Comments on: Wind: Energy Past, not Energy Future (the intermittency curse then, as now)

By: Windpower Is Not an Infant Industry! — MasterResource

Windpower Is Not an Infant Industry! — MasterResource — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:57:44 +0000

[...] post, “Wind: Energy Past, Not Energy Future,” documented how 19th century economists unmasked wind as an inferior energy. Here is one [...]

By: Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), T. Boone Pickens, and the Enron Legacy of Windpower — MasterResource

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:30:26 +0000

[...] T. Boone’s windpower “vision” is about a displaced, obsolete energy of the past, not an energy of the future. Take away the mandates and the the tax subsidies, and windpower will [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:30:12 +0000

TTom, your response to me is so wrong it isn’t even worth explaining it to you.

By: Carbonicus

Carbonicus — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:14:21 +0000

TokyoTom – Andrew had it “righter” than you think. The REAL question is not “whether those who engage in economic activities are bearing the costs or risks of those activities, or whether those activities appear relatively preferable to the people involved because they are able to shift damages, costs, risks and/or responsibilities for consequences to others”. The REAL question is whether society WILLINGLY acknowledges and accepts those costs, risks, damages given the quality of life that they directly enable. Yes, there are real pollutant externalities with coal, oil, fossils. But we should regulate and reduce contaminants and pollutants, and have done a pretty good job of doing so, with still room for much improvement.

You might be happy to ignore this, but the facts – hard data – prove this. Look at air quality in the top 10 U.S. cities from the 1960′s to today. Look at contaminant loads to waterways, surface water quality, etc. Look at mortality statistics. As I said, we have a long way to go but we’re improving.

And, while on the subject of pollutants, CO2 is not one, despite what the Supreme Court might leave open to question in Mass. v EPA, or Lisa Jackson and Carol Browner’s soon to come “endangerment” finding. Factually, carbon is one of the essential elements for life on earth, like oxygen, hydrogen, and others. CO2 is plant fertilizer for 97% of the plants that cover the surface of the earth, including crops. So let’s worry about “pollutants” and not elements essential for life on earth.

We accept these externalities because the benefits outweigh the costs. Imposing alternatives before they are able to meet the demand required to meet a certain level of economic output and enable at least the current quality of life guarantees that the costs outweigh the benefits for society. Go research the environmental kuznets curve.

You are simply a watermelon. Green on the outside and red on the inside. And Carbonicus exists you expose you, Gore and your camp for what you really are: eco-socialists.

Not in my country…..

By: Bob R Geologist

Bob R Geologist — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:53:13 +0000

I detect science and rationality is beginning to assert itself into the non-problem of AGW but it is still beloved by politicians for its potential for taxing energy. However, western civilization is dependent on cheap energy to thrive and in these economically uncertains times, it would be the height of folly to force us into switching to renewable but unreliable energy sources. We are blessed with at least 100 year supply of carbon based fuels . Some ancient climates are known to have had atmospheres with over 12 times the carbon dioxide we have in our air today with out harm to life. So, lets not rush immature technologies for renewable energy sources until we can do it economically. Besides, we can use more CO2 in our air as it will be good for agriculture and save billions of human lives in poor countries and we can use a warmer climate because technically we are still in a glacial mode.

By: Tom Tanton

Tom Tanton — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:45:58 +0000

“the damage my pollution does to you is fine because people want to but my products” –only I NEVER said that.
wrt to “by being allowed to shift real and significant costs to others, and that we`d all be better off if those socialized costs were internalized. ” yes, but onlyprovided the social benefits are similarly internalized, and that the social costs of e.g. wind also be internalized. Just what value would you propose be asigned the extinction of an endangered species caused by so many wind turbines right in their habitat or flyway? According to the ESA and court decisions, that cost (at least for other technologies) outweighs any and everything. My first post only pointed out that when correctly monetized (not using cost of control but damage functions) most fossil fuel technologies STILL win (i.e. toal social costs) compared to most renewables in most cases. The question of who decides those costs and dealing with the uncertainty of those costs (and benefits) is of course at the crux. It cannot be government. Finally, since you mention it “forget that the real reason why these other nations aren`t developed yet is that they`re still kleptocracies that don`t sufficiently protect private property rights and returns on investments. ” you’re of course right and we do find some common ground there–problem is, though that the US is “de-developing” for exactly the same reason.

By: TokyoTom

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:08:58 +0000

Tom, it seems that you understand little, if anything, about free markets or libertarian principles. Murray Rothbard`s paper on air pollution makes it clear that it was utilitarian arguments like yours – “the damage my pollution does to you is fine because people want to but my products” – that industry used in the 1800s to subvert the common law and run roughshod over property rights, leading to the “pollution is free” philosophy and ruinous competition where the non-polluter went bankrupt. The upshot was the horrible pollution in the 50s, 60s and 70s that led to tremendous citizens` movements to use government to bring pollution under control – with laws signed by Republican presidents.

No externalities? Where were you? What motivated the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, SuperFund?

As for coal vs. wind, please spare me the strawman. I`m not at all suggesting that wind OUGHT to be subsidized. I`m just asking for a little intellectual honesty that will recognize that coal use IS subsidized, by being allowed to shift real and significant costs to others, and that we`d all be better off if those socialized costs were internalized.

Perhaps someday it will occur to those who (correctly) want to bash greens for their stupid proposals that they might be more successful if they were a little more consistent themselves and started exploring common ground. Where`s the post praising the federal court decision forcing TVA to do a better job at cleaning flue gases than required by the CAA in order to limit harm caused in NC, for example? Where`s the post calling for the privatization of the bumbling, polluting TVA, which keeps generating costs for taxpayers and ratepayers?

But that`s not what this blog is all about, is it? You guys are more into making enemies and fighting over government than in truly shifting risks and regulation back to markets and the courts.

As for countries abroad, this is of course unrelated to a discussion local/regional costs and energy alternatives in the US. But since you bring it up, don`t forget that the real reason why these other nations aren`t developed yet is that they`re still kleptocracies that don`t sufficiently protect private property rights and returns on investments. Why are you cheering on poor governance, instead of suggesting that they could become wealthier sooner by accelerating their move up the Kuznets curve (which is an artifact not only of preferences, but of insufficient information and laws that protect the elites over private property of the masses)?

By: Tom Tanton

Tom Tanton — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:15:46 +0000

The “human cost of coal” has been extensively studied as have most other energy (nay, all economic) technologies. That study are most often referred to as “externalities”–Guess what? The economic ‘costs’ of coal are mostly, if not completely, offset by the economic benefits. The negative externalities are NOT enough to offset the higher cost premiums of technologies like wind that never quite mature (most likely because of the heavy per unit subsidy they’ve become dependent on after 35+ years.)
Now let’s see about human costs–in countries with coal (or nuclear or any meaningful) baseload power isn’t the average life span about twice that of folks living in countries with no or primitive energy? Aren’t THOSE folks also less educated, and less free? Do they even have 15 minutes a day of “leisure time”?Aren’t those folks also burdened with spending every daylight hour finding a piece of wood (or dung) to cook their measly daily bread and using unsanitary water to boot?
I don’t believe Rob is ignoring the costs of coal. I believe Sir you’re ignoring the economic and human benefits of coal and modern energy.

By: TokyoTom

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:58:58 +0000

Andrew, the question is NOT whether “coal is it better than (essentially) nothing?”, just as it is not whether wind or any other energy source is perfect or preferable.

The question is whether those who engage in economic activities are bearing the costs or risks of those activities, or whether those activities appear relatively preferable to the people involved because they are able to shift damages, costs, risks and/or responsibilities for consequences to others.

True libertarians insist that individuals (and firms) bear full responsibility for harms caused to others; some in fact insist that those who are harmed without their consent have the right to use courts to enjoin the damaging activity. Maybe this all seems a little quaint to you?

My point is simply that Rob is ignoring, rather obviously and perhaps deliberately, the human costs of the use of coal.

By: Bob Koss

Bob Koss — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:38:59 +0000

Bonneville Power Authority in the northwest had a stretch in January of 11.5 straight days when their wind generation was less than 3% of rated capacity. They also say 23% of the time over the last year they generated at less than 3% of capacity.

Fossil fuel or nuclear baseload will always be required to ensure reliability.

There are many wind generation graphs downloadable from this link. http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/default.aspx