Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Green Energy Eats Land
The Washington Post has a good article today on the brewing battle between the energy and the naturalist wings of ideological environmentalism. The problem is that no kind of environmentalist believes in tradeoffs -- they apparently believe that all good things can be had at once. The only reason the world is not a verdant energy rich paradise is due to the machinations of a cabal of greedy and evil capitalists. (OK. OK. That characterization may be a little harsh, but when you talk with them sometimes....) Anyway, this chart in the Post shows their problem: renewable fuels are land intensive which means that such fuels will displace large areas of nature.
In square miles per terawatt-hour per year electricity from biomass needs 210 square miles of land; wind, about 18 square miles; and solar photovoltaic is 14 square miles. Compare this to natural gas which takes 7 square miles; coal 4 square miles; and nuclear at less than 1 square mile.
In contrast, the ever-increasing productivity of so-called corporate agriculture has meant that more and more land has been reverting to nature in the United States. Switching to renewable fuels could reverse that trend.
We at Reason have been predicting this conflict within the green movement for some time.
Heads up: Look for my article in the next issue where I compare the capital costs of building 1,000 megawatt power plants of various types (including carbon sequestration and renewables).
|4.16.09 @ 2:32PM|#
From what I can tell, biefuels are already on the outs with
environmentalists by and large.
But the more salient point is that if biofuels were used, they
would almost certainly be produced with genetically engineered
crops and chemial fertilizers.
If they aren't being eaten for food, most of the arguments for
organic die, and the mechanisms that work in favor of organics in
the grocery store (food psychology) won't work at the pump.
Defender|4.16.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Which is why the first of the 3 R's is the most important:
Reduce.
We need to reduce the amount of energy we use.
SpongePaul|4.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#
they are looking at the forest instead of the trees. If you take a field, plant hemp for the biomass ethanol, oil, seed, fiber. and in that field have the wind turbines, then you are generating wind energy, using a vacant field and also growing a large amount of biomass. i would use a tropical hemp that grows 15-20ft in a season.
JP|4.16.09 @ 2:35PM|#
The problem is that no kind of environmentalist believes in
tradeoffs -- they apparently believe that all good things can be
had at once.
I see a similar thing going in global warming climate
change discussions. They want to jump over cost-benefit analyses,
and go directly from "there's a problem" to "we must do everything
possible to solve it."
345kV Line|4.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Just remember that as the earth continues to cool, this whole green energy movement will look sillier and sillier...
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 2:36PM|#
(including carbon sequestration and renewables)
Ah, that anti-carbonite subtext becomes so apparent now.
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 2:38PM|#
and go directly from "there's a problem" to "we must do
everything possible to solve it."
I could tolerate doing the possible, but the enviroids want to
start with everything impossible.
345kV Line|4.16.09 @ 2:40PM|#
"Heads up: Look for my article in the next issue where I compare
the capital costs of building 1,000 megawatt power plants of
various types (including carbon sequestration and
renewables)."
I look forward to that.
SpongePaul|4.16.09 @ 2:43PM|#
off topic, but it just hit me. How to explain the global warming/cooling cycles of earth. first there is an atmospher high in c02 due to the volcanoes etc. this favors plant life, which thrives in high co2 environs. the plants give of the o2. slowly using up the c02 and turning the atmosher more 02. all the while the planet has been cooling due to the lessing co2 in the air. as time goes on, more and more animals come in, due to the high 02 content of the atmosher, plants die back, as the globe cools. animals emit c02, therfore increasing its content and lowering the o2. thus warming things and letting the warming and plants take back, rinse repeat. yeah its simplistic, but has anyone ever put them together before, lol
Dello|4.16.09 @ 2:46PM|#
This is exactly why fossil fuels are the "perfect" fuel source:
The work has already been done.
Nature took a bunch of grassland and squished it down into usable
fuels over millions of years, and it's portable.
How can we possibly hope to come close to topping (or even
matching) that by speeding the process up to a few weeks?
No Name Guy|4.16.09 @ 2:49PM|#
Spongepaul
Some simple math, based on the factors Ron supplies, indicates you
plan works out to about 16.57 square miles (both bio mass and wind
on the same plot) required for the 1 terrawatt-hour per year.
Still doesn't come close to nat gas, coal or nukes.
Plus the wind part STILL depends on the wind, you know, actually
blowing when you need the electricity.
SpongePaul|4.16.09 @ 2:50PM|#
ha ha no name, yeah, it does use more land, solution, less people, lol
treehugger|4.16.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Stereotyping doesn't help. I'm an environmental libertarian.
Caring about the environment does not automatically mean
anti-capitalism (although I'll concede that viewpoint is prevalent
among some environmentalist circles).
If libertarians want to reach out to Liberals, we need to stop
attacking and start explaining the alternatives to statist
environmentalism.
fyodor|4.16.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Which is why the first of the 3 R's is the most important:
Reduce.
We need to reduce the amount of energy we use.
And we can do this -- without being poorer for it?
treehugger|4.16.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Which is why the first of the 3 R's is the most important:
Reduce.
We need to reduce the amount of energy we use.
And we can do this -- without being poorer for it?
If individuals and systems waste energy, then certainly cutting
waste and encouraging efficiency is necessary and beneficial and
will increase the standard of living.
Profit motive will always seek to eliminate waste. Government will
always create and/or exacerbate waste.
|4.16.09 @ 2:54PM|#
If you take a field, plant hemp for the biomass ethanol,
oil, seed, fiber. and in that field have the wind
turbines,
You're gonna have turbines that don't do much, because by and large
the good places for wind energy are bad places for growing
crops.
As a West Texan, when I hear "crop", I wonder "water". How much
water will be needed for these biofuel crops, and where is it going
to come from?
|4.16.09 @ 2:55PM|#
If libertarians want to reach out to Liberals, we need to
stop attacking and start explaining the alternatives to statist
environmentalism.
Unfortunately, the environmentally-friendly alternative to statist
environmentalism is capitalism, which Liberals have an allergy
to.
|4.16.09 @ 2:57PM|#
"In square miles per terawatt-hour per year electricity from
biomass needs 210 square miles of land; wind, about 18 square
miles; and solar photovoltaic is 14 square miles. Compare this to
natural gas which takes 7 square miles; coal 4 square miles; and
nuclear at less than 1 square mile."
Do these figures fully account for all land uses beyond just the
power plant?
Natural gas drilling covers plenty of land, as do thousands of
miles of pipelines.
Coal requires mining, and miles of railroads for
transportation.
Nuclear requires mining, transportation, processing plants, and
ultimately, secure waste storage.
For all of the above, there must be land set aside for transmission
lines... so those which can be located closer to demand centers
will be more "land-efficient".
Are all of these factored into the analysis?
|4.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#
In square miles per terawatt-hour per year electricity from
biomass needs 210 square miles of land; wind, about 18 square
miles; and solar photovoltaic is 14 square miles.
Right on about the biomass, but the land used for wind or solar may
not be farmable anyway. Indeed, it may not even be land at all!
treehugger|4.16.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Unfortunately, the environmentally-friendly alternative to
statist environmentalism is capitalism, which Liberals have an
allergy to.
Time to give Liberals an allergy pill. I was once a Liberal (now
just a liberal) and worked for the National Park Service, a highly
political and inefficient bureaucracy. Then I started exploring
private solutions to conservation problems, such as land trusts.
And I spread that message; I'm slowly making inroads with my
statist friends, especially those who know deep down that the
political system is irrevocably broken.
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 3:01PM|#
If libertarians want to reach out to Liberals, we need to
stop attacking and start explaining the alternatives to statist
environmentalism.
I thought we were reaching out with weed and pr0n?
|4.16.09 @ 3:02PM|#
This is exactly why fossil fuels are the "perfect" fuel
source: The work has already been done.
Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it weren't
massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for the
environmental harm it causes.
BakedPenguin|4.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#
because by and large the good places for wind energy are bad places for growing crops.
This is true. Wind is most useful (for power) at high altitudes -
mountains & hilly areas.
|4.16.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Well, if we had a robust and cheap space access infrastructure,
we could actually build a solar array in GEO.
And we could bombard Texas with ice from Saturn's rings or from
several other sources.
But, of course, we can't do any of this, because it's too
expensive. Which is why the Pacific Gas and Electric-Solaren deal
is mostly a fraud.
Fusion would be nice, too, though I imagine people would oppose it,
despite the expected "greenness" of fusion power.
|4.16.09 @ 3:05PM|#
Put wind turbines and solar panels on the nuclear power
plants.
Then, plant hemp all over.
I'm not going to harvest the hemp. I'm doing it... just 'cause.
|4.16.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it
weren't massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for
the environmental harm it causes.
Tony,
In dollars per something, what do you think the right value of that
tax is?
|4.16.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Defender, I'll follow your lead -> Turn off you PC and quit
wasting power.
What's that you say? Your use, just like Al Gore's using resources,
is different, and you just meant that all us little people need to
conserve.
Urkobold™|4.16.09 @ 3:08PM|#
THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE, YOU FOOLS! IT'S ALREADY IN YOUR HANDS, YET
YOU DO NOT SEE IT. TAP THE POWER OF PORN! YES, CAPTURE THE RAW
ENERGY OF BATIN'.
CRISIS SOLVED, ENVIRONMENT SAVED.
|4.16.09 @ 3:12PM|#
It is all well and good to use land, if the land is otherwise
useless. I have read proposals to site solar concentration and PV
plants in vast, basically uninhabitable, mostly useless, apparently
barren sectors of the American southwest. By some estimates, all
the electricity necessary to run the American automobile fleet,
were it converted to EVs, could be generated from such
installations, leaving arable, habitable land untouched.
Would the biosphere be significantly disrupted if we were to do
this? If not, why DON'T we do it? In any case, I think our best
environmental minds should concern themselves for a while with
understanding the environmental impact of putting large solar
plants in desert regions. Using 14 sq. miles of desert to generate
a Terawatt of electricity (one million Kilowatts) on average six
hours per day would produce in excess of 2 billion Kilowatt-hours
per year, which would power nearly 1/2-million EVs during that year
(assuming 4 miles per Kilowatt-hour, which is fairly conservative).
A total of 5,600 square miles of EV facilities would handle 200
million EVs. That would be a square of just 75x75 miles in one
State, or several smaller squares in several States (share the load
between, say, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Nevada,
each donating a parcel slightly smaller than California's Colusa
County, about 34 miles square).
The environmental PSAs on TV talk about how just changing one
incandescent light bulb per household to CFL would be the
equivalent of taking umpty-ump cars off the road. Desert solar on
this scale could effectively take them ALL off the road, once the
fleet had turned over into EVs (I concede that this could take many
years, but then, so would construction of the power facilities --
the two transformations could occur together in a complementary
fashion).
|4.16.09 @ 3:16PM|#
If libertarians want to reach out to Liberals, we need to
stop attacking and start explaining the alternatives to statist
environmentalism.
We have to get these people to admit there's no such thing as a
free lunch. And that appears to be impossible.
Ynot|4.16.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it
weren't massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for
the environmental harm it causes.
Or maybe we could just stop taxing things because the government is
the agent of the collective to punish the Morally Bad and go back
to doing what we think is right because we have the choice.
No, I like the fascist stuff too.
|4.16.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Would the biosphere be significantly disrupted if we
were to do this? If not, why DON'T we do it?
Because you might affect the Desert
Tortoise.
Isn't conservationism great???
SpongePaul|4.16.09 @ 3:20PM|#
You're gonna have turbines that don't do much, because by and
large the good places for wind energy are bad places for growing
crops.
As a West Texan, when I hear "crop", I wonder "water". How much
water will be needed for these biofuel crops, and where is it going
to come from?
__________________________
thats why i said hemp. it grows up to the tundra line and even
slightly higher than a tree line on a mountian, it needs no
pesticide and little water, it is a weed in the grass family after
all. yes i know its not technically a grass. it is its own species,
i am well aware of the genetics.
Dello|4.16.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Tony,
"Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it weren't
massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for the
environmental harm it causes."
What IS the cost of environmental harm caused by fossil, vs. bio,
wind, solar, geo, etc.?
|4.16.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Mother Nature cannot be fooled, she's hardcore. Take a little
off this end, she adds it back on the other.
The Nuclear/Hydrogen cycle makes the most sense to me. The waste is
an issue, but it can be resovled. There has to be an economical way
we can shoot that stuff into space. Todays rockets are still
basically hydrogen/oxygen fuelled.
|4.16.09 @ 3:23PM|#
I have read proposals to site solar concentration and PV
plants in vast, basically uninhabitable, mostly useless, apparently
barren sectors of the American southwest.
What about the desert tortoises? and the gila monsters?
Species-ist!
|4.16.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Tony,
Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it
weren't massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for
the environmental harm it causes.
You cannot value the supposed "environmental harm", so how can you
tax it? Value can only be know at the point of exchange, otherwise
you're just guessing, and I am willing to bet that a government
official's guess cannot be better than mine or yours.
Before you wield the "externalities" canard, make sure you
understand that the concept stems from a misunderstanding of how
people value things. The concept has been debunked elegantly by
Murray Rothbard.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#
I keep saying "energy density, energy density, energy
density".
Hazel Meade:
From what I can tell, biefuels are already on the outs with
environmentalists by and large.
Your sense is on. There's a growing backlash against biofuels with
the hyper-green crowd. Basically, the honyemoon is over, and now
they're scrutinizing the partner's bad habits.
Which actually is a good thing.
Oh and there was an interesting report recently on carbon
sequestration techniques used in places like China, except the
subtle (admittedly acknowledged) part of the story is that the
carbon sequestration process wasn't permanent. CO2 was bottled and
sold to other manufacturers for other industrial or food uses.
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#
There has to be an economical way we can shoot that stuff
into space.
[enviroid voice]
You are just going to pollute space as much as the earth is
polluted now!
[enviroid voice]
the innominate one|4.16.09 @ 3:25PM|#
"The problem is that no kind of environmentalist believes in
tradeoffs -- they apparently believe that all good things can be
had at once."
nice strawman - can it be made into biofuel?
|4.16.09 @ 3:26PM|#
Oh, by the way: Arguing that oil companies are being "subsidized" because they are not taxed for the "environmental harm" they supposedly create is a case of Begging the Question, i.e. a Fallacious Argument.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 3:29PM|#
I have read proposals to site solar concentration and PV
plants in vast, basically uninhabitable, mostly useless, apparently
barren sectors of the American southwest.
Got a location for ya.
Respectfully|4.16.09 @ 3:30PM|#
"You're gonna have turbines that don't do much, because by and
large the good places for wind energy are bad places for growing
crops."
That is so wrong. The best wind is in the Dakotas, the breadbasket
of the USA.
www.awea.org
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 3:32PM|#
You're gonna have turbines that don't do much, because by
and large the good places for wind energy are bad places for
growing crops.
Can't fool me with that one. I have been to Kansas!
Urkobold™|4.16.09 @ 3:32PM|#
NO, THE INNOMINATE ONE, IT CANNOT, BUT THE PRODUCT OF GENERBATIN' CAN BE.
|4.16.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Stereotyping doesn't help. I'm an environmental
libertarian. Caring about the environment does not automatically
mean anti-capitalism (although I'll concede that viewpoint is
prevalent among some environmentalist circles).
The best way so far that exists to take care of the environment is
through the reduction of commons, through clearly defined property
rights. However, many environmentalists also happen to be Marxists
or Collectivists, which means they will never ever accept this
solution - they will expect the State to coerce people into
compliance, with the ugly consequences one can expect from a
tyranny.
|4.16.09 @ 3:36PM|#
renewable fuels are land intensive which means that such
fuels will displace large areas of nature.
People in the XIX Century saw this as OBVIOUS as they switched to
coal, gas and oil through a MARKET SYSTEM. The people finding out
this through "studies" are not being particularly clever, not more
at least than past generations.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 3:38PM|#
That is so wrong. The best wind is in the Dakotas, the
breadbasket of the USA.
Not entirely*, at least depending on your perspective. Coastal
areas and increasingly, out in the ocean itself are the best wind
areas. The problem is building the wind turbines there. There's a
project for a floating wind farm off the coast of Oregon with
massive towers. Yes, even there it's running into opposition.
*
"Maps include installed wind power (no surprise, California is head and shoulders above the rest) and wind resource potential on both a national and state-by-state scale. It looks as if the coasts and mountainous states show the greatest potential for development."
Article
here.
the innominate one|4.16.09 @ 3:39PM|#
my lord URKOBOLD - I am willing to do my part, no matter how much my elbow hurts.
|4.16.09 @ 3:40PM|#
What IS the cost of environmental harm caused by fossil, vs.
bio, wind, solar, geo, etc.
I don't know what it is, but it isn't $0 right?
|4.16.09 @ 3:40PM|#
You cannot value the supposed "environmental harm", so how
can you tax it?
As a believer in an activist government, I don't particularly care
whether we can price it accurately. I say price CO2-emitting energy
production out of existence. Make green energy vastly cheaper in
comparison.
But you can calculate environmental harm, and people have done it.
An average of peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost per ton of
carbon is $43. These estimates account for both the social harm and
social benefits of climate change.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 3:41PM|#
I am willing to do my part, no matter how much my elbow
hurts.
Batin' elbow... man that's gotta hurt.
|4.16.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Oh, by the way: Arguing that oil companies are being
"subsidized" because they are not taxed for the "environmental
harm" they supposedly create is a case of Begging the Question,
i.e. a Fallacious Argument.
I know for some reason you guys don't believe in negative
externalities.
|4.16.09 @ 3:45PM|#
"As a believer in an activist government, I don't particularly
care whether we can price it accurately. I say price CO2-emitting
energy production out of existence. Make green energy vastly
cheaper in comparison. "
Vastly cheaper by comparison to coal after you tax the hell out of
it. That means we all pay much more for energy and are much poorer
you nitwit.
Why don't you just tell the truth and say
"I favor government mandated poverty and expensive energy." Forty
years ago liberal launched the war on poverty. Now in the 21st
Century, they stand for enforced poverty and making sure
everyone's, rich and poor alike, are worse off and have higher
energy bills.
|4.16.09 @ 3:46PM|#
I forget, what is the consenses on a carbon market?
Air pollution is a commons issue, no?
|4.16.09 @ 3:47PM|#
An average of peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost per
ton of carbon is $43.
Yep. A little more than a dime per gallon of gas.
Do you really think that, if that "massive" subsidy were removed,
renewables would become more efficient?
Urkobold™|4.16.09 @ 3:47PM|#
MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR BATIN' ELBOW AND ALL OTHER COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH GENERBATIN' ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE. FURTHERMORE, MANY
STATES REQUIRE POWER COMPANIES TO PAY YOU FOR THE EXCESS POWER YOU
CREATE!
GENERBATIN': NATURAL. FREE. RENEWABLE. MADE FROM LOVE.
Anonymous|4.16.09 @ 3:47PM|#
social cost per ton of carbon
I didn't know people hated plants that much. Man versus nature,
huh? The same old story!
Paul|4.16.09 @ 3:48PM|#
As a believer in an activist government, I don't
particularly care whether we can price it accurately.
We know. Now let's actually look for a solution.
I say price CO2-emitting energy production out of
existence.
Impossible. Well, maybe. You go first, Tony.
So it now appears Bailey's "straw man" isn't so straw. Compare and
contrast:
Bailey: "The problem is that no kind of environmentalist believes
in tradeoffs -- they apparently believe that all good things can be
had at once. "
Tony: "I say price CO2-emitting energy production out of
existence."
|4.16.09 @ 3:48PM|#
"I know for some reason you guys don't believe in negative
externalities."
Don't use a word unless you know what it means. In order to
adaquately account for an externality, you have to know the cost of
that externality. You admit in about six places you have no idea
what the actual external cost of burning coal is. Unless and until
climate science becomes 100% accurate we won't know what it is.
Moreover, even if climate science is accurate, the externality of
burning coal is the marginal cost inflicted on the world by our
burning coal. If China and India are going to produce enough carbon
to heat the world up on their own, then the marginal effect of our
burning coal is going to be very little. To put it in simpler
terms, if our not burning coal is not going to affect the climate
in any significant way, our continued burning of coal has no
externality.
|4.16.09 @ 3:49PM|#
The one thing I agree with in all of this is that a more diversified set of energy alternatives would be nice, even if some of those aren't as "green" as they could be.
Anonymous|4.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#
To put it in simpler terms, if our not burning coal is not
going to affect the climate in any significant way, our continued
burning of coal has no externality.
This is called marginal analysis, something else beside arithmetic
Leftists have serious problems with.
High Every Body|4.16.09 @ 3:51PM|#
I don't know what it is, but it isn't $0 right?
Until you prove otherwise it is $0 as far as I am concerned.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Do you really think that, if that "massive" subsidy were
removed, renewables would become more efficient?
He can't if he has a brain. Efficiency is efficiency. No matter how
much you tax it. What he really means by "efficiency" is "cost".
Energy has inputs and outputs, and you can't change those. If it
takes more energy to produce ethanol than it produces, it's not
efficient. No matter how many subsidies you add or subtract to
it.
|4.16.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Tony,
As a believer in an activist government, I don't
particularly care whether we can price it
accurately.
You don't care if it can be priced accurately? Do you buy
things without knowing how much they cost, or are you THAT cavalier
only with other people's wealth?
I say price CO2-emitting energy production out of
existence.
You're contradicting yourself - you just said you don't
care how much it is valued, which means you would not care
if the government valued CO2 emissions at close to zero, would
you?
Make green energy vastly cheaper in
comparison.
But that would not be the case. The true cost WILL BE LET ITSELF BE
FELT, through some other way, like a lowering of living standards,
more expensive food or lodging, et cetera.
But you can calculate environmental harm, and people have
done it.
No, you don't understand: you CAN'T calculate environmental harm,
because people that try are using as reference costs and prices
that come from the Market System, but they fall prey of the same
issues that affected economic calculation in Soviet countries: That
their calculations were mere guesses!
An average of peer-reviewed estimates of the social cost
per ton of carbon is $43.
Peer-reviewed means ipso facto that it is valid? Because the Bible
has been peer-reviewed for ages, and yet that does not mean god
exists, or does it?
These estimates account for both the social harm and social
benefits of climate change.
Again, based on what? The people making calculations try to use
pseudo-market valuations of value and cost that amount in the end
to mere guesses. The price system is not an exact picture of
people's valuations, only an approximation, an average of all the
final valuations after trade. These researchers are GUESSING what
the TRADE VALUE of an environmental harm will be - how can they do
that?
|4.16.09 @ 3:56PM|#
John,
I just said that peer-reviewed studies have calculated a range of
estimates on the social cost of climate change. Turns out the
negatives outweigh the positives.
You're presenting the "we don't know everything, therefore we know
nothing" argument. Even if we can't precisely calculate the cost of
the externality, on what planet does that imply that the cost
should be considered $0?
On China and India, I agree that any solution will have to be
global in scope. But it's a global problem. And it will affect the
people who benefit least from fossil fuel burning industries the
most.
|4.16.09 @ 3:57PM|#
I know for some reason you guys don't believe in negative
externalities.
I don't believe in positive externalities either, or in
externalities at all. It is a canard, a red herring, created by an
economists that still clang to the discredited Objective Value
Theory. The Externalities hypothesis was debunked very elegantly by
Rothbard, by indicating that the so-called "externalities" were
actually guesses made by the same economists that hold the theory,
a classic example of circular thinking. The greatest example given
is the Free Rider problem, common in a Commons scenario, but
Rothbard showed that with clearly defined property rights, the
so-called "externalities" disappeared.
|4.16.09 @ 3:57PM|#
You're contradicting yourself - you just said you don't care
how much it is valued, which means you would not care if the
government valued CO2 emissions at close to zero, would
you?
FTG, don't be dense.
|4.16.09 @ 3:59PM|#
FTG, don't be dense.
You didn't answer the question, Tony - it is clear you did not see
the contradiction so: Who's being dense?
|4.16.09 @ 4:01PM|#
Tony,
Can you explain how an environmental impact tax of 12 cents per
gallon of gas makes green energy vastly cheaper in comparison?
|4.16.09 @ 4:01PM|#
What we need is a bunch of stationary-bike generators at all the
prisons in the U.S. In leu of exercise gyms, you can let the
prisoners generate electricity for us.
You could even make it voluntary with the incentive that they can
shorten their sentences by some factor of the amount electricity
they generate.
This can also be set up at various cites for non-prisoners who just
want to contribute to society while keeping fit. "Honey, I'm going
to go turn that
Klondike into kilowatt-hours," you'd say.
Hacha Cha|4.16.09 @ 4:02PM|#
which biomass? cannabis? GM opium poppies? cover the US with them and nuclear power plants and our energy needs are not a problem.
the innominate one|4.16.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Paul - Tony's a troll. troll = strawman
John - just because one doesn't know the exact cost of an
externality, doesn't mean that one can't detect the existence of an
externality
|4.16.09 @ 4:12PM|#
You didn't answer the question, Tony - it is clear you did
not see the contradiction so: Who's being dense?
I'm saying that I don't care if the price represents some exact
correlation. There is a goal here, and it's reducing and preferably
eliminating greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources.
If someone is planning to nuke Omaha, you don't gather economists
in a room to work on the cost-benefit analysis before doing
something about it.
You're being dense because you think that because I said I don't
care about the exact price that means I wouldn't care if the price
were zero.
|4.16.09 @ 4:19PM|#
You're being dense because you think that because I said I
don't care about the exact price that means I wouldn't care if the
price were zero.
Would you care if the price were only 12 cents per gallon of
gas?
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|4.16.09 @ 4:23PM|#
Defender | April 16, 2009, 2:34pm | #
Which is why the first of the 3 R's is the most important: Reduce.
We need to reduce theamount of energyquantity of resources weusewaste.
FTFY.
The march of technological progress pushes both ways on this, of
course, but mostly in the right direction.
Kreel Sarloo|4.16.09 @ 4:25PM|#
"We need to reduce the amount of energy we use."
Ummm...why do we need to reduce the amount of energy we
use?
Now it's possible that if I were to reduce the amount of
energy I use it might make me better off But that goes
back to a virtue called thrift.
But the problem is that like chastity thrift is a private
virtue. The benefits of it accrue to the one who practices it and
noone beyond him is harmed by the breach.
This is something that selfrighteous busybodies seldom seem able to
understand.
|4.16.09 @ 4:32PM|#
Kreel,
Not if thrift is in the service of protecting a common environment
from harm.
And no amount of individuals being thrifty will do a damn thing to
mitigate this harm.
BakedPenguin|4.16.09 @ 4:32PM|#
There is at least one good reason to think about wind or solar
home generation - if you are providing all of your own power, then
the power company can't inform certain agencies about your power
usage, if for some reason you use an 'unusual' amount.
Just sayin'.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|4.16.09 @ 4:34PM|#
I tell you three times:
The big problem with space disposal of nuclear waste is the risk at
launch. We can package that stuff to be safe in
any reasonable (and many kinds of unreasonable (drink,
twice)) train wreck. But it weighs a lot, and launch failures are
more energetic.
Scary stuff.
Besides, there will come a time when we want it back: think of all
those wonderful, rare isotopes. And you propose to just throw them
away!
Wastrel.
|4.16.09 @ 4:38PM|#
the Bible has been peer-reviewed for ages, and yet that does not mean god exists, or does it?
Actually, the Bible has received very little review from others
gods, and to the extent it has been reviewed, we find a
number of problems with the data.
|4.16.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Tony: I should know better, but with regard to the benefit cost
analysis of nuking Omaha -- you have read On Thermonuclear War,
haven't you?
innominate & treehugger: I DID say my characterization was
"harsh."
|4.16.09 @ 4:51PM|#
FTG, the reason "clearly defined property rights" works is
because the negative externalities become internalities when that
occurs - the owner of the air, water rights becomes entitled to
compensation for. Right now, we don't have property rights covering
air and water, so there ARE negative externalities.
The carbon tax idea is sort of a workaround for the fact that
establishing property rights for air and water isn't workable at
the moment.
or are you THAT cavalier only with other people's
wealth?
Yes, he is that cavalier with other people's wealth. I don't think
Tony would hesitate for a second to admit that he would be totally
cool with hiking a carbon tax to raise money for social welfare
programs. Or just to fuck with the fossil fuel industry, for that
matter.
Which does point out the problem - that barring some rock solid
scientific measure, the tax is likely to be manipulated for
political purposes. Alas. Tony doesn't see a fairness issue with
that. Actually he doesn't see any fairness issues with the
treatment of anyone that makes a "profit". Libertarians do.
Government should be based on things like the equal protection of
the law and such - not fucking around with the tax code to benefit
your "sides" political clients.
|4.16.09 @ 4:52PM|#
"Besides, there will come a time when we want it back: think
of all those wonderful, rare isotopes."
If we want to maintain isotope diversity on the planet, then we
must take every action to protect these endangered isotopes which
today are only found in captivity.
It's only a matter of half-lives before they vanish forever.
|4.16.09 @ 4:52PM|#
"aix42 | April 16, 2009, 3:44pm | #
its all in the wrist. What are you guys doing to yourselves?"
some men here, blessed by god with enormous junk, have to involve
the elbow to get the proper length of stroke. My condolences to
your wife.
|4.16.09 @ 4:54PM|#
SpongePaul, there's a difference between "can survive with
little water" and "can produce a viable crop year after year with
only rainfall."
I've, er, seen hemp grown. To obtain any size, it needs a good
supply of water.
Just sayin'. Water needs are a burden imposed on the natural
environment by plant biofuels that I've never seen anyone account
for. Even people who love, LOVE, to bitch about how bad irrigation
farming is for the environment.
|4.16.09 @ 4:55PM|#
FTG, don't be dense.
You didn't answer the question, Tony - it is clear you did not see
the contradiction so: Who's being dense?
What he means is that the bigger the tax is the better. He doesn't
care if it's an accurate reflection of the costs of pollution. More
money for the government = better, in his mind.
Pretty straightforward if you ask me.
|4.16.09 @ 4:58PM|#
As a believer in an activist government, I don't
particularly care whether we can price it accurately. I say price
CO2-emitting energy production out of existence. Make green energy
vastly cheaper in comparison.
Good old Tony. Impoverishing us back to the Stone Age into the
future.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:05PM|#
"Maps include installed wind power (no surprise, California is
head and shoulders above the rest)"
No. The top five states in terms of wind capacity are:
Texas, 7,118 megawatts
Iowa, 2,791 megawatts
California, 2,517 megawatts
Minnesota, 1,754 megawatts
Washington, 1,447 megawatts
http://www.awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-Report-2009.pdf
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:07PM|#
"I say price CO2-emitting energy production out of existence.
Make green energy vastly cheaper in comparison.
Cheaper by comparison does not mean affordable.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:11PM|#
"The one thing I agree with in all of this is that a more
diversified set of energy alternatives would be nice, even if some
of those aren't as "green" as they could be."
And as someone who works in Portfolio Strategy & Business
Development for one of the nation's largest electric utilities, I
just have to say that you are spot on.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:28PM|#
"There is a goal here, and it's reducing and preferably
eliminating greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources."
Can you provide proof that greenhouse gasses are bad. They're
GREENhouse gasses afterall and anything with the word green in it
is good, right? Greenhouse gasses = plant food.
|4.16.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Cheaper by comparison does not mean affordable.
What if the taxes are used to subsidize green energy?
Bottom line for me, cheap energy comes with an environmental cost
that is, to date, not factored in and therefore represents a de
facto subsidy for cheap, polluting energy industries. This is on
top of all of the other subsidies given by industry puppets in
government.
|4.16.09 @ 5:32PM|#
What if the taxes are used to subsidize green
energy?
I guess this is what they mean by impenetrable stupidity.
If it costs 100 bucks a watt to produce green energy, Tony, it
costs that much even if the state gives the utility a check for 80
bucks a watt.
Subsidies don't lower costs, they shift them.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:34PM|#
"Good old Tony. Impoverishing us back to the Stone Age into the
future."
Perhaps he could just move to the Swat Valley.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:36PM|#
"What if the taxes are used to subsidize green energy?"
Robbing Peter to pay Paul produces no value for anyone other than
Paul.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 5:38PM|#
"Robbing Peter to pay Paul produces no value for anyone other
than Paul."
And of course the politicians that Paul supports with his generous
campaign contributions.
|4.16.09 @ 5:44PM|#
Bottom line for me, cheap energy comes with an environmental
cost that is, to date, not factored in and therefore represents a
de facto subsidy for cheap, polluting energy industries.
Twelve cents for a gallon of gasoline, Tony. Twelve cents!
What is this green energy that you imagine becomes cost competitive
with gasoline when the price of the latter increases 5%?
Jordan|4.16.09 @ 5:50PM|#
This is on top of all of the other subsidies given by industry puppets in government.
Wow. How the fuck did you type that with a straight face
immediately after typing "What if the taxes are used to subsidize
green energy?" The sheer dumbassery apparent here is
unbelievable.
|4.16.09 @ 5:57PM|#
What if the taxes are used to subsidize green
energy?
People walking by me are wondering why I'm banging my head on my
desk.
This is a performance art piece you're doing, right Tony?
|4.16.09 @ 5:58PM|#
Jordan,
My whole point here is that I don't really give a shit how we get
there. Saving the environment from permanent harm, and thus
humanity from permanent misery, is more important to me than
sticking to arcane taxation principles. The relevant phrase in that
sentence is "industry puppets," not "subsidies."
Jordan|4.16.09 @ 6:03PM|#
The relevant phrase in that sentence is "industry puppets," not "subsidies."
Yeah, because the guys who run green energy companies are all
angels, as opposed to the Snidely Whiplash oil barons.
|4.16.09 @ 6:10PM|#
My whole point here is that I don't really give a shit how
we get there.
Also known as Burning the Village In Order to Save It.
Can we fit one more acronym into the lexicon? BTVIOTSI? Because I
have a feeling my fingers are going to get tired over the next few
years if I have to type it out every time.
|4.16.09 @ 6:12PM|#
The relevant phrase in that sentence is "industry puppets,"
not "subsidies."
The latter are delivered only by the former. Does it really matter
which industry? Is a Congressman giving T. Boone Pickens a subsidy
for wind energy not an industry puppet, while a Congressman giving
T. Boone Pickens a subsidy for an oil pipeline is an industry
puppet?
Paul|4.16.09 @ 6:20PM|#
No. The top five states in terms of wind capacity
are:
Reasonoid, you've changed your argument. You started arguing about
the best wind, now you've shifted your target to the top 5
producers of wind power. Those two things have nothing to do with
eachother.
My response was to your comment on the Dakotas being the best place
for wind turbines, ie best "wind". Coastal areas win...hands
down.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp
Paul|4.16.09 @ 6:21PM|#
Robbing Peter to pay Paul produces no value for anyone other
than Paul.
Everyone talks about robbing Peter to pay Paul, but I've never seen
a friggin' dime. What gives?
|4.16.09 @ 6:22PM|#
Tony,
Here's a question for you. Suppose we could accurately price in the
environmental cost of carbon, and it still turned out to not be
enough to make so-called "green" energy cost-effective.
That is ... take the whole carbon footprint throughout the
production cycle. Energy is going in at every point. If that energy
is priced to include pollution costs - priced to include the total
carbon footprint, then the total final cost is a reflection of the
*actual* carbon footprint and it's associated costs, right?
What if it turns out that so-called "green" energy alternatives
actually cost more, as a reflection of their total carbon
footprints? What if it turns out that solar energy has a bigger
carbon footprint, altogether, than oil?
Wouldn't the subsidies to so-called "green" companies be actually
doing harm then?
Take biofuels - you can bet the political class is going to keep
subsidizing them, cause Democrats love agricultural subsidies, and
it wins votes in the Iowa caucuses.
Then your green energy subsidies will end up taking from
lower-carbon sources to subsidize higher-carbon ones.
If the price actually IS an accurate reflection of downstream
pollution costs, then what would the purpose of subsidies be? The
market will already be favoring energy sources that *actually are*
environmentally friendly, regardless of whether they are
politically popular or whether anyone actually computes their
carbon footprint. Hence the subsidies will simply be patronage
mechanisms. There will be no environmental benefit to skewing the
market in favor of some company, if the market isn't already doing
it. It will effectively disrupt otherwise *accurate* price signals,
thereby causing net *inefficiencies*, and *increasing* overall
carbon production.
Markets are excellent mechanisms for finding global optima - if the
price includes carbon costs, then the optima is going to reflect
the minimal-carbon-producing point. Any skew away from that is by
definition going to increase carbon production.
robc|4.16.09 @ 6:24PM|#
COASE
COASE
COASE
COASE
COASE
COASE
COASE
COASE
COASE
Im not sure how many posts Tony has in this thread, but apply one
of the above to each.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 6:29PM|#
Take biofuels - you can bet the political class is going to
keep subsidizing them, cause Democrats love agricultural subsidies,
and it wins votes in the Iowa caucuses.
My prediction is that as the enviros get weak in the knees about
subsidizing bio-fuels, the Dems will be soon to follow. I posted
this link earlier, Hazel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/business/worldbusiness/22biofuels.html
Governments in Europe and elsewhere have begun rolling back generous, across-the-board subsidies for biofuels, acknowledging that the environmental benefits of these fuels have often been overstated.
Biofuels are a fad. Unless they can dramatically increase the
efficiency of production, along with dramatic decreases in--ahem--
externalities, large biofuel subsidies are finished.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 6:49PM|#
Then your green energy subsidies will end up taking from
lower-carbon sources to subsidize higher-carbon ones.
the only problem I see with this, is the ability to empirically
prove this.
Environmentalists have historically turned a blind eye to certain
inputs into so-called green energy. As a result, carbon emissions
several steps removed in the inputs so-called green energy are easy
to ignore.
I mean, they're not driving around, servicing these huge windfarms
with plug-in hybrid trucks and cranes. The factory didn't build
these frickin' things using windpower.
|4.16.09 @ 6:57PM|#
My whole point here is that I don't really give a shit how
we get there.
Yep, R C, impenetrable.
Paul|4.16.09 @ 7:05PM|#
Another distortion of Green energy:
Windfarm company gets big subsidy from government which helps pay
for 50,000 gallons of petrolium used for manufacture and servicing.
Now that input is effectively erased from the books. The only way
to find out if an energy source is efficient is to provide no
subsidies and minimize taxation. Only then can you get closer to
the true cost.
Jack Thread|4.16.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Obama just told us on TV that 90% of the guns in Mexico come
from the US.
Is this true?
He also says this necessitates searching Americans entering
Mexico.
Can he do that?
|4.16.09 @ 7:14PM|#
Obama just told us on TV that 90% of the guns in Mexico come
from the US.
Is this true?
No. 90% of the guns that Mexican authorities send to the US for
testing because they are suspected to have come from the US
actually come from the US.
17% of the guns in Mexico come from the US.
Reasonoid|4.16.09 @ 7:19PM|#
"Reasonoid, you've changed your argument. You started arguing
about the best wind, now you've shifted your target to the top 5
producers of wind power. Those two things have nothing to do with
eachother."
I was responding to whoever said California was #1. It's Texas. CA
is #3.
I don't really think coastal wind farms will ever be a reality
(think MA's attempt to get it going and the opposition they got
from the Kennedy families. Something about obstructing the view),
though I understand that from a wind availability standpoint, it
would be a good place to put them.
I'll try to find a map of average wind velocity in the US, but
mostly, the middle of the country are the windiest on terra
firma.
|4.16.09 @ 8:37PM|#
What if it turns out that so-called "green" energy
alternatives actually cost more, as a reflection of their total
carbon footprints? What if it turns out that solar energy has a
bigger carbon footprint, altogether, than oil?
Indeed, right now a lot of so-called green alternatives have a
hidden carbon cost. I am in favor only of radical upgrades to the
entire energy infrastructure, including by using nuclear.
Markets are excellent mechanisms for finding global optima - if
the price includes carbon costs, then the optima is going to
reflect the minimal-carbon-producing point
This is exactly what I'm hoping for.
|4.16.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Well, since the price of gasoline already includes a transportation tax of between two and three times the consensus $43 per ton carbon tax, we can be pretty sure that the optimum choice for automobile energy is what we have today.
perilisk|4.16.09 @ 9:04PM|#
"Profit motive will always seek to eliminate waste. Government
will always create and/or exacerbate waste."
Profit motive encourages (tempered by irrationality and information
deficiency within the profit-seeking entity's decision-making
apparatus) elimination of waste internal to the system governed by
the profit motive, e.g. business or household, but does not
consider the waste external to the system, instead leaving it as an
issue for their own profit-seeking decisions to address.
To the extent that the entities the profit-seeking entities
interfaces with are governed by poor incentives, misinformation, or
irrationality, it may be rewarded best by increasing waste in the
overall system (e.g. Earth). Moreover, the profiteering entity
itself may itself promote misinformation and irrationality in other
entities (emotionally manipulative or outright deceitful
advertisements, rent-seeking), as the waste and associated profit
loss of these external entities is only of concern if there are
expected repercussions, once moral issues are eliminated from
consideration, as they must necessarily be in an entity governed
solely by the profit motive.
|4.16.09 @ 9:20PM|#
Indeed, right now a lot of so-called green alternatives have
a hidden carbon cost.
Yes, and your green energy subsidies are going to end up
subsidizing those hidden carbon costs. The decisions will be made
based on what is trendy and popular at the moment. For instance,
instead of nuclear plants, the money will subsidize solar farms,
regardless of whether nuclear has a smaller carbon footprint.
Moreover, lobbyists will start gaming the statistics to try to get
subsidies, so it may not even be so easy to get objective data on
what the carbon footprint actually is.
It you rely on market pricing, the logic of price competition is
inexorable. The higher carbon producing sources won't be able to
disguise their hidden costs behind cheaper metering prices if they
aren't getting subsidies, because price competition will cut rates
down to the minimal point at which companies can turn a
profit.
By definition hidden costs are "hidden". You can't just say "well
we'll subsidize the stuff that doesn't have hidden costs". But, the
hidden costs WILL still turn up in equilibrium market prices -
if you allow the market to work. You can't be jumping in
there with price controls and subsidies and specialized tax-break,
or it will screw up the price mechanism.
Kevin Carson|4.17.09 @ 1:19AM|#
That's assuming that energy inputs per unit of consumption
remain constant, when in fact artificially cheap energy inputs (the
fossil fuel fix) have resulted in an extremely wasteful pattern of
growth by extensive addition of inputs. Never mind lifestyle
changes that will likely result from market forces when Peak Oil
raises energy prices: most people living in mixed-use neighborhoods
close to where they work and shop, buying most stuff from small
factories twenty miles away instead of from China, etc.
Just consider the low-hanging fruit Amorey Lovins describes that
could result in 80% energy savings with no substantial change in
lifestyle. Two of the most prominent are industrial waste heat
recycling through cogeneration, and passive solar heating and
cooling design.
BTW, aside from repeated cutting and pasting of Borlaug's
uninformed assertions, you have yet to describe a corporate
agricultural method that even approaches the productivity of John
Jeavons' biointensive method (i.e., feeding one person on 4000 sq.
ft. of land).
BTW, also, where has nuclear ever worked without massive government
subsidies at every step in the production chain from uranium mining
to waste disposal to the underwriting and indemnification of
liability for nuclear accidents? I understand nuclear is real
popular in France, which is not exactly an exemplar of the
Anglo-Saxon model of neoliberalism you seem to prefer.
|4.17.09 @ 3:56AM|#
where has nuclear ever worked without massive government
subsidies at every step in the production chain from uranium mining
to waste disposal to the underwriting and indemnification of
liability for nuclear accidents?
When has nuclear ever not been subjected to undue harassment by
activist anti-nuke lobbyists, and subjected to regulatory rules
that deliberately bias the site and construction permitting
processes against them?
The anti-nuclear activists openly brag about how they increased the
cost of nuclear power to the point that it became less economical
than coal.
|4.17.09 @ 4:00AM|#
BTW, aside from repeated cutting and pasting of Borlaug's
uninformed assertions, you have yet to describe a corporate
agricultural method that even approaches the productivity of John
Jeavons' biointensive method (i.e., feeding one person on 4000 sq.
ft. of land).
If you are talking about seeding multiple crops in the same field,
you can get more yield per acre, but harvesting becomes an
incredibly expensive and complex process. That's why it hasn't been
adopted. When someone develops a combine that can automatically
sort different crops then the market will adopt it. If you expect
it to be done by manual labor then it isn't the amazing advance you
think it is.
MJ|4.17.09 @ 7:27AM|#
"Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it weren't
massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for the
environmental harm it causes."
Not taxing is a subsidy?
Like freedom is slavery?
Ignorance is your strength, Tony.
Kreel Sarloo|4.17.09 @ 10:00AM|#
"Not if thrift is in the service of protecting a common
environment from harm."
I make a comment about selfrighteous busybodies and Tony shows up
to provide validation.
MikeP, do you have a source on that 17% number? I'm not doubting
you, it's just that I'm sure one of my "progressive" friends is
going to cite that 90% crap sooner or later.
It's my impression that most of the weapons come from government
arsenals, but, of course, I have no real evidence.
|4.17.09 @ 10:58AM|#
You can search for "90% 17% guns Mexico" and you'll see that the
top hits are from Fox News who first rebutted the notion.
For a more fair and more balanced take, down the search results I
found
an analysis by the St. Petersburg Times Truth-O-Meter, which
generously found Obama's statement to be half-true.
We think the ATF number, presented in its proper context, provides legitimate and useful information to weigh when considering U.S. policy. We find the implication that the number could be as low as 17 percent is unrealistic because it assumes that every gun that has not been traced comes from somewhere other than the U.S. That's faulty logic.
But we think Obama also mischaracterizes the statistic some when he says 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States. Not every gun recovered in Mexico is submitted to the ATF for tracing. And so Obama, and others can't know exactly what percentage come from the U.S. They can only speak to the guns successfully traced by the ATF. And so we rule Obama's statement Half True.
I report. You decide. But in my opinion, half truths used to gain a
political end are lies.
Kreel Sarloo|4.17.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Thanks, Mike.
Neither the 90% nor the "guns are coming from TX and AZ gun
shops/gun shows" have ever rung true.
But apparently they do to people who believe that full auto M16s
and AK47s are being traded in volume at gun shows. And that seems
to be an awful lot of people.
Now, I would not be surprised if a lot of the handguns originated
in the US, but that's a different matter and I'm not sure there's
anything to be done about it. I mean we're already talking about
what's already one of the most highly regulated supply chains in
the country.
Anonymous|4.17.09 @ 11:56AM|#
What purpose would it serve to maliciously fabricate the number
of weapons entering Mexico through the US? It's not like people
actually conclude that weapons beget violence and that declaring
guns to be illegal will make them go away.
Oh, wait.
|4.17.09 @ 1:09PM|#
The 90% vs. 17% debate is also covered by Jacob Sollum today and by Radley Balko a fortnight ago.
|4.17.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Not taxing is a subsidy?
In my opinion allowing industries to pollute common resources with
impunity amounts to a subsidy.
|4.17.09 @ 5:36PM|#
## I have read proposals to site solar
## concentration and PV plants in vast,
## basically uninhabitable, mostly useless,
## apparently barren sectors of the American
## southwest.
# What about the desert tortoises?
# and the gila monsters?
# Species-ist!
Well, what about them? What IS the environmental impact of solar
installations in desert areas? The Alaskan oil pipeline warms its
immediate vicinity, which has proven beneficial to local wildlife
(assuming the pipe doesn't leak or rupture). Offshore drilling
platforms and undersea pipelines serve as reef-structures, again to
the benefit of local sea creatures as long as there are no
oil-spills. Couldn't desert solar installations be beneficial to
local species, as well as to us?
As I said above, I think environmentalists should attempt to answer
the questions surrounding desert solar installations. If the
answers indicate a generally benign impact, then perhaps we should
pull out the stops and go solar -- a terawatt at a time is more
than quick enough, not only to pace the public's adoption of EVs,
and to allow ramping up of the solar industry to match demand for
the raw materials of generation plants, but also to allow for an
ongoing assessment of the environmental impact of desert solar
installations.
|4.17.09 @ 5:54PM|#
# MikeP | April 16, 2009, 8:59pm | #
# Well, since the price of gasoline already
# includes a transportation tax of between two
# and three times the consensus $43 per ton
# carbon tax, we can be pretty sure that the
# optimum choice for automobile energy is what
# we have today.
This is an excellent point. And it raises an excellent question:
Wouldn't some of the transportation taxes that we are currently
paying be well disposed to create such things as desert solar power
generation facilities, as part of the steps we take to encourage
the adoption of alternative fuels? But wouldn't such facilities
also be included in the class of things that we might expect to
fund with a carbon tax (also, and perhaps most prominently levied
against those same fuels that are already taxed)? Why pay
twice?
It appears to me as if someone is just trying to manufacture more
reasons and means for parting people from their money so that the
elected elite and their bureaucratic minions can spend it as they
please.
|4.17.09 @ 6:18PM|#
Wouldn't some of the transportation taxes that we are
currently paying be well disposed to create such things as desert
solar power generation facilities, as part of the steps we take to
encourage the adoption of alternative fuels?
Presuming that the 12 cent per gallon tax is already covered by the
36 cent road tax on gasoline, or even added to make a 48 cent road
and environmental tax on gasoline, why are "we", contrary to the
now accurate price of the fossil fuel, doing anything else to
encourage the adoption of alternative fuels?
The price mechanism is the best way to optimize the problem. Put
the environmental cost in the price. Get rid of all subsidies for
all fuels. Problem optimized.
As for the use of the revenues of a carbon tax... If we call a
third of the road tax the Pigouvian component, then we are done. It
gets used for roads. Otherwise, the only good use of an additional
carbon tax collected would be to offset other taxes in the general
fund. Any other use is simply begging for a rent seeking
pigfest.
|4.17.09 @ 6:24PM|#
Incidentally, since coal puts out 25% more CO2 than gasoline per joule, your proposed low-carbon desert power plants are much better used to retire coal power plants than to supplant the excellent fuels that most transportation vehicles use today.
|4.17.09 @ 6:57PM|#
...not that I think it would necessarily come out even close to cost effective in the case of coal. But, really, why go after gasoline?
economist|4.17.09 @ 7:10PM|#
"Presuming that the 12 cent per gallon tax is already covered by
the 36 cent road tax on gasoline, or even added to make a 48 cent
road and environmental tax on gasoline, why are "we", contrary to
the now accurate price of the fossil fuel, doing anything else to
encourage the adoption of alternative fuels?"
I don't know if that really works as an argument. While the tax on
gasoline theoretically reduces consumption, the roads it funds
increase consumption more. And the government subsidizes road
construction by procuring some of the funds from general revenues.
I would be in favor of raising the gasoline tax to fully reflect
the cost of the roads it funds, and to cut spending from federal
revenues.
economist|4.17.09 @ 7:13PM|#
I'm with Hazel Meade on the nuclear power issue. To say that the failure of nuclear power to catch on in the United States, with the massive blocks imposed by anti-nuclear activists and politicians, actually reflects its safety and efficacy compared to other forms of power generation, would be like using France (which is almost fully nuclear, albeit with massive encouragement from its government) to prove that nuclear power is the only way to go.
Chad|4.17.09 @ 7:38PM|#
MJ | April 17, 2009, 7:27am | #
"Fossil fuel energy would be a lot less efficient if it weren't
massively subsidized by the government not taxing it for the
environmental harm it causes."
Not taxing is a subsidy?
His language was unclear. What he should have said is that not
charging for the use of public property is a subsidy. In this case,
a very big one. Coal's "free garbage dump" subsidies reduce its
cost by at least a factor of three, and without them, it is more
expensive than wind+pumped storage.
Kevin Carson|4.17.09 @ 9:46PM|#
Hazel: Fine--leave unlimited civil liability in place, and
remove ALL subsidies to nuclear, and we'll see how it does on its
own nickel.
Likewise, eliminate government-granted patent monopolies and
R&D subsidies on GM crops, and eliminate all restrictions on
commercial free speech (like restrictions on labeling GM-free food,
food libel laws, etc.), and we'll see how that works out for
Bailey's beloved GM foods.
Biointensive is a further development of the raised-bed techniques
used by market gardeners in NW Europe from the 17th century on. It
relies on mulching and companion planting, closed-loop composting,
and the use of green manure crops to build fertility.
Mechanized harvesting doesn't save labor from the standpoint of the
consumer, if it takes more labor to earn the wages to buy
store-bought produce than it does to grow and harvest it yourself.
Bailey keeps asserting that corporate agribusiness is "more
productive," when in fact it trades lower productivity per acre for
superior productivity per man-hour, and small-scale production is
more efficient per acre than large-scale production. That's a
simple matter of fact, and one he refuses to acknowlege; his
specific claim that corporate agribusiness is more efficient in
land use, the one he made here, is simply FALSE.
|4.18.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Tony,
Belligerently ignorant greens like yourself are causing far more
environmental destruction than the oil companies.
The biofuels you all demanded have double the CO2 emissions of the
petroleum products they were supposed to replace.
New
Studies Identify Change in Land Use Associated with Biofuel
Production as Major Contributor of Greenhouse Gases,
Far Offsetting Benefits of Most Current
Biofuels
Two separate studies published in the current online edition of the journal Science identify land use change-the conversion of rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels or to replace existing cropland diverted to biofuel crop production-as a major source of increased carbon dioxide emissions, far offsetting the presumed greenhouse gas benefits of using most current biofuels.
As an added bonus biofuel production is rapidly destroying the
remaining rainforest habitat for endangered species of Orangutans
in Asia.
Go Green go petroleum the environmentally friendly
alternative to biofuels
|4.18.09 @ 7:14PM|#
MikeP: "Incidentally, since coal puts out 25% more CO2 than
gasoline per joule, your proposed low-carbon desert power plants
are much better used to retire coal power plants than to supplant
the excellent fuels that most transportation vehicles use
today.
"...not that I think it would necessarily come out even close to
cost effective in the case of coal. But, really, why go after
gasoline?"
I'm not "going after" gasoline. Rather, the idea was to help
vehicles become non-emitting. It just so happens that vehicles
overwhelmingly use gasoline and diesel.
One side-effect of a concerted push for solar would be to stimulate
research and optimization that, within the 20-30 years or so it
might take for the nation to rollover to an EV fleet, could
markedly lower the cost of solar and improve our ability to capture
and economically store solar energy (or other variable renewable
energy sources, such as wind) for use when the sun doesn't
shine.
Over a decade-or-three conversion period, coal-fired plants could
indeed be shut down as the new solar plants went online, because
there is already a lot of additional capacity in our grid. Right
now, the coal plants have to run day and night. If a significant
number of solar plants could go online, the coal plants would need
to run only at night -- or, more realistically, some of them might
be able to shut down entirely, cutting emissions. At some point,
the country's increased electric demand from normal growth plus the
increased demand from conversion/replacement to/with EVs would
necessitate additional system generation capacity. Then we couldn't
shut down coal plants without putting other plants online IN
ADDITION to the new solar farms. I wouldn't be surprised if someone
hasn't worked out that crossover point already, but I'm thinking it
is at least 10-15 years in the future. That's a fair amount of time
to develop the relevant technologies and drive down costs.
Finally, I wanted to say that these ideas I am presenting are
offered as ways to try to mitigate harm, and derive some actual
lasting benefit from the taxing and spending that seem almost
inevitable now. If you're a libertarian, you can 1) withdraw from
the world, 2) do what you can to mitigate the harm caused by the
current system, or 3) try to change the system to something it
properly ought to be. I spent a lot of time in previous decades
trying to head-butt the brick wall of #3, and that is still the
right thing to do, in many cases, as the wall sometimes crumbles,
or at least fractures. But more often these days, I go back and
forth between approach 2 and approach 3, as circumstances provide
relevant opportunities.
That is to say, if we can't keep the Statists from confiscating the
wealth, we can at least do what's possible to minimize their
squandering of it, that we might accrue the benefits of true
investment. It's a very melancholy capitulation to the
world-as-it-is, but unless you can show me Galt's Gulch, there
don't seem to be too many other options. In that spirit, I
entertain the solar scenario I have described here.
economist|4.18.09 @ 9:04PM|#
"Coal's 'free garbage dump' subsidies reduce its cost by at
least a factor of three, and without them, it is more expensive
than wind+pumped storage."
Not saying you're wrong (don't jump down my throat-I'm one of the
AGW moderates here), but could you please provide a link or
citation?
economist|4.18.09 @ 9:06PM|#
"do what you can to mitigate the harm caused by the current
system"
I'd really love to take this approach, but the powers-that-be
aren't even inclined to use lubricant during the ass-rape.
Kevin Carson|4.19.09 @ 5:09PM|#
economist: The comparative labor time required for home
gardening plus canning, versus earning the wages to buy from the
grocer, comes from Ralph Borsodi's experiments along those lines.
He found that with all costs internalized (including amortization
on the kitchen range, electricity costs, the labor involved priced
at an average wage, canning supplies, etc.), the home produce cost
about a third less overall than the store-bought equivalent. His
argument was that while mass-production industry was considerably
more efficient than home production in terms of its internal unit
production costs alone, that wasn't enough to offset the enormously
increased costs of distribution and marketing. The internal
production costs of home manufacture were final costs, because the
product was consumed on-site. See Flight From the City, and The
Distribution Age.
Jeavons' bio-intensive methods are described here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/04/13/HO126062.DTL
You might also check out this, which Bailey continues to refuse to
address (not nearly as fun as phoning it in with more regurgitated
agribusiness talking points):
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
Kevin Carson|4.19.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Economist: Re the issue of subsidies to roads, trucks are
specifically subsidized because--while heavy rigs are the primary
source of roadbed damage--they pay only about half the fuel tax
that goes to the Interstate.
As for congestion pricing of urban freeway access for cars,
tollgates would be a much more efficient method of tying price to
marginal cost.
The way it works now, the genius traffic engineers and urban
planners (acting as useful idiots for the real estate developers
and the rest of the growth mafia that controls local government)
propose a new highway bypass to "relieve congestion" on the old
highway bypass. Never mind that the old bypass was created to
"relieve congestion," and the main reason it's congested now is
that it immediately filled up with NEW traffic generated by all the
strop malls and housing additions that sprang up at every single
cloverleaf of the subsidized highway. And never mind that the new
bypass will itself just generate new traffic.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245