[Ed. note: On August 27, 1997, the Cato Institute published Policy Analysis #280, which criticized the government push to subsidize politically correct renewable energy, particularly solar and windpower. Today and tomorrow, different authors revisit what was the free-market-movement’s first full-scale rebuttal, on economic and environmental grounds, to so-called “green” energy policy .]
“The policy implication of [a thorough examination of renewable technologies] is, stop throwing good money after bad. All renewable energy subsidies from all levels of government should cease.”
Such is the conclusion voiced today by a rising chorus of energy experts, economists, even politicians, after many years of failed renewables projects and more expensive utility bills in the growing shadow of a $16 trillion national debt ($140,000 per taxpayer). But, remarkably, fifteen years have passed since Rob Bradley crafted this statement for the Cato Institute as the bottom line of his comprehensive six-part policy alarum, Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’‘
An Opening Shot
Few knew about or shared Bradley’s concerns at the time. Even more remarkably, his analysis was at odds with the policy direction of his employer, Enron, as Ken Lay’s political capitalism began promoting renewable investment as sustainable tax shelters.
By taking his concerns public, even as a scholar, Bradley risked much as Enron’s director of public policy analysis. Sparks flew as executives within Enron Wind Corporation digested Bradley’s external work (see these internal memos).
Bradley’s one-person stand also challenged the (Enron-directed) energy policies of Texas governor George W. Bush (and what would be the policies of his successor, Rick Perry). For Bradley, there was indeed a problem in Houston….
Then-Now Issues
Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’ articulated and advanced a number of themes now commonplace in any conversation about the renewables du jour, wind and solar.
Consider the currency of only a few of Bradley’s bon mots:
* “The need for more subsidy continues.”
* the folly of levelized costing: “Head-to-head comparison of wind power and other generation alternatives for new generation capacity is mostly a hypothetical debate.”
* “Wind power has proven itself to be a perpetual ‘infant industry,’ with its competitive viability always somewhere on the horizon. It is erroneous to conclude that even if wind is not competitive now, it soon will be.”
* “Because wind is an intermittent (unpredictable) generation source, it has less economic value than fuel sources that can deliver a steady, predictable source of electricity.”
* “On the environmental side, wind power is noisy, land- intensive, materials-intensive (concrete and steel, in particular), a visual blight, and a hazard to birds. The first four environmental problems could be ignored, but the indiscriminate killing of thousands of birds–including endangered species protected by federal law–has created controversy and confusion within the mainstream environmental community.”
* “A jobs-creation rationale for wind power is marshaled by supporters, almost as a last line of defense. Subsidizing renewable energy for its own sake is akin to “creating” jobs by digging holes and filling them back up.”
* The futility of conservation policy–See how he eviscerates Amory Lovins’s Negawatts.
* Asking the question: “Has Natural Gas Made Renewable Energy Subsidies Obsolete?”
My Discovery
I came upon Not Clean, Not ‘Green’ late in my own arc of discovery about what I have called the wind mess. Glenn Schleede thought it would resonate because of my interest in the entire awful scope of the renewables enterprise.
It did. And then some. Few have distilled the essence of the issue as well, even after all these years. Consider this from 1997:
“Why have so many eco-energy planners clung to wind power, a land-intensive, unsightly, noisy, and wildlife-unfriendly source of energy that accounted for only 1/10 of 1 percent of total U.S. power generation in 1995 (3.2 of 3,365 billion kWh) and 1/5 of 1 percent of the total U.S. electricity capacity of 770 GW?”
Happiest of Birthdays to Not Clean, Not’ Green’! Though it has had many unhappy returns in an era of corrupt energy policy, its time will come when renewable-energy development subsidies get the boot.
————–
Tomorrow, Tom Tanton and Robert Bradley will share their recollections collaborating on the research behind “Not Cheap, Not ‘Green'”.
[…] MasterResource Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Clean energy, Environmentalism and tagged energy infrastructure, energy subsidies, government subsidies, really stupid idea, solar power, Wind power. Bookmark the permalink. ← New geoengineering scheme proposes CO2-laden snow factories in Antarctica […]
[…] “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’” Turns 15 […]
Fifteen years later, Rob Bradley’s “Not Cheap, Not Green” is more timely than ever. A testament both to Rob’s foresight and the timelessness of free-market principles.
I read “Not Cheap, Not Green” in 1997 — the year the Kyoto Protocol reared its ugly head. The essay made a powerful case that politically-correct renewables were not commercially viable and could not replace fossil fuels. It warned that Kyoto-style eco-energy planning was a gigantic misadventure — another example of the fatal conceit.
Many of us of ‘Cooler Heads’ were better armed and more confident thanks to “Not Cheap, Not Green.” The years have borne out the correctness of the analysis. Kudos, Rob, and thanks!
[…] Read the Full Article Here on MasterResource.org […]
Renewable energy does not exist because if it did exist, then it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
One of the latest claims for renewables is that promoters claim they do not impact water usage like coal or 2nd gen nuclear or perhaps 3rd gen nuclear.
Yet my assumption is that since wind and solar require a larger infrastructure emplacement to even compete with coal or nuclear that translate in much more mining- smelting- and manufacturing which probably means lots of water to support those activities along with exorbitant co2 production.
Does anyone have facts about that?
[…] the Cato Institute, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’.” (reviewed here). In the last two decades, I have watched the grass-root environmentalists push back against […]
[…] It is also noteworthy that the bill neglects to define what clean energy is. Most certainly, any direct use of fossil fuels won’t be deemed clean, despite any adverse environmental consequences of renewables. […]
[…] reporters who, for example, I never here from, despite authoring a 1997 piece (“Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’) that basically identified what Michael Moore et al. uncovered two decades […]
[…] Gibbs’s takeaways are filled with Malthusian limits-to-growth bullets, but he is spot-on that “green” technologies are eco-sinful, something I documented in my 1997 study, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green.‘” […]
[…] Gibbs’s takeaways are filled with Malthusian limits-to-growth bullets, but he is spot-on that “green” technologies are eco-sinful, something I documented in my 1997 study, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green.‘” […]