanity returns, which it inevitably will bar total collapse.

      1. DirkH

        It should be noted that wind and solar subsidies VIOLATE the EU rule against subsidation – but the German government got permission for this massive violation because of the acute looming death of the planet through an alleged warming.

        Of course, once you break the EU rules, breaking them becomes normal daily business, and it will never go away – after all 28 billion Euros a year are redistributed in Germany alone so the livelihood of quite a sizable bunch of crooks depend on it to continue.

        Just avoid, if you are not part of the mafia.

        1. David Appell

          How much does burning fossil fuels cost Germans every year, in worse health, health care, and environmental damage?

          1. DirkH

            For the correct balance we also need to ask, how many people are saved from freezing to death by burning fossil fuels and how many are kept alive by food delivered by fossil fuel powered trucks.

            Ok, lemme do the calculation.

            All of Germany is currently under snowcover. Which is very beautiful AS LONG AS YOU HAVE HEATING.

            so… wait… computing…

            Here it is:
            Positive: 80 million people’s lives are SAVED EVERY SINGLE DAY.
            Negative: A few get the coughs.

          2. DirkH

            And, David, as you used to be a part time science journalist and just MIGHT have a passing interest in GEOGRAPHY, notice that Germany is ABOUT as far North as ALASKA. You can find out more by getting yourself a GLOBE.

          3. DirkH

            Proponents of withdrawing fossil fuel infrastructure from Germany are in fact modern proponents of the Morgenthau plan, which demanded that Germany be turned into an agrarian society, condemning half the population to hunger death.

            This plan was implemented in the Western sectors from 1945 to 1947, then abandoned and reversed. For certain reasons which have nothing to do with humanitarian ideals and everything to do with power. During the two years of famine thousands died on the streets and in their homes from starvation and lack of heating fuel, Child mortality exploded.

          4. sod

            “For the correct balance we also need to ask, how many people are saved from freezing to death by burning fossil fuels”

            Please show me any link or quote of a single person asking to stop the use of fossile fuels exactly TODAY.

            We will have warm houses and electricity after a change to approaching 100% renewables, but we will do so without the negative consequences of burning coal and oil.

          5. yonason

            “We will have warm houses and electricity after a change to approaching 100% renewables, – sod”

            No, sod, we won’t, because it’s impossible.
            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
            Not “renewable” – not “sustainable” – not “green”

          6. sod

            “No, sod, we won’t, because it’s impossible.”

            The google claim already is an old one.

            Solar is winning against competition in India.

            http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/22/solar-power-now-cheaper-than-coal-in-india-says-energy-minister/

            And even the low prices of oil and coal are not stopping wind and solar:

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2016/01/160122-why-solar-and-wind-thrive-despite-cheap-oil-and-ga/

            Please face the facts and do not repeat a single talking point from the past that fits your opinion.

          7. yonason

            “Solar is winning against competition in India.” – sod

            In a perfect world, where all other things are equal, maybe, however in the real world…

            This article is about solar powered telecom panels, but parts are relevant to solar parks, as well.
            http://www.vnews.com/news/nation/world/12625591-95/urban-grime-foils-modis-plans-for-indias-solar-power

            “India’s high pollution levels coat panels with dust, requiring almost daily cleaning. The sun isn’t always out when the grid goes down, and the four-month monsoon season brings rains that reduce generation.”

            According to this MIT analysis…
            http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540016/india-solar-technology-and-the-monkey-problem/
            ““Nobody is testing for the aging [of solar equipment] in India,” says Ramamurthy, who leads the project along with two other IISc professors. “We get solar panels, but they’re certified for moderate climates in the U.S. and Europe, and we just adapt.”
            . . . .
            Dust and degradation are also major problems in India. And then there are the monkeys.

            Like many places in India, IISc’s leafy Bangalore campus abounds with tribes of monkeys that like to lick the dew off solar panels and chew the electrical cables. Various methods have been tried to drive them off, but so far none have worked, including an ultrasonic monkey repeller that actually seems to attract the primates. ”

            I don’t see any problems.
            http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4031/4369627769_0f134c6089_m.jpg

            Do you?
            http://cache.yohyoh.com/8345bfddb3210d3735afe6510495d6be.jpg

            Of course, India does have a lot more sun than Germany, so solar should work a bit better.

            Oh, and don’t forget all those “green” jobs…
            http://www.aerialpower.com/_/rsrc/1414832786832/solarbrush/manual_cleaning_w800.jpg?height=300&width=400

          8. yonason

            Another hidden cost of “renewables.”

            It is legally mandated that electricity from “renewables” be fed into the grid. When that happens, traditional supplies, which otherwise could provide that electricity, must ramp back. They thus sell less product (electricity) and either lose money, or have to increase their prices to offset the losses. Well, that’s one way to make “Renewables” more “competitive.”

          9. DirkH

            sod 23. January 2016 at 8:20 AM | Permalink
            “Please show me any link or quote of a single person asking to stop the use of fossile fuels exactly TODAY. ”

            ??? According to leading warmunists like Prince Charles, we should have stopped burning any fossil fuels already. Google it yourself.
            So, yes, Warmunists want us dead NOW. Because it’s good for the planet.
            Also, we have to kill humanity to save it.
            Well you can of course always say,all that the Europeans have to do is to move to a warmer climate, then they can stop heating their homes, to prevent warming. Which is so elegantly paradoxical it is a perfect warmunist idea. Because their brains don’t work right.

          10. sod

            “It is legally mandated that electricity from “renewables” be fed into the grid. ”

            No. There is a merit order principle in place. It has no connection to renewables what so ever.

            Please accept the facts.

          11. yonason

            “There is a merit order principle in place. It has no connection to renewables what so ever”. – sod

            Oh, please pardon me, sod. I should have realized that a Liberal such as yourself would naturally see the legal requirements of “Renewables Energy MANDATES” as guidelines, rather than actual “mandates.” Silly me.

            These guys have it wrong, as well.

            “Renewable electricity mandates are laws that require utilities to sell or produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources.”

            So, help us out here, sod. Explain why the above and this sentence doen’t mean what they say.

            “Governments have used a wide range of penalties and enforcement mechanisms in the process of enforcing binding renewable energy targets.”

          12. sod

            I am sorry, i misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about the requirement to buy the electricity from renewable sources. my fault, i am sorry!

            From your link:

            “Twenty-nine states have renewable electricity mandates”

            So some states have rather tiny percentages mandates.

          13. yonason

            “So some states have rather tiny percentages mandates.” – sod

            Yes. I was talking about the ones that do. It’s ok, I do the same myself from time to time.

    2. DirkH

      “So if you are not decided to invest into a 10$ oil bet yet, why not go for wind?”

      Wait. So you expect 10 USD oil to wipe out the US shale firms, and with them the banks who financed their hedges and their equipment, after which the oil supply will vanish and prices go back up to 100 USD.

      Sounds reasonable. This will likely play out over the next 6 months so the right moment for entry should be August. But, at that time the stock markets will also have reached their minimum so it’s all ripe for the picking, whether oil or stocks.

      Wind companies will go down with the rest of the market. Only after the wave of bankruptcies will we know which one survives.

      So, yes, wind companies. In August. Or Oil. Doesn’t matter. Not. Before. August. Maybe even wait til October. That’s when the Schemittah ends.

      Yeah, October sounds right. I wonder what financial system we will have.

      1. yonason

        @DirkH

        I don’t know where you are getting your information, but the last Shemittah ended on Sept., 13, 2015, and the world is still here.

        We are currently in the first year of the next cycle, which won’t end until Sept., 25, 2022. I have no idea what next October will bring, but I am 100% certain that no self-styled prophet of doom has any idea either.

        Good luck with your investments, though. I hope you are meeting with more success than I have been.

        1. yonason

          PS – I wasn’t referring to you as the “prophet of doom,” btw, but whoever is telling you that nonsense. They are no different from Al Gore and his ilk, as far as I can see, and cause as much if not more trouble.

          1. DirkH

            Ah thanks! Why didn’t my yiddish friends tell me that. Guess it’s not that important for them. This invalidates my theory that the cyclical financial crashes are CAUSED by the schmita, but it doesn’t affect the energy bust that is underway and that will kill the banks – lest the Fed/BOJ/ECB give them ample blood transfusions.

          2. yonason

            “…but it doesn’t affect the energy bust that is underway and that will kill the banks…” – DirkH

            Looks that way. But we don’t need a prophet to tell us what we can see with our own eyes.

            There is a reality to what happens at various times during the Shemittah cycle, but there don’t appear to be any Jewish Sages alive anymore who can sort that out. And amateurs for sure can not.

          3. yonason

            “Why didn’t my yiddish friends tell me that.” – DirkH

            Can’t say. That’s something you’ll have to work out with them. Are they Orthodox? If not, maybe they didn’t know either?

          4. DirkH

            Nope, not orthodox.

          5. DirkH

            yonason 22. January 2016 at 5:21 AM | Permalink
            “There is a reality to what happens at various times during the Shemittah cycle, but there don’t appear to be any Jewish Sages alive anymore who can sort that out. And amateurs for sure can not.”

            My idea was very simple. During the Schmitta fields are left fallow. Transferred to financial assets this means sell and go away. This could affect the markets and be the trigger for a rout.

            But as you have pointed out we’re a year off so the current rout has nothing to do with it.

          6. yonason

            “Nope, not orthodox.” – DirkH

            Yeah, that makes sense.

            “Transferred to financial assets this means sell and go away.” – DirkH

            The only financial aspect is that debts to fellow Jews must be totally forgiven. He didn’t pay you before hand? Too bad. You’ve lost it, unless special arrangements were properly made before hand.

            But your own financial assets are yours to do with as you please, as in any other year. As to agriculture, that only applies in Israel, with the caveat that a Jew is required to avoid any products grown in Israel in the 7th.

    3. AndyG55

      “INVESTMENT IN WIND IS RISKY.”

      Especially when the government might wake up to reality at any stage and remove the subsidies. 🙂

  6. sod

    Daldorf actually is interesting. He is not an anti-wind shill.

    Here is a good presentation by him:

    http://www.energieland.hessen.de/aktion/zukunftswerkstatt/giessen/PraesentationDaldorf.pdf

    His databasis are reports send to him. so his reports will mostly be bad ones.

    He is also comparing to “prospect value”. I wonder how basically all investment opportunities did in that respect over the last decade…

    1. DirkH

      He’s a wind shill?

  7. David Johnson

    Cue SOD to say the article says no such thing in 5-4-3-2-1……

  8. Graeme No.3

    They are losing money when the wind doesn’t blow i.e. with no income but continuing expenses, but that was supposedly factored into the project. What is worse is that when the wind blows there is a glut of electricity and the price drops substantially. (Cue sod gloating about cheap wind). But if you can’t get enough return when the wind blows there are only two solutions.
    1. Get out of the business.
    2. Shut down all conventional electricity stations (and imports) so the population is left in the dark for half the time, and the prices will be good when the wind blows.
    I wonder which one sod will choose?

    1. DirkH

      “What is worse is that when the wind blows there is a glut of electricity and the price drops substantially.”

      The wind turbine owners get a fixed price per kWh. It is fixed for 20 years when they get permission to build. Should be 7 cent or so for them ATM. Before our government totally lost control of everything, they gradually reduced that every year. So when you start in 2010 you get 9cent or whatever, and when you start in 2015 you get 7, for 20 years, guaranteed.

      I don’t know if anyone in the government still continues that, as our government is currently busy importing Morokkans.

  9. yonason

    Energy Return On Investment (EROI)

    If it costs more to run than what you get back in return (as do wind, solar and biomass), you lose.
    http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/wind-energy-wasteful-use-of-resources.html

    Warmists want us to believe if we just keep beating that dead horse, he’ll get up and pull the wagon. Sadly, even a dead horse knows that’s not going to happen, which means it is smarter than a warmist.

    1. sod

      “f it costs more to run than what you get back in return (as do wind, solar and biomass), you lose.”

      That article is using false data (upgrading of wind plants for example looks like a good explanation for his short life times).

      1. yonason

        “That article is using false data” – sod

        Didn’t bother to see where he gets the economic viability data from, did you?

        I wasn’t commenting on the lifetime data the blog author presents, and which I thought were more of an aside than directly relevant (I don’t dispute their accuracy, either, but it has no bearing on the main conclusion). See section “7. EROI values of different electrical power generating systems,” of that paper, where those authors address the lifetimes of the various technologies. They use the higher numbers.

        The graphics at the end of the above referenced paper address the economic viability of the various technologies, and are what I was referring to. And for solar, wind and biomass they are abysmal.

      2. DirkH

        sod, why do you think in the first place that something that has any value has to be subsidized into existence? Because warmunist journaliars or politicians have told you so? Amazing!

        Unfortunately I know too many young mushbrains miseducated by Green ideologues.

        1. David Appell

          “…why do you think in the first place that something that has any value has to be subsidized into existence?”

          Because fossil fuels are heavily subsidized — they privatize profits, and socialize the cost of their waste onto the commons.

          In the US this costs the public at least $200 B/yr.

          “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
          National Research Council, 2010
          http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html

          Let’s instead make fossil fuel companies pay these costs, and see how wind and solar compare.

          1. yonason

            Subsidies normalized to $/MWh reported in May 2015

            Coal……… 0.69

            Oil………. 2.27

            Wind…….. 35.33

            Solar…… 280.42

            So unfair!

  10. John F. Hultquist

    … even a dead horse knows …” {yonason; above}

    Interesting turn of phrase.
    In years gone by, the English sailing captains would obtain a few new crew members by visiting pubs, paying a passed out man’s drink bill plus a little extra for the wife, if there was one. The new sailor thus started out his trip with about a month’s pay left behind in port. This “dead horse” had to be worked for even though the sailor never got it.
    At sea, crews worked in synchronization by singing, often with a call and answer song to get the timing. Such a song is called a Sea-shanty (chantey) and one celebrated paying off the dead horse with a final effort of casting into the sea a straw likeness of a horse. It was called the Dead Horse Shanty. [Some think this is the origin of the term “Horse Latitudes.”]

    Wind energy subsidies are like the “dead horse” – someone has already harvested the wealth. Many of those folks are no longer investors, or will soon be out. The wind “parks” will age, degrade, and pass to new owners that will take a few Euros out and pass it on. Repeat. When there is no value left the government will be in charge of clearing the mess and planting trees. Or maybe pasture for old horses.

    1. yonason

      LOL. I was a sailor, partly due to coercion from a very low draft number. Fortunately I was in Navy boot camp when my draft notice came, so it was too late for them.

      I never saw any straw horses thrown overboard, but once a few guys decided it would be fun to tow an inflatable rubber horse on a wooden float behind the ship. The captain was NOT amused.

      Anyway, thanks for the history lesson**, and a very fine tale, too, me hardy!

      **I was aware that the Brits had some rather unconventional ways of conscripting sailors, but I wasn’t familiar with the details you provided.

      1. Mick J

        This took me back to my early school days tales that people could in earlier times be easily tricked into naval service, one tale was that a shilling would be dropped into a tankard and if the beer drunk then the shilling had been accepted and the person drafted. This fed an explanation as to why some beer tankards had glass bottoms.

        Had a look around and it seems this is likely a myth and a more likely reason is so that a person can keep an eye on what is happening on the table if say playing cards.

        Post number four at this link http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=59801 is summary of the rules for pressing someone into naval service. Surprisingly civilised thought I compared to some of the tales. 🙂

        1. yonason

          Interesting. Thanks!

    2. yonason
  11. AndyG55

    lol…. I wonder how they cope with iced up windmills in northern Europe.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/some_global_warming_might_help/

    Fossil fuels to the rescue….. AGAIN !!!

    1. K. van der Pool

      It does not really matter all that much – there is no wind anyway:

      http://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/

      This morning (1/21/15) a pitiful 1.6 GW. Anybody looking at these graphs must conclude that wind/solar is indeed a lost cause. The investment trajectory bears this out:

      http://euanmearns.com/european-renewables-investment-heads-towards-zero/

      1. sod

        The last 31 days (21.01. back) had a really solid wind output of 10GW nearly all the time. You are trying to make a big thing out of tiny gaps, which storage will fill soon.

        http://www.agora-energiewende.de/de/themen/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/

        1. K. van der Pool

          Hi Sod,
          What storage? Tell us about it.
          Thanks,
          KvdP

        2. yonason

          “The last 31 days (21.01. back) had a really solid wind output of 10GW nearly all the time.” – sod

          Not really.

          Here’s another source of data
          https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm

          Even though they differ somewhat, they tell a similar story. Wind power is highly variable; it’s been dying back overall all month; and it was often lowest when demand was highest.

          There was one point where wind was 1/40 of the total power, meaning that without at least 40 times as many wind turbines as you now have, that blackouts would be unavoidable.

          What is impressive about wind production, in a nightmarish sort of way, is that anyone could be so foolish as to want to rely on it.

  12. sod

    Good article on Forbes. Comparison between wind power in Denmark and the USA.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/01/21/the-u-s-blows-denmark-away-on-wind-power/#6986d25f54c0494ca92954c0

    One day all of them will wake up and find out that their wind plants had a negative output. Just wait and see (and hope).

    1. DirkH

      Got something I can read without turning on JavaScript? Not for Forbes.

      1. David Appell

        This is what’s called a “first world problem.”

      2. Brian H

        Use No-Script. Detailed JS control.

    2. Analitik

      That is a pretty good article, sod.
      A couple of key points from it

      “Also key to Denmark’s wind industry, the country has the ability to export wind power production to neighboring countries like Sweden, Norway, and Germany. That means that they can often produce at more than 100% of domestic demand, and because their demand is relatively small they can simply export that excess power to other countries with much greater demand. What that means is that they can — on average — generate a high percentage of their electricity from wind power.”

      and

      “Further, U.S. power demand is much greater than that of our neighbors Mexico and Canada, so if we did get into a situation like Denmark where at times we produced >130% of our domestic demand, there is no way Mexico and Canada could absorb our excess.”

      While not related to the topic of this post, it does put context for the figures for wind power penetration into Denmark

  13. David Appell

    As long as fossil fuels retain a huge subsidy — they get to dump their waste into the atmosphere without charge — it will be difficult for sustainable energies to compete with such socialism.

    Solution: a carbon tax.

    1. Graeme No.3

      Carbon dioxide promotes plant growth so perhaps there should be a tax on “renewables”.

  14. yonason

    “…they get to dump their waste into the atmosphere without charge” – David Appell

    What “waste?”

    CO2? It’s NOT a pollutant.

    Water vapor? You’ve got to be kidding me!

    Of course you could be referring to SO2, or Hg, but mitigating technology exists, and it is being implemented.

    Besides, when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine, then nuclear and/or fossil fuel power MUST be available as backup.

    And don’t forget, by any reasonable definition of “waste,” the manufacture of “clean” energy generators isn’t exactly without its problems.

    http://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/

    http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2

    And then there’s this reality bite. I.e., it’s NOT sustainable.

    And, no, taxing a vital component of life on earth is not a “solution.” It is insane.
    http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html

  15. Mervyn

    Most of the time the wind blows below what investors were told to expect.

    One could demonstrate that the above statement amounts to corporate directors and promoters of wind turbines engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct … i.e. telling lies to potential investors for financial gain. In certain countries, that attracts a jail sentence.

  16. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #213 | Watts Up With That?
  17. orenkomp.ru

    A new law passed last summer, meant to address the problems with closed-end funds among other issues, is supposed to improve things. But due to the huge number of exceptions written into the law, it remains unclear which funds it will actually apply to. Furthermore, the sector has moved on to new financing models that are no less lucrative for wind-park operators and no less risky for investors.