A free-market energy blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Category — International

Turbines on Trial: Animal Miscarriages in Denmark (inconvenient fact for wind cronyists?)

“Politicians, and wind industry shills who … deny the risks to health, are now liable to be successfully sued by wind farm victims. And so are governments, as they still refuse to measure infrasound emitted by modern wind turbines.”

In Denmark last month, 1,600 animals were born prematurely at a mink farm. Many had deformities, and most were dead on arrival. The lack of eyeballs was the most common malformation. Veterinarians ruled out food and viruses as possible causes. The only thing different at the farm since last year has been the installation of four large wind turbines only 328 meters away.

The wind farm consists of four 3 MW turbines, VESTAS model V112, reaching out to 140 meters in height at the tip of the blades. When they became operative last fall, a first mishap was reported by the mink farmer at a parliamentary committee on wind farms in January this year. [1] 

The World Council for Nature (WCFN) reported the incident earlier: [Read more →]

June 13, 2014   3 Comments

Repsol, Burned in Argentina, Comes to Alaska (but will the state’s tax reform survive referendum?)

Would you rather invest your money in a safe or an unsafe place? Spanish oil and gas company Repsol, the 15th largest hydrocarbon entity in the world, has answered that question by shifting its attention from Argentina to Alaska and other areas inside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Background

In 1998 Repsol paid $13 billion for nearly 60% of YPF, the Argentine oil company.  In 2010, Repsol discovered a significant oil shale play in an area called Vaca Muerta. All seemed well for the investor and for locals for greater economic activity and more energy.

But in 2011, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner nationalized 51 percent of YPF, leaving Repsol with 6.4 percent ownership . Repsol wants $10.5 billion in compensation; Argentina’s most recent offer is $1.5 billion. There is a chance that Repsol could get less or nothing.

Production has declined with the fight, eight percent in 2012 alone. The EU, UK, Mexico, Chile and Colombia have condemned Argentina’s action, as has the U.S. State Department.

Senate Bill 21: Alaska Oil Open for Business

In 2011, Repsol acquired a large lease position in Alaska given the rich prospecting and the upside of positive tax reform in the state. The latter occurred in mid-2013 with the passage of Senate Bill 21, the More Alaskan Production Act, signed into law by Governor Sean Parnell.

The pro-reform, pro-production bill, while an improvement over the prior regime, is still complicated. The new law: [Read more →]

October 25, 2013   No Comments

Dear Australia: Replace the Carbon Tax with . . . NOTHING (don’t cream consumers at the credit casino)

“Australia’s proposed Emissions Trading System is a variable and unpredictable carbon tax…. ETS is complex in operation; encourages brokers, lawyers and speculators; and will drain our money to middlemen and into the European carbon credit casino. And it will create a growing army of vested interests who will forever oppose its abolition.”

Australia’s destructive carbon tax is in full political play this election season. “If this election is about anything, it is about the carbon tax,” opposition leader Tony Abbott stated this week. “Getting rid of the carbon tax is fundamental to our plan for a stronger economy.”

At his candidacy’s home page, Abbott states (and promises):

Repealing the Carbon Tax will ease cost of living pressures on families, help small business and restore confidence to the economy.

On day one, the Finance Minister will notify the Clean Energy Finance Corporation that it should suspend its operations and instruct the Department of Finance to prepare legislation to permanently shut-down the Corporation.

I expect that the Parliament will respect the mandate of the people and repeal the Carbon Tax. To oppose the mandate of a government elected on a platform of abolishing the Carbon Tax would be as reprehensible as the [Julia] Gillard Government’s action to introduce a Carbon Tax without a mandate from the people.

Unlike the Prime Minister, I mean what I say: there will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead.

Repeal, Don’t Replace

But Abbott’s forward steps are joined by a step back. “As soon as the Carbon Tax is repealed, the Environment Minister will introduce legislation to enact the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan on climate change and carbon emissions,” he promises. [Read more →]

August 7, 2013   1 Comment

Ontario’s Green Energy Act: Ill Wind All Around

The Fraser Institute recently published a study examining the impacts of green energy policies inOntario,Canada. The summary of the study, which was written by Fraser Institute Senior Fellow Ross McKitrick, is below.

———————

The Ontario Green Energy and Green Economy Act (herein the GEA) was passed in May 2009 with the purpose of addressing environmental concerns and promoting economic growth inOntario. Its centerpiece is a schedule of subsidized electricity purchase contracts called Feed-in-Tariffs (FITs) that pro­vide long-term guarantees of above-market rates for power generated by wind turbine farms, solar panel installations, bio-energy plants and small hydroelec­tric generators. Development of these power sources was motivated in part by a stated goal of closing the Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants.

This report investigates the effect of the GEA on economic competi­tiveness in Ontario. It focuses on three questions:

(1) Will the GEA mater­ially improve environmental quality inOntario?

(2) Is it a cost-effective plan for accomplishing its goals?

(3) Are the economic effects on households and leading economic sectors likely to be positive? The answer to each question is unambiguously negative. The specific findings of the report are as follows. [Read more →]

May 9, 2013   5 Comments

Germany’s Unaffordable Wind Power ($0.07/kWh surcharge for $0.20/kWh power, anyone?)

[Update: Germany Stops Fighting Arithmetic and Ramps Up Construction of Economically Sensible Power Generation]

Two years ago we looked at the claim that wind generation can save money for power pool customers.  We found that the supposed savings could be realized only if the elephant in the room – the above-market feed-in tariffs – were ignored.

In other words, the total amount spent on electricity purchases from a power pool was augmented by the additional amounts consumers pay to fund the feed-in-tariff (FIT).  As long as wind generators can bid a low price but receive the higher FIT, then they have an incentive to underbid, thereby reducing pool prices, but not overall costs.

In addition, we looked at what an economically least cost system might look like in Germany over the next ten years.  We found that it features more coal and lignite, keeps most nuclear plants operating, and builds new gas-fired plants.

The annualized differential in total costs for Germany between the no-nukes, no coal and lots of wind forecast pushed by Germany’s Greens and an economically least cost expansion plan amounts to more than $120 billion over ten years and perhaps as much as $200 billion.  A lot of money, in other words.

Update: Since these two posts were published in 2010 Master Resource contributors have made a strong case that Germany’s overinvestment in wind and solar has harmed the nation financially without any compensating improvement in electricity supply Compounding the overreliance on wind is the planned phase-out of the country’s nuclear power plants – baseload power that will need to be replaced with something other than wind.

It now appears that Germany has made peace with mathematics and economics, and not just in the energy sphere.  The country has embarked on a major effort to build reliable power plants for the future. [Read more →]

February 21, 2013   20 Comments

BC Hydro’s Billion Dollar Climate Bill

“BC Hydro is forecast to lose one billion dollars over the next four years, as a result of the pursuit of green electricity…. The public policies that politicians of all stripes have imposed on us to address climate change will haunt us for years.”

British Columbia, Canada’s westernmost province, is blessed with an abundant and almost unlimited capacity to generate hydroelectric power. This capacity is the result of the farsighted policies of past BC provincial governments that invested in, or encouraged investment in, a series of hydroelectric mega-projects in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. British Columbia has enjoyed the benefits of inexpensive, clean electricity ever since.

Apart from stints of economic contraction that, coincidentally, accompany BC’s infrequent brushes with the government’s socialist New Democratic Party (NDP), BC’s economy has generally boomed in large part as a direct result of our hydro electric capacity.

Canada has a history of creating public utilities to generate and transmit energy, which for British Columbia is BC Hydro. BC Hydro is highly regulated with respect to rates and operations and traditionally operated as an independent, apolitical entity.

That changed when politicians from all parties, driven by the media and statist intellectuals, recognized the increased revenue potential from surcharges and “green” taxes based on the notion of CO2-induced climate change. BC Hydro became an instrument for public policy, and a new way for government indirectly to fund green energy initiatives.

BC Hydro is forecast to lose one billion dollars over the next four years, as a result of the pursuit of green electricity. [Read more →]

February 19, 2013   10 Comments

Italy’s Solar Bust: Just Another Data Point

“Intermittent generation may be consistent with a liberalized market, as long as generators are required to bear all the direct and indirect costs of their production. Otherwise, competition is doomed to become an irrelevant feature of a system that becomes more and more politically driven.”

Can an intermittent source be integrated into a liberalized electricity market?

Yes, it is technically feasible, but no otherwise. If subsidies enter into play, intermittent generation might undermine the very design of the market. This is what happened in Italy with the boom of solar power, which last year alone skyrocketed from 3.47 GW to 12.75 GW, with the annual cost of subsidies increasing from 800 million euro in 2010 to 3.9 billion euro in 2011 (about $975 million to $4.75 billion at today’s exchange rate).

These very generous incentives (which have been cut back in the last year for complex legal reasons) led to an over-investment in solar power in the country.

Perfect Storm” for Malinvestment

Italy’s perfect storm of so little electricity at so much cost had three causes: [Read more →]

July 20, 2012   5 Comments

Minerals Boom in Saskatchewan (Expansion, not depletion, from new capital and the ‘ultimate resource’)

“Human beings create more than they destroy.”

- Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2 (Princeton, N.Y.: Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 580.

When the tide comes in, all boats rise.

Saskatchewan’s mining industry has begun a period of unprecedented growth that promises to last for decades.  And while Prince Albert is not at the mouth of the bay, we are in the bay, and our boats are rising as well.  Prince Albert is seeing record building permits issued, but few local items to exactly explain why.

With a current tax incentive and confidence in the future, PotashCorp began a series of expansions seeing $5.8 billion being poured into Saskatchewan.  It is the “mother of all economic stimulus packages,” seeing spending, on a per capita basis, double the American and triple the Canadian governments’ stimulus packages.  Better yet, this investment is new money into our province, money generated from other countries, so we did not see the debt burden that others’ have. [Read more →]

March 15, 2012   No Comments

U.S. Oil Exports: Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly from Economist Donald Boudreaux (Keystone XL a-okay)

“[T]here is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.”

- Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson. quoted here.

At Cafe Hayek, economist Donald Boudreaux, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, wrote an open letter to Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s opposition to exporting U.S. oil to other countries. O”Reilly has a populist streak, and he is prone to seeing the seen and not the unseen when it comes to economics, a sin indeed to economics as a science.

Professor Boudreaux is a master educator and prolific letter writer on behalf of common-sense economics. Read his explanation about why the namesake of the O’Reilly Factor 1) gets his economics wrong and 2) fails to see the implication of his own argument to himself as exporting his services

Dear Mr. O’Reilly:

You’re all lathered up because U.S. oil companies are exporting much of their refined gasoline and heating oil to other countries and thereby putting upward pressure on fuel prices here in America.  You conclude that these companies have a moral obligation not to export so much….

Economics

First some economics.  Selling in the global market encourages firms to build larger factories and refineries that, in turn, enable outputs to be produced at lower costs per unit.  So while in the short-run rising exports of oil products can cause fuel prices here to spike, the long-run effect might well be lower prices because of larger, more-efficient scales of operation.  [Read more →]

February 28, 2012   3 Comments

Petroleum Development in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Setting the Record Straight (Part III: Did International Oil Firms Despoil Eastern Ecuador’s Environment?)

[Ed. Note: This concludes Douglas Southgate's review of Ecuador’s claims of “reckless environmental damage” against Chevron, and through them international oil companies (IOCs). Part I challenged the facade that Ecuador's passive view of its own resources led to exploitation by Big Oil; Part II examined the economic benefits of fossil-fuel development in the country.

This post refutes the charge that environmental damage is the responsibility of foreign firms alone. Indeed, it is the state company, Petroecuador, that was chiefly responsible for environmental despoliation in the Amazon region. These postings are timely in light of a recent article in The New Yorker, [1] a new book about the construction of a trans-Andean pipeline, [2] and other literature in which IOCs’ actions in Ecuador are criticized.

Billions for Government, Nada Environment

Opponents of petroleum development in the Amazonian lowlands (Oriente) of eastern Ecuador maintain that damage to the region’s natural resources has been the result of IOCs’ dominance of the country. But in the first of three postings about the anti-oil campaign, I show that the Ecuadorian government actually exercised considerable power in its dealings with foreign companies. Soon after petroleum was discovered in the Oriente, Ecuadorian authorities obliged IOCs to spend tens of millions of dollars on transportation infrastructure in order to facilitate colonization, in which the firms had no real interest. [Read more →]

February 17, 2012   3 Comments