Cato Institute Speaks to “Renewables – Following the Money”
I’m interviewing Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow at the right wing think tank Cato Institute when I’m in Washington D.C. next week, and I’ve spent a good part of the day preparing, checking out a number of Mr. Taylor’s writings and speeches, like the one linked here.
Yikes. This guy is brilliant, and he’s a terrific presenter, but he and I disagree on practically everything. Of course, that’s the point; I selected him specifically because of my duty to maintain balance and fair-mindedness in my writing. I know I’ve interviewed a few economists and social observers whose perspectives are left of center, and I really want to get a few decidedly conservative viewpoints here.
But I can see that Mr. Taylor’s going to give me the whole nine yards of his attack-dog refutation of what we proponents of renewables are trying to do, and so I’m wondering how to play this conversation. I think I’m simply going to take his talking points one by one and just discuss them calmly. Here are a few:
• Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. True. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The reason to go to renewables isn’t because they’re cheap, it’s because it will bring about the cessation of a great deal of horrors, e.g., ecological damage we’re wreaking, and it has the potential to become cheap when scaled. I note that Jerry didn’t mention the environment once in his talk linked above, and I wonder how it’s possible that a man of this stature and intelligence could have missed that point.
• Renewable energy has limitations: it’s intermittent, diffuse, land-intensive, etc. All true. Again, there is no free lunch. You either put a value on human health, the natural environment, the lives of our soldiers, national security – or you don’t. Of course, I’ll find a less insulting way to express this. But because of the way all these different points sum together and create enormous value for the U.S. as a country, I see the support of renewable energy as the single most patriotic act anyone could undertake.
• Renewable energy is only viable with subsidies. That’s true for now, but that doesn’t mean it’s of no value. And let’s not forget that Big Oil gets several times more subsidies than renewables. Can’t we knock this off? Oil is a 90-year-old industry, and by far the most profitable one on the planet. Does it really need the transfer of wealth from U.S. tax-payers to its shareholders to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year? This is another point that goes unmentioned in his speeches.
• Dependence on foreign oil is bad, but we don’t use oil to make electricity. True, but oil represents 98% of the energy we use for transportation, which is about 30% of our total energy consumption, and his arguments against electric transportation are spurious; e.g., the “facts” he presents on battery technology are incorrect.
• We’re not using any of these: renewables, energy storage, synthetic fuels, electric transportation, smart-grid, etc., to any appreciable degree. That is, to be sure, the sad truth, but, though lots of people say this, I’ve never been able to see the relevance. It’s like saying in 1950 that we shouldn’t build the interstate highway system because people aren’t very mobile. It’s the equivalent of saying in 1990 that we shouldn’t build the Internet because there are no users online. We built the highway system, and it created great mobility; then we built the Internet, and it has transformed the lives of billions of people. In both cases, the U.S. government made the right call — though for some reason we can’t conceive of that ever happening again.
• Job creation in renewable energy is overhyped, and tends to overlook all the “brown energy” jobs that will be lost. I haven’t read all the reports on this subject, but this doesn’t really seem true from what I’ve seen. The first interview in my book “Is Renewable Really Doable?” with Dr. Robert Pollin convinces me that there will be a huge net job boom associated with all this – especially energy efficiency.
• For the U.S. to come anywhere close to meeting its renewable energy targets, massive government support will be required, similar to our putting a man on the moon. I actually don’t deny that, but I’m not sure, given the imperative, that it’s such a bad thing.
I’m glad this is the first of my (three) interviews that day. I will remain calm, as I always do, but I’m going with decaf that morning, as it doesn’t appear that I’ll need a chemical stimulant to get my heart started.
Dealing with a few of his talking points:
The assumption that we’d be doing RE if it were not more expensive than fossil energy is not entirely correct. The underlying assumption here is that energy is an efficient market. It’s not. It’s heavily regulated, and has many market barriers. Energy efficiency is cheaper than fossil fuel… you should ask him why EE uptake is so slow.
Part of the reason RE is more “expensive” than fossil is because our current energy system was designed for fossil fuels. RE suffers from a square peg round hole problem.
– Not intermittent. Variable. A portfolio of diverse RE is always generating to some extent.
– Land intensive: It does not have to be. Rooftop solar. Wind farms that are also normal farms. And RE only takes land out of commission while it’s producing power. Mountaintop removal is much more permanent, especially when you start considering the damage done to a wider area through mining runoff.
– Jobs- see my article on green jobs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2011/09/28/the-microeconomics-of-green-jobs/
– Much government support for renewables and EE could come from reducing non-market barriers to EE. For instance, streamlined permitting. This sort of support should be up the Cato intitute’s ally because it makes the market more efficient.
Great comments! When we look at the energy situation we need to keep the facts in mind. The first being that there is no lack of energy in the universe, all that there is in the universe is energy and information in a constant state of movement and expansion. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only it’s from can be changed. For a lack of better terms we need to get both the left and the right to stop bashing one another it is a waste of time. We have met the enemy and it is us! As human beings we have two natures one is real and one is not: here is a hint the ego is not real.
There is a husband and wife team that has for the most part been ignored that have the answers to our energy needs. They worked with Einstein and Tesla, there names are Walter and Lao Russell http://www.philosophy.org/
Their work needs to be rediscovered and promoted. Thank you for your time.
Craig, you and Tom make some quite excellent points. I especially like Tom’s observation that our current energy, transportation, and product stream infrastructure is heavily biased toward fossil fuels – not only because that’s what we’ve been using, but also because efforts to change have been delayed and resisted by interests in the status quo. This was seen as early as oilman Rockefeller’s support of prohibition in order to hamstring Henry Ford’s efforts to flex-fuel his engines to run on ethanol.
I’d like to elaborate a little further in response to two of Jerry’s points.
“Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels.”
As you touched on in your response to the first and second of his points, Craig, the extent to which that’s true or false depends on how you do the accounting and what you value in the equation.
Examples are legion. Fossil fuels have a great many direct health impacts for which the costs number in the millions and perhaps billions of dollars: everything from increased asthma rates and severity near heavily trafficked motorways, to increased levels of highly mercury in our biosphere and food chain from coal burned from here to China, to the impacts of climate disruption that range from the expansion of the range of malaria vectors to massive crop failures.
That’s without remotely addressing the costs in life-productivity and infrastructure lost (mostly in victim nations) and potential beneficial investment wasted (mostly by us here in the US) as a result of military action to enforce the access and control by “The West” that two-thirds of the world’s oil now being sucked out from under foreign feet in the Middle East.
“Renewable energy is only viable with subsidies.” Again, it depends on how you run the numbers. As you’ve pointed out so often and so correctly, Craig, if all the costs of ancient sunlight (to include the above examples and more) were completely internalized by those industries that extract and deliver the stuff, renewables would already be extremely competitive – and the fossil diggers would need all the massive subsidies they have for so long received to merely approach a break-even point.
Why hasent anyone brought up the cost we have paid and continue to pay for refineries, gas stations well testing for leakage oversight for that the cost of Oil Tankers etc. If all that structure was required for Solar “They” would be screaming OMG no way. all those auto parts stores to stock fuel filters motor Oil etc. Flip the coin and they say we need all those jobs. Never do the nay sayers consent to Jobs from RE. Biased and prejudiced.
I read a story about the big pipeline only offering 300 or so real full time jobs. 20,000 jobs was the other report. I wont go into GHG issues but I will go into the toxic mess Oil creates, this is not in full media, I thought Left wing extreme media ruled, if so more facts would be prominent and less conflicting reports.
Given all of the major points he either overlooks (fossil fuel externalities, costs of war to defend access to oil) or gets wrong (jobs created, jobs lost in oil, etc), why did you claim this Jerry fellow is smart? It is the same stupid thinking that got us here. I used to think conservatism was a point-of-view, I now realize it is a personality disorder rooted in denial of reality and wishful thinking.
Craig,
The public are part of the problem because they are slow to change. Here is an example: We have been running fleets of buses on CNG for many years. It is less expensive than gasoline and less polluting. Some car makers have offered cars that run on CNG and they had a hard time getting the public to except the idea of saving money and polluting less for a slight inconvenience.
This will be changing soon as people like T Boone Pickens are going to push using natural gas for cars and generating electricity.
As for efficiency; there is a lot of room for improvement when you consider well over 50% of the BTU value of fuel is lost in the generating process. By using natural gas and BIO Gas and improving efficiency great strides will be made in bringing down the cost of electricity generation while reducing pollution.
Estimates indicate that these systems will be able to compete with the cost of coal fired electricity.
Craig,
I always say to an conservative we do not agree that there is global warming but” Air is not supposed to be orange”. Why do people like to go the wilderness areas and breath deeply of clean fresh air. Just in the last eight years we have coming down to Phoenix, my wife and I have seen the smog worsen. I saw the same thing when I moved to the LA Basin in the 60’s and left in the 70’s. You could see the mountains around the valley. Why is is China with terrible pollution is now the leader in solar? Did they come to their senses quicker than us? Are they smarter than us or they not controlled by moneyed interests? As you mature you think what are you leaving for grandchildren? Your word, your reputation and your love both for them, the world and the people around you.
Craig – One one hand, I’m proud of you for having the courage and moxie to take on this interview. On the other hand, I’m embarrassed that you cede every point in the discussion. To argue “true but…” is not effective, and it’s simply not accurate. A few of the other comments address externalities of military costs. There are many others, and they are difficult to quantify. You likely lack the endowment dollars of a Cato shill, so you really are walking into a lion’s den. A smart guy like this has a staff full of other smart people, all of whom get paid lots of money (from vested interests) to spout half truths and untruths, with a goal of embarrassing and destroying good people like you who work for the greater good.
Craig,
Land intensive: And the tar sands isn’t?
Loss of brown jobs: How many jobs does importing Saudi oil bring, compared to making and installing PV, wind, bio and other technologies. The US has lots of land, it is a very low density populated country compared to Europe, and they seem to be managing. Land is not the issue.
Every decade or so, a disruptive technology challenges the status quo. As you mentioned, the internet, oil, flight, computers, all challenged the norm and won, bring the US a commercial advantage.
The US is an intellectually rich country, it makes a great deal of its revenue from IP and technology. By leading the way in RE, the US can add to that portfolio. Otherwise, it can miss the race altogether, which is not in keeping with what we have come to expect from that country. I cannot believe anyone in a “think” tank would rail against generating revenue from intellectual property.
And don’t worry to much about holding back progress, if the US does not invent and refine the new technologies to solve the energy and pollution issues, China will.
“Renewable energy is only viable with subsidies.”
Everything you and your interview subject speak is US based. In the Caribbean, we are seeing electricity rates of 43c/KWh. Solar PV electricity and Solar Thermal is now way cheaper than utility electricity. We have no subsidies, in fact we rarely have Government support for the sourcing of electricity from residential solar systems. That’s hard to believe but true. It is amazing how short sighted the established thinking is.
In the long run, it does not matter what these intellectual right wing thinkers say, the scientific and engineering communities are not waiting for permission from them. They are busy working on solutions that will earn their companies a place in history and protect the US’s position as a world leader in technology.
Chris Mason
NABCEP certified PV installer
http://www.cometenergysystems.com
Dear Craig,
I would ask him if he enjoys breathing, is it essential and would he like his descendants to be able to breath too.
What about the land oil gas and coal has made unusable for anything productive the potential impact of solar and wind is considerably less.
Then what about the ocean wind-farms how much land do they take up. The EPA sponsoring renewable energy on sites where the land is destroyed by Mining and Industry without regard for the environment.
Oil is finite and will become harder and more expensive to produce at greater and greater risks to the environment.
What if renewable energy is sufficiently developed so it can reach parity with oil and coal why not if the pollution will be reduced.
How can he defend poisoning the earth. Roy Wagner
Hey Roy, et al, It was stated above; Conservatism is an insane mind pathology. It is based on the idea that the established past, no matter the long term viability, is all that matters now. Ego’s embrace form and fear content. In the world, form is paramount over content and those who can master the world of form will dominate. Yet the ego’s tolerance for pain and death is high, but not without limit. …………… The conservative ideology seems similar to the idea that punching someone in the face is better than a valid argument……… All in all, there are many wonderful comments and viewpoints above. I can’t help thinking that the neocon minions are only the mouthpieces for the puppetmasters of what or who they believe their source of safety and well being really is.
……So, as long as amassing untaxable wealth is the main goal of a corrupted social system, the neocons will seem “very smart” to many. …..Democracy itself is not such a lofty goal as much as human rights for everyone.
……Government without honest and transparent regulation is soon corrupted. Perhaps any law enabling de-regulation needs approval by a greater majority than previously established.
Cameron makes a good point alluding to the real price of oil (or a gallon of gas). Bucky Fuller mentions this in his book ‘The Critical Path.’ Essentially he lays out all the millions of years it takes for oil to form and what it takes to extract it…etc etc and concludes that people could be saving millions of dollars a day by staying at home. Bringing up the REAL PRICE of oil would be very important in this conversation. Definitely do your due diligence here.
I’m not sure if the guy you’re interviewing considers himself libertarian (many “right wingers” are actually quite statist) or not. If he does, he should at the very least agree that the amount of subsidies going toward the oil companies should be curtailed. Perhaps you can find some common ground there. You see, I personally believe renewable energy and libertarian philosophy actually could and should go quite well together. In other words, not just getting centalized government out of their lives but also getting centralized utilities, centralized banks, centralized food production out of their lives also. Yeah, i guess I hold the rare view of “Green Libertarian.” Anyway, good luck with the interview.
My home solar array is my “victory garden”. Self sufficiency was and is patriotic. It is my way of giving my kids cleaner air while spending less of our monthly budget on the utility bill and keeping more for the family. Once installed it generates power for years, like fifty or more. How can this not be viable? It may be more expensive than a railroad car of coal but I will not poison the air as I extract my electricity. The coal will need to be replenished long before the solar array will need any attention. Is the Cato institute warning against the dire consequences of growing food at home?
Limitations? Everything has limitations. We have adapted to the limitations of fossil fuels. We think it is normal to burn things to convert energy. It is not. Look up from your desk and think about how absurd it is to block the sunlight from your window and use instead the much lower quality of artificial light. Our eyes are tuned to work best with sunlight yet we still strain them every day as if this adaptation did us no harm. Gas has a limitation, we have to burn it, then breathe what is left. Water has a limitation, there is less available to drink as fossil fuel extraction operations are poisoning more.
You may ask mr Taylor if he is a drug addict. If not, then why he promotes that type of self-destructive behaviour for our society as a whole.
Greg. It seems to me there are a of of Green chatter on what is lead to be believed is a real concern for green technology. My company, although new has a proposal that can eliminate 40-50% carbon emissions the first year and reduce fuel consumption by half on a world scale. I have sent offering to many people, only a hand full are serious about going green while the syndicated ersatz green are educated only to complain and condemn what we the people have allowed by blind following and play on words. the same BLAB I hear everyday is nothing more than political tripe. Sincerely stated. James P. Beyor. Founder of the new Vortex Seadrive. siple, green in real terms and water friendly in every way. If you want to know more. ASK.
Your comments dismiss energy storage systems as being irrelevant but in fact such systems currently provide cooling and heating for many millions of square feet of building space and have a much larger potential than more familiar energy sources like solar PV. We waste immense amounts of electricity to cool our buildings in the summer and then waste fossil fuels to heat them in the winter. We waste most of the energy that is used to run the activities in those buildings. Storage is economically viable and it delivers the energy when it is needed.
You are right there.
In some climates, ice could be produced in the winter time to provide cooling during the summer. The ice could be produced in underground vats designed not to be damaged by freezing. Ammonia could be used to transfer heat from the vats to the atmosphere thereby causing the water to freeze. Calculating the amount of water which would have to be frozen should be a straight-forward matter.
Large buildings which are well insulated actually require very little heating in winter since unavoidable sources of heat in the buildings provide almost enough heat. For homes, that is not completely possible, but in general, if a home were sufficiently well insulated, solar heat could be sufficient.
On the other hand, solar generated electricity is not practical as a major source of power for large prosperous countries, nor is wind power. Unfortunately, we will probably have to depend on nuclear power for that, but not using our current nuclear technology since it has too many problems to be acceptable.
Frank
Large buildings and buildings that house heat generating equipment like IT electronics presently dump far more heat into the atmosphere than they require for heating on an annual basis. In principle a large building can provide enough net heat for up to 1000 surrounding homes if they share a heat store. In practice such sharing may be administratively difficult, in which case it is more practical to chill the store during the winter using either the ground or bottom lakewater as the thermal storage medium. Such systems commonly use ice tanks to handle the diurnal variations. There are many seasonal storage systems in operation now and in countries that have wide seasonal temperature swings this could be the normal means of heating and cooling, saving thousands of petajoules of energy.
Dear Craig
I am glad you are having this conversation with Cato. It is important to find common ground between liberals and conservatives on the issue of RE. I would stress biofuels, as the river of money flowing to unfriendly countries to pay oil is abhorrent to all political persuasions. I would also stress a gradual approach. Nothing damages the credibility of green advocates more than shrill arguments of imminent impending doom. Try emphasizing such practical steps such as moving from the internal combustion engine to the external combustion engine (www.cyclonepower.com) or using waste industrial gases for fuels (www.lanzatech.com) (www.dotyenergy.com) or the creation of transportation fuels from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) such as Enerkem, Coskata, IneosBio, Elementa, Plasco, Plasma2Energy. On the power generation side you could mention Hypersolar (using waste CO2 to produce synthetic natural gas) or hybrid micro-nuclear in conjunction with coal, natural gas or CSP (www.hybridpwr.com). Remember the old adage “Show me an agenda and it will lead you astray. Show me a technology and it will lead to prosperity.”
Craig,
You might add that the relative cost of a gallon of oil does not reflect the real costs of the defense industry to police the oil producing regions, which would add $5/gal. This is still not the true cost of gasoline. Environmental externalities would need to be added as well as a carbon tax, which the oil industry has fought so hard. Also the disinformation by the API to create the appearance of a debate on climate change to delay and miss inform the public as to the real analysis of science. These are items along with the large tax subsidies that the oil industry gets. The cost of nuclear does not include waste disposal or the large disaster liabilities. The real cost per kw would be higher than RE if subsidies and liabilities were added in. The availability of the oil giants to use their own capital in the billions also is not available to RE.
RE as distributed generation has real value. Just some other thoughts.
To a large degree, our foreign policy is determined by our need to import oil. Our dependence on imported oil may actually be the most important threat to our national security.
Regarding nuclear, there is no waste problem. There is actually very little waste; the problem is political. What is considered waste is actually mostly unused fuel.
Our current nuclear technology, which is a serious mistake, is horrendously inefficient. In enriching uranium we discard most of the uranium as waste. Then, our inefficient nuclear reactors extract less than 1% of the available energy from the fuel and the rest, although it contains oodles of unused energy, is discarded as waste. We are using uranium so wastefully that it could never provide for the world’s energy requirements for very long. If our current wasteful nuclear technology is permitted to expand enough to provide for our energy requirements, it will die out when we have exhausted the supply of uranium.
There are uranium nuclear technologies that would require only a tiny fraction as much uranium as we are now using and would generate only a tiny fraction as much waste. Moreover, they could use our current “waste” as fuel. Better yet, we could be using thorium instead of uranium, preferably using the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) which, in prototype form, has been successfully demonstrated.
Craig,
Your arguments are logical and will bode you well in your discussion. This guy is totally reactionary to the market and history and cannot picture anything else in the future. It would be fun to debate this guy in person. I wish you could do that in front of the audience on this link.
Craig,
As you know, I have done a considerable amount of research in the Energy Crisis in relation to our $882 billion problem with corrosion. Point, one barrel of oil equals the energy produced by 5 people working 40 hours a week, all year long or 25,000 man hours. There is no other energy source, except nuclear, that comes anywhere close. In my opinion, the only choice we have is to learn how to conserve but, this is counterproductive to our economic principals. Coating coating industry estimates we could save 25 to 30 percent of corrosion costs by better painting practices or $200 to $250 billion, how many new jobs would this create. How many other industries could be turn waste into work for the American labor force?
Jim Deardorff
Craig — thank you for an excellent article and for bringing this man to my attention. After watching his speech and reading your comments, I have two thoughts:
1. The reason he never mentions the environment is that, in the economic model of the world within which he operates, the model upon which he bases his entire career and expertise and his glib jokes at the expense of those less-informed about economics — this economic model upon which our industrial dream-world is built DOES NOT factor in the very environment upon which it all rests. The environment is an “externality,” as is human happiness, social justice and other such irrelevancies.
2. People who have deep expertise in one area, such as economics or law or medicine or engineering, tend to see the world through only that lens. They also believe that it is all the Truth that is needed. In other words, the complexities of any given situation are reduced to their own models and anything that does not fit that model is considered irrelevant, silly, or wrong. I would be interested in his response to the observation that the scale and magnitude of our culture’s industrialization is unprecedented. The effects of our activities on the biology, hydrology and geology of this planet have never been seen before. No economic models, no matter how sophisticated, will be enough to purify soil and water that have been fouled by fracking chemicals or an atmosphere so full of CO2 from burning coal that it changes the climate.
Good luck w/ your interviews. Can’t wait to hear how it goes!
Craig: Would it help you to mention two important things:
a.- Renewables are good for the national economy: No oil imports and local free energy, local taxes= resources are used locally.
b.- Solar and wind, and hydro, don´t use water to produce energy (steam), potable water is another resource that´s becoming scarce and can´t be substituted.
There´s no way you can argue to that.
Definitely need to start by getting the facts right. About 17% of global electrical energy production last year was renewable. Another 14% was “effectively” renewable – nuclear, which is extremely competitive in some countries. The LCOE of wind and solar have dropped dramatically during the past three years…
I wouldn’t try to argue the jobs issue – he might be mostly right, and it’s a debate that should be taking place between unbiased leading economists, not advocates.
What would unquestionably lead to strong net domestic job creation is if we could start exporting massive quantities of liquid fuels made from CO2 and off-peak wind energy. That will eventually happen, as no other country has the requisite wind resource. Whether we’re 15 or 40 years away from that happening depends on how how long it takes for someone with high-level decision-making authority to appreciate this.
Well, as you know, I’m a big fan of what you’re doing at WindFuels: http://windfuels.com/. I would think a lot depends on your level of success in the lab developing these processes. I’m rooting for you, to be sure.
I’d add one other point. How does he justify continuing to operate old coal plants, ones that cannot be economically outfitted to stop emitting a really bad cocktail of soot, NO2 and SO2. These plants should have been retired years ago. The utilities know that. They won’t do it until they are forced to, and then they attack the EPA for trying to protect the regular folks that are harmed by this 3rd world type smog. How can he not consider this a subsidy of the coal industry of the worst order? How can he justify the premature loss of life due to asthma and heart disease??
The better comment is that renewables are for the moment strictly limited. In third world renewables are dominant, as they were in the nineteenth century, because nothing else is available, but they were not and are not used at the level we need to do in the western world. We could reach 20% renewables, with an intensive program, and if we removed all the direct and hidden subsidies for fossil fuels, then they would look better. This I think is the key weakness of the “economic realists”, that they don’t admit to the fact that our economics are totally skewed by various historical accidents, events and rules and do not in fact represent any deep reality. Ultimately, however, the point is that it is the “new carbon” and GHG issues which are critical. Without this issue we should simply use fossil fuels until they run out, and then move into the thorium economy, deep geothermal and perhaps if we invested something similar to the defense effort we might even crack fusion. Currently, it is not fossil fuel or renewables, but both for the foreseeable future, with if we are lucky a rethinking of the importance we give to energy. The alternative is that we will simply allow “market forces” (a euphemism for our deranged economic system) to encourage a serial exhaustion of various fossil fuels, starting with shale gas, and continue to accelerate the unpleasant and probably disastrous effects of climate change.
Craig – You might consider using what I consider to be a very compelling and profound statement by Peder Norby quoted from his piece, “Hidden Costs of Energy” in the Nov. 2011 CurrentEVents newsletter (www.electricauto.org). He states, “It takes more electricity to drive the average gasoline car 100 miles, than it does to drive an electric car 100 miles” and provides appropriate documentation. If this can be proven, it would not only put to rest the idea that elecric cars threaten the grid, but would provide a solid foundation for demonstrating that wider adoption of EV’s will actually reduce electricity demand; in addition to providing the additional benefits associated with not burning fossil fuels. This seems like a great rebuttal to the statement that we do not use oil to make electricity by pointing out that EV’s will not only reduce the use of fossil fuels, but would also save electricity.
The DOE’s Monthly Energy Report reveals that Renewables have already surpassed nuclear power for the production of electricity. The trend is clear… renewables are real, are a rapidly growing market, and have already attained price parity in some markets.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/index.cfm
( see Tables 1.1 and 1.2)
Until you read the notes at the end of Section 10, and realize that “renewables” includes hydro and biomass
I have been wondering, after watching this video, why the big, shall we call them, more progressive media outlets have not done an hour long special on alternative energy and the US market. Is it because they know they can’t justify the Green Economy and would rather have it stay a quasi-religious myth? Or is there a big oil/ big auto plot to repress the G. E. while making all those nice PR spots about what they have been doing? CNN, PBS and FOX (not on the list of progressive) have all been willing to host Republican Debates. Surly energy is just as important to our future!!
Craig,
I am concerned when I read on blogs like yours, inaccurate statements about the history of this Internet we are in fact using. Perhaps you discovered it in 1990 or so but it was not the original and some of us were using computers for textual communication before that even in the 1970’s 20 years earlier. I have “First-Hand” knowledge, as a user of computers, since 1976, and a manufacturers employee (Engineering technician) who actually did solder and troubleshoot and repair modems in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The (So called) pioneers with digital computers (Even prior to the invention of the LSI micro-processor, who used over a hundred IC chips as “and /or/nand/nor gates” with which to constrict their ALU (Arithmetic-Logic-Unit) the processor in a digital computer.) We used the Telephone network to communicate directly with other computer users with software that allowed us to download designated files or to upload to designated sectors of their memory our messages or data and thus carried on to communicate much like blogs like yours do for us now. At dial up speeds few pictures or graphics were used and few superfluous words or letters included. (Dial up was only 300 to 9600 baud back then, not the 56,000 it is now so long distance phone bills were substantial! ) Then in late 1970’s and the early 1980’s the Telenet was formed Still using telephone lines but generally dedicated lines like DSL (Digital Service Lines) which used no audio noise filtering and therefore allowed faster data transfer such as 14,400 and 28,000 baud data transfer (Almost as fast as “Dial-up” is now. ) Most users then were Banks, large companies, Universities, and the US Military. (I was personally responsible for building, troubleshooting, or repairing several thousand of the Modems used in the “Telenet.”) Finally, We all thank Al Gore for encouraging the federal legislation allowing public access to the previously PRIVATE High speed data network the US Military had built and which we now call the “Internet” and has been greatly expanded since then which is probably why you think high speed wide area network communication is now so broadband and accessible. By the way the Amateur Radio (Ham) enthusiasts use a similar communication system they call “Packet Radio” for printed message transfer wirelessly world-wide. (Remember, in times of natural disaster the first systems to fail are the Utilities and the Cellular telephone network. And that great group of dedicated volunteers with all their own equipment step up to provide the communication no-one else can provide. (They even built and paid for their own orbiting communications satellites.)
Craig, so, in your sample video, he as in Venice, Florida, a year ago, saying the price of vehicle fuel would have to be $5.00 per gallon to make renewables viable but 150 miles North of his location during that speach, I sit and gasoline prices today, a year laiter are at $3.52 per gallon and Diesel is at $4.00 per gallon, abd rising weekly. So we must be approaching the point where oil is no longer viable as any motor fuel!
Dennis; summertime pricing of regular gasoline here in Ottawa, Canada, is typically C1.29 per liter. With the current Canadian dollar at par with the U.S. dollar that translates to $4.90 per gallon.
Craig;
Keep in mind that these so-called “think tanks” have the ear of our governments these days and strongly influence government policies. Our Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s favorite these days is the C.D.Howe Institute.
Several of your other respondents have mentioned, as I have previously done, that much of the costs of fossil fuel and non-renewable energy sources are not accounted for when comparing them with renewables, nor are environmental effects considered; they are regarded as “externalities”. This cannot be emphasized enough. We live in a finite system; in a finite system there are no externalities, except as they exist in the minds of accountants and economic theorists. We and our future generations will have to live with the effects of these “externalities”.
Prime Minister has proposed “job creation” as an argument in support of the Northern Gateway Pipeline project. In answer to that (and to provide additional fodder for your interview), I present the following quotations:
“Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are among humanity’s most pressing concerns.”
“Societal expectations on climate change are real, and our industry is expected to take a leadership role.”
“We know that pumping gas out of the ground does not create many jobs. It does not foster an entrepreneurial spirit, nor does it sharpen critical faculties.”
These statements were made in a recent speech by Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s Oil Minister.
Correction: A little mind-blip led me to give the wrong name for Stephen Harper’s favorite “think tank”. It is, in fact, the Fraser Institute.
It seems you are ready to cede the high ground on many of these points when you don’t have to.
I have a few comments on your points, Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. This is not really true. Buying solar panels means you are buying 35 – 50 years of power at once, even if FF prices were flat for the next 35-50 yrs (and they won’t be), that many years of power would cost more than the solar panels. These price comparisons FF advocates use are flawed due to the fact FF costs go on forever, renewables reach a payback, and then are free for the rest of the systems lifespan save for maintenance. Wind power is even a better deal, so in fact solar and wind are actually cheaper, even without subsidy. What is very true is that with renewables, you pay almost all of the cost up front. This doesn’t even touch on the cost of externalities, like how the toxic emissions of mining, processing, transporting, & combustion of fossil fuels drives up health care costs by degrading our air, water, land, and ultimately our food. Or the 1000’s of years of storage of atomic waste costs that the taxpayer has and will have to cover. And of course if some of the waste is made into a bomb, well the costs just keep mounting for atomic power. The more renewables on the market lead to a more stable energy market. Less volatility means more certainty, overall bringing the cost of grid power down. Less demand for FF brings down their costs as well. FF are literally throwing good taxpayer money after bad, while renewables build a cleaner, more independent future for all.
To solve this problem of subsidy, we should go to a national production tax credit that would be the same for all clean power, and keep it there for at least 8 years. Currently solar has renewable energy credits in many states, while the wind production credit is being threatened by FF lobbyist efforts again. One level playing field, that is how Germany did it so successfully. Also, with the high reliability of solar & wind, there should be a gov. loan program to lend the funds with a 3rd party financial performa to back up production/costs estimates. That would put some builders, plumbers, & electricians back to work.
Renewable energy has limitations: it’s intermittent, diffuse, land-intensive – wind energy can be predicted with 93% accuracy, there are rare occasions when there will be more generated than can be used on the grid with some lost power, but this issue is extremely minor with the small, distributed amount of wind power on the grid now. Over the course of a year the wind can deviate about 10% from the norm, but over a decade or more will average out (the same goes for solar). Wind is not land intensive in that wild life has shown to go on with little to no disruption, making the land use claim mostly a specious argument. If we were to compare it to mountain top removal where permanent and toxic damage is done to the land, or deep sea drilling, or the water table-earthquake risks of fracking, well there is no question that solar & wind are a lot friendlier. soar is land intensive, yet there are many places that panels can go up without problem, capped landfills, army base land, commercial building roofs. With solar & wind distributed it makes the grid stronger AND more efficient. Large FF generators are far away from most of the market served. The state of our grid is such that 50% – 70% of the power is lost in transmission. Wind and solar go to the closest points with losses of 1% to 5%. This means 50% – 70% of fossil fuel combustion is a huge waste.
Renewable energy is only viable with subsidies. Not true again, large upfront costs, cheaper over the long haul, see 1st response. When a subsidy is around long enough, they start to call it a policy. the billions in FF subsidy the taxpayer puts out each year is staggering and difficult to follow. But then what do you expect from an industry that is 90 years old and is still on corporate welfare. When you have constant money coming in, year after year, you can expand with confidence. Renewables are constantly having their funding cut or pulled all together due to the work of the largest lobby know to man. This makes gearing up mass production far more difficult to bring the costs of renewables significantly down. Most renewable subsidy I know of ratchets back each year to keep pace with lower market costs, we don’t see that with FF subsidy do we?
Dependence on foreign oil is bad, but we don’t use oil to make electricity.oil is part of the world market of energy, some of it IS used for electricity, it is becoming rare due to the high cost. It is all poisonous, most of it enriches countries that mean us harm. Electric cars are an important part of using wind renewables to charge these batteries at night, for use during the day. This leveling out of generation/use will bring down the cost of all power on the grid. The level of efficiency a home/car power system is approaching greater affordability each year, renewables are needed for Americans to achieve a greater degree of independence. If we had put requirements for homes to be net zero 10 years ago, we probably would not have had the housing bust of 2008 if people had no heating or electric bills. The regs were ready 10 years ago, again FF lobby has worked to shoot them down again & again.
We’re not using any of these: renewables, energy storage, synthetic fuels, electric transportation, smart-grid, etc., to any appreciable degree. So the argument is: “since these technologies are just starting to penetrate the market, they are a complete failure? ” There is pump storage all over the NE grid. A large wind farm just went on line with it’s own compressed air storage. These technologies are beginning to make a difference, I believe that is why the FF lobby is fighting so hard against utility scale clean power, they are afraid of losing market share that these technologies will signal. I’ve often heard the argument used “It is just a drop in the bucket, what difference can it make?”. Petroleum oil was just a drop in the bucket when it started to replace whale oil too.
Wind power is the largest percentage of new generation being added to the grid nation wide.
Craig,
It’s impossible to produce a ‘winner’ from two totally differing fundamental positions.
Jerry Taylor describes the world as it is, and his analysis is based on factual reality.
You see the world as you want it to be, and interpret facts and problems through the prism of ideology.
Neither approach is ‘wrong’, but both contain some flaws and frustrations. Realists like Jerry Taylor often underestimate the human capacity for idealistic change, or human ingenuity and innovation. Idealists give too much credence to wishful thinking, logical impossibilities, and conspiracy theories, relying on popular left wing propaganda slogans instead of commonsense and analysis.
The good thing is that both Jerry and yourself, are hoping for a better planet, and a better future for mankind.
It’s important to remember that the US is not the only nation on the planet. Environmental issues are not just the concern of Americans.
It’s great to have idealistic ambitions, but environmentalists are sometimes the environments worst enemy! Overly zealous, leftist ideologues, have to a large extent hi-jacked environmental causes, silencing moderates with shrill cries of ‘heresy’ and alienating the general public with “I’m greener than Thou” moralising.
However, to address the points you intend to raise with Jerry Taylor.
1) Your assumption that the Oil Industry is ‘subsidised’ is mostly a myth. Like all major Industries the Oil industry receives the benefit of a complex system of tax breaks. But the accepted definition of ‘subsidised industry is an industry which if not supported by subsidies, could not survive. Obviously, the Oil industry would survive, without any tax concessions, the trouble is, would the US economy ?
2) Arguing against economic reality based on emotion and idealism, is pointless. A better argument is that since Oil depletion is inevitable, economics must adapt. The first economy prepared to take advantage of new technologies, will be the winner.
3) Battery technology is advancing, I drive a 240+ mile EV, the Tesla ‘S’ is about to be released with a 300 mile range. Technology is increasing.
4) Industry is already beginning to change the nature of energy production, without government intervention. Fossil fuels will inevitably be fazed out by depletion.
5) Very difficult to predict with any accuracy.
The biggest long term problem facing the US and the world economy, is replacing a such a hugely profitable factor in a ‘Post Oil’ economy. Oil indirectly finances 30% of the Western World’s economy. But more significantly, creates 63% of surplus wealth.
In the short term, the greatest impact on human health and the environment can be achieved by immediate abolition of Bunker Oil Fuel in shipping.
Each container vessel contributes approx 50 million times the toxic pollution of a single motor vehicle! Just 30 vessels from the worlds 100,000 ship fleet equal the toxic emissions of every motor vehicles on the planet!
We have the technology to end this pollution which kills 100’s of thousands per year, and endangers the health of millions.
The real question is, do we have the will?
“Jerry Taylor describes the world as it is, and his analysis is based on factual reality.”
Wrong! Jerry’s vision is as much affected by his own ideology as anyone else’s.
“What is truth on one side of the Pyrynees is error on the other”-Blaise Pascal. See my previous comments in an earlier discussion concerning “the social construction of reality” (Which is the title of a very good book on the subject, by the way, and recommended reading.
Craig,
If I haven’t missed the day of your discussion, try to work in the concept of “shifting” spending from one current path to another.
Right now, we as a society are paying for asthma treatment and other lung problems, cancer and other health problems, and of course other emission-related health problems… all arising from coal production. Furthermore, we are expending energy to destroy large swaths of land in accessing the coal, and spending huge amounts of petroleum – which currently must be imported – to harvest that coal and deliver it to power stations.
Wind power essentially shifts those associated costs to labor to erect wind turbines and power lines. So we’re shifting from an assortment of land destruction, health care, petroleum consumption, and labor to 100% labor. That means that – on a per MWh basis – there will ALWAYS be more labor involved in wind than that involved in coal unless wind power is MUCH cheaper (It’s comparable, but not significantly cheaper – yet).
Right now, in America, we have a safety net… so poor people don’t become completely destitute and desperate – protecting us from crime and protecting the poor from complete deprivation. Mr Taylor will almost certainly object to that safety net, but it’s there right now regardless… So in a way some of that money that would be paid by putting people to work in the wind industry is money NOT paid to people on unemployment or welfare.
Ask Mr Taylor whether he’d rather pay for someone to work or for someone not to work. Ask Mr Taylor whether he’d rather pay to have someone’s lung cancer treated or whether he’d like to pay a few more people to work rather than taking welfare.
I’d be interested in hearing what he has to say.
I’ll definitely do that. Thanks.
Craig,I would be interested in Mr. Taylor’s comment concerning the cost of regulation that’s applied when siting a renewable energy project or transmission line. We wouldn’t need ITC’s or PTC’s if the permitting process was less costly. There is a real disconnect with those folks on the left that want clean energy when it comes to putting a renewable project or transmission line in their back yard or line of sight. Those on the right seem less concerned about this aspect of renewable energy development.
Just ask him if he would support less environmental regulation traded for less government subsidizes for renewable projects.
Craig,
Fascinating discussion. Good luck. Nothing I can add re the subject but it might be interesting to ask him at the outset what the conditions would need to be for him to become a proponent of renewable energy. Again ask for specifics and follow back with, “so what I hear you saying is that if ………..then you would be a supporter”, essentially confirming his requirements of support. You might find that you are not as far apart as expected. Attempt to avoid talking past each other. Pretty basic stuff but it has worked for me. The key would then to be able to provide him some insight into your data/position and to leave the meeting with the beginning of a relationship where you can continue to communicate.
Hi, Craig
Watch this video if you have not already viewed it…I think this guy has a pretty solid way of looking at the problem at hand, from a high level:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
I hope that helps!
Yes, I have seen that, and yes, it’s terrific. I highly recommend it.