Mr. President Please Think of Spain -- The Iberian Solar Power Bust

"[T]hink of what’s happening in countries like Spain ... where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries," declared then-President-elect Barack Obama back in January 16, 2009.

Of course, any industry can "surge" if the government dumps enough taxpayer dollars into it. Now that Spain is slipping into a fiscal black hole, it turns out that solar power subsidies are unsustainable. This spring saw the bursting of Spain's solar power bubble. Climatewire is reporting:

Only two years ago, Spanish solar energy companies feasting on generous government subsidies expanded at a feverish pace, investing €18 billion (then worth roughly $28 billion) to blanket rooftops and fields with photovoltaic panels. They briefly turned the country into the top solar market in the world.

Spain's subsidies for solar were four to six times higher than those for wind. Prices charged for solar power were 12 times higher than those for fossil fuel electricity. Germany and Spain received about 75 percent of the world's photovoltaic panel installations that year.

Suddenly facing a deep recession, a collapsing housing market and a ballooning budget deficit, the Spanish government cut the rate paid for photovoltaic power by about 29 percent last year and put a limit on new solar installations at 500 megawatts per year. It is now considering additional tariff cuts that may reach as high as 40 percent and may even be applied retroactively, according to local newspaper reports.

Germany and France have also been pulling back on their ridiculously expensive solar subsidies. Of course, some American states and cities are just now enacting the same failed subsidies that Europe is quickly jettisoning.

And when the subsidies go, so, too, go the much-vaunted "green jobs" that depend on them. Climatewire reports that some 30,000 green jobs have evaporated in Spain. Earlier studies found that it cost nearly $750,000 to create each new green job in Spain's renewable energy sector.

So, yes, Mr. President. Please think about what's happening in countries like Spain.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Don't worry, US solar power cells will get an extra boost from the sun that shines out of Barry O's ass.

  • ||

    Stay away from the light! Move away from the light!

  • ||

    Wish we could derive energy from bullshitery, 'cause we'd be able to form another sun with what we could produce these days.

  • skr||

    technically we already do. The shit from the bulls gets collected from the feedlot and then funneled into a bio-reactor in order to produce methane. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

  • Saint Barry||

    it cost nearly $750,000 to create each new green job in Spain's renewable energy sector

    But it's "an investment in our future." What's the prob?

  • Obama supporter||

    Walk towards the light...

  • ||

    (bashes Obama supporter on head and takes the light)

    You're wattage is not in compliance with our regs.

  • ||

    No, Obama supporter, it's "Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

  • ||

    Dylan was way cooler before he went electric.

  • ||

    The funny thing is that the fucking moron statists here in the US will learn absolutely nothing from Greece, Spain, etc. Absolutely nothing. Because it's not about that. It's about their religion of the state.

    Fuck anyone who defends these subsidies.

  • ||

    Sure they will. They'll learn that it'll be different the next time, when they do the same thing here. The Spaniards just didn't try hard enough.

  • ||

    You're making me want to punch people. ARGGHHHH

  • ||

    HULK SUBSIDIZE SOLAR & WIND POWER HARDER!!!

  • ||

    STEVE SMITH FIND HULK'S IMITATION OF STEVE ACCENT INSULTING! STEVE, HOWEVER, NOT SURE IF CAPABLE OF RAPING HULK OF GAMMA RADIATION! THIS SOUL-SEARCHING MOMENT FOR STEVE!

  • ||

    RACIST!!!

  • blueGrass||

    Yes. It'll be that the failed Europeans programs didn't have the resolve to see it through, with the firm resolution that we will.

  • ||

    Or they subsidized somehow not exactly the wrong thing.

    Remember how these people like Chad think. It's not fair to compare their government subsidy plans to the bad ones of the past. Those people were wrong, but Chad-tachi have Science™ on their side, so they won't be wrong. Besides, corporations sometimes make bad investments too.

    Arguing about incentives is useless, or saying that the point of the free market isn't that corporations never make mistakes, but that mistakes are punished.

    Incidentally, just like the EMH doesn't say that one trader can't accidentally sell a billion shares, just that it won't have a real effect on the market as a whole.

  • Chad||

    Mistakes are punished? Yeah, look at Wall Street, or BP, or Massey.

    If the barely-slaps-on-the-wrist they got are the only downside risks they face, no wonder they behave the way they do.

    As you damned well know, there neither is, was, or ever will be a "free market", and even if there were, it would not get the optimal answer because of various externalities and a whole host of market failures.

    As long as fossil fuel users get to dump their toxic garbage on everyone else's property for free, the not-so-free market won't even come within a mile of the "right" answer.

  • ||

    They would be punished a lot harder if we let them fail.

  • Chad||

    The problem is the banks are so big that if we let "them" fail, they sink the ship and take many of the rest of down with them.

    And conservatives and libertarians won't give up the subsidies for fossil fuels, so don't expect them to sink anytime soon, no matter how inept.

  • Brett L||

    That's kind of the point. It instills caution in the survivors.

  • ||

    The problem is the banks are so big that if we let "them" fail, they sink the ship and take many of the rest of down with them.

    See, you're pro-bailout in everything, banks or not. I don't see why you blame people who oppose bailouts for the bailouts that you support.

  • ||

    Mistakes are punished? Yeah, look at Wall Street, or BP, or Massey.

    Yeah, government does often intervene to prevent the punishment that would happen in a free market. I was and am against those bailouts, just like I'm against your bailouts.

    And yeah, there's never going to be a perfect free market, but that's a stupid reason to argue for an even less free market.

    Chad: "Since bailouts are inevitable, we must have even more bailouts."

  • ||

    Nonsense. You're pointing at the anomaly and calling it the norm. It's like saying the important things about evolution are the meteor strikes and the super volcanoes. Like evolution, the market works billions of times a day in very fine increments to punish and reward. (And no, the important thing about the Dinosaurs wasn't the meteor; it was the fact they had a great run, but evolved away from forms that would have survived.) Sweeping - and true - generalizations can be made about what creates health care, cars, and the like (the collectivists are free-loaders in health innovation; just look at the list of Nobel Prize in Medicine winners since the late 60s). But it cuts down so fine as to distinguish between models of laptops, the precise number of hatchbacks, how many of what trendy doll should be produced, the three air fresheners a manufacturer should put in stores, the latest colors for fall fashions. Markets are both the engine of innovation and the Wheels of God, grinding very, very fine. Collectivists want to imagine themselves - even if vicariously - as the Creator of the commerce, Designers of social miracles and economic hopeful monsters. It's absurd, narcissistic and ugly.

  • ||

    Remember that Chad doesn't think that Synfuels or ethanol subsidy has ANYTHING to do with his push to subsidize other forms of energy.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Ha!

    They never believed the "green jobs" crap they were shoveling was true to begin with.

    It was just part of the con job to expand their own power.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    The outcome is always the same. They always respond with "market failure, government didn't do enough, its the naysayers' fault..." But we're the ones who somehow seem to manage to correctly predict the end result each time the market mechanism gets tilted towards some glorious goal. Naysayers indeed.

  • Chad||

    Where did you correctly predict that Spain would have to cut its subsidies because of financial problems related to the bursting of the US housing bubble?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Where did you correctly predict that Spain would have to cut its subsidies because the energy related manufacturing market was overinflated due to government market distortion and were too expensive to continue because of financial problems related to Spain's own fiscal irresponsibility that happened to be accelerated due to the bursting of the US housing bubble?"

    Fixed that for you.

  • Chad||

    Wrong. Spain was NOT "fiscally irresponsible", and was actually running a surplus before our banks blew up the world economy.

  • Brett L||

    Citation, please.

  • from Spain||

    Spain run a surplus (tiny) for one year at the very top of a humongous housing bubble.. which means govt. spending had been growing at huge rates.. banking on accelerating growth forever.
    I'd call that irresponsable.

  • ||

    Red Herring. Spain is a welfare state that lives under America's comfy security blanket. That's the problem with pointing to European countries and yearning to be like them (or be liked by them). They do not spend real money on defense. Next leftist dream-pie please. Yumm.

  • engineer||

    It's irrelevant to the point. The industry they were subsidizing was not sustainable without massive subsidies, which they can no longer afford to provide. You fail, Chad, and so does your state-subsidized solar power.

  • ||

    We all predicted that Spain would have to cut its subsidies eventually. We don't have to predict the actual immediate cause of the inevitable disaster. Recessions happen, and subsidized government programs do not tend to suddenly become efficient, despite your dreams.

    OTOH, you were here predicting that Spain's subsidized energy program would suddenly start paying for itself and generating jobs and shit.

    Chad, wrong again.

  • ||

    No, it's about their willingness to blame their failures on evil capitalist sabotaging their perfectly thought out economic experiments.

    If Marxism we scientific, they would have tested it on animals first.

  • blueGrass||

    They're already busy blaming Greece on capitalism. Seriously.

  • ||

    Remember, it's the right people that have to be in charge Epi-tome.

    Ask T-Boone, he'll tell ya.

  • Tman||

    Prices charged for solar power were 12 times higher than those for fossil fuel electricity.

    Egads.

    Earlier studies found that it cost nearly $750,000 to create each new green job in Spain's renewable energy sector.

    So it would be a quarter million dollars cheaper to just cut a check for a half million to those unemployed?

    Fantastic.

  • ||

    In the U.S., I've wondered why, for the $787B stimulus, they didn't just cut a check to every household (~110M U.S. households) for $7,150.00. That would have been enough to make a real difference in peoples' lives.

    (Not that I think that would have been a good plan, but I have a feeling it would have been a better one than the one they implemented...the only valid gov't stimulus is when the gov't has a surplus and returns the money to the people).

  • NEA||

    Why send do that when you could send a check for $71,000 to 11 million teachers.... for TEH CHILDRENZ

  • Tman||

    Christ you two, stop giving Obama any more ideas.

  • Shannon Love||

    I think that wind and solar will only be viewed as viable as long as they are minor contributors to baseline power. When they pass a certain threshold somewhere between 10%-15% of baseline power, they will begin to destabilize the grid and cause widespread blackouts. At that point, the whole "alternative" energy craze will be over.

    Alternative energy has only gotten as far as it has because most people use a hydraulic metaphor for electricity. They think you can use an unreliable generator whenever it works just like you can use an unreliable pump to move a little water whenever the wind blows or the sun shines.

    Well, electricity isn't water. The entire power grid has to be balanced between source and load. Since wind and solar work on natures schedule the grid managers can never predict when the will provide power and how much power they will provide. Right now, there is enough fossil fuel and nuclear redundancy in the system to compensate but that redundancy can only cover a little over 10% of total power. Once alternative power provides more than 10% of baseline power, the sudden loss of it will bring down the entire grid.

    Texas has the highest percentage of wind power and in Feb 2008 it came very close to bringing down the Texas grid. Back then, wind contributed 6% of the Texas grid baseline while today it contributes 9%. If the same event happened today, it would almost certainly have blacked out the state.

    The writing is on the wall. This technology has show stopping problems that its advocates refuse to acknowledge. Perhaps we should encourage alternative power to kill it faster. The sooner it reaches it failure threshold, the sooner everyone will see it for the sad joke it is.

  • BlueBook||

    There are some ideas on the horizon that could mitigate the instability of solar and wind power (large capacity electric storage, broad spectrum solar to absorb nighttime infrared re-radiation, etc.) but none of them are much past the prototype stage. Space-based solar arrays with microwave transmission could work at full capacity 24/7, but that's hardly the sort of thing that John Q. Taxpayer (Juan Pagador de Impuestos?) could stick on his roof.

  • ||

    "Ideas on the horizon" are fine. Once they pass into usable tech, I'll bet there will be folks standing in line to fund them.
    Prior to that, the government funding is almost guaranteed to be wasted on the ones that don't work; Nancy Pelosi can't choose a good plastic surgeon, let alone a promising energy tech.

  • skr||

    You can always store the energy in water. Pump it uphill and when you need power, let it move a turbine. It has its inefficiencies, but at least it is incredibly uncomplicated.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Yep, and it also has the virtue of not needing massive inverter banks to turn the power into AC from DC.

  • ||

    Tough to construct something like that in the middle of Texas, though.

  • Chad||

    But it is not so hard to do around the Great Lakes, which happen to lie between some of our best wind resources and some of our biggest loads.

    I once read that we could construct an 18GW pumped storage facility near Niagara that would move less than one inch of water from Ontario to Erie at night and have virtually no impact on the falls. That alone would nearly double what we currently have on the grid.

    It is all a matter of will, and removing ALL subsidies from coal and nukes.

  • ||

    Near Niagara, sure, because you've got lots of water and substantial elevation change. IANA civil engineer, but I think you need both to make large-scale pumped storage close to economical. Possible geographic locations seem very limited.

  • Chad||

    There are plenty all around the Great Lakes. Indeed, some of the largest in the country are already here, such as the one in Ludington Mi.

  • Brett L||

    Why not just run the power generators off the falling water? It's called hydroelectric power, and we build dams to replicate the effect of places like Niagra.

  • ||

    Politically, it is now nearly impossible to do this around the Great Lakes--the places where such installations are feasible also happen to be valuable and sensitive natural environments. There's one pumped storage plant in Michigan (south of Ludington), and it has a long history of environmental controversy (relating to fish kills). About 50 miles north of there a lakefront parcel owned by a power company (presumably held for a possible pumped storage installation) was sold to a land conservancy for a nature preserve. You want to turn this into an industrial power storage facility? Ever see Local Hero?
    What do you think the chances are of that happening?

  • Shannon Love||

    This is so cute.

    Let me introduce you to an adult concept called scale. Scale is the factors that changes as a technological system changes size. There are a lot of nifty technologies that work small scale but which breakdown when you try to make them really big.

    Do you really think it is possible to use water to store 10% of the power of the entire grid for at least 12 hours? By comparison, every hydroelectric power facility in America today produces only 8% of our daily power. To make water storage an effective backup for baseline wind and solar power you would have build a system as a large as every damn in the country now! Oh, and do it in areas that don't have mountains.

    Hydro storage is a sad little joke. It's costs are enormous. First, since it only recovers around 25% of the energy put into it, you have to produce 4kwh for every 1kwh you get out of it. That means huge overhead in the cost of wind and solar generators. Then you have the cost of the pumping mechanism, then the cost of the reservoir, then the cost of the hydro generators to recover the energy. Basically, you end up with a giant duplicate generator system.

    Oh, and you also have the problem that low head generator, the ones that can be put on flat land, have a major problem with freezing in the winter because their reservoirs are shallow.

    To get one kwh reliably at the point of consumption, you're looking at a system that cost literally 10 times that of a nuclear system that could produce the same reliability.

    Large scale hydrostorage is a complete joke and anyone who says otherwise is either an idiot or they're lying.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    How can a rube goldberg system like this possibly be more efficient, economical, or environmentally friendly than the relatively simple and powerful design of a steam plant?

    Hey, why not just design a water turbine that just replenishes itself by having the water flow back to the top!

  • Colonel_Angus||

  • Mango Punch||

    Only problem is when Obama thinks of spain he thinks of how we should bail them out...

  • ||

    Damn you and your quick fingers, Mango!

  • Sudden||

    except he'll mask the bailout by saying we're "buying alternative power technologies" or some other garbage.

  • ||

    I have a prediction to make. As Spain continues to face economic woes, the U.S. will send money to help support Spain's solar power subsidies. Yeah, I'm serious.

    Speaking of Spain, I saw an interesting film on Sundance called The Matador. Not the Pierce Brosnan flick, but a documentary about a leading toreo, David Fandila.

  • ¢||

    Only problem is when Obama thinks of spain he thinks

    "Visigoths get bitter, cling to their spears and Arianism..."

  • BlueBook||

    Or bitter Basques clinging to their Jai Alai cestas and separatism.

  • ||

    It is possible, if demand for oil and electricity rises AND the cost of solar power continues to fall, that solar might become economically viable someday.

    But just as private space flight has built on the knowledge gained by NASA does not justify the billions spent on the latter, the possible future viability of solar, wind, and other "alternate" energy sources do not justify the money dumped into them today.

  • Joe Kristan||

    How dare they squander money on solar power when they should be squandering it on Iowa ethanol and biodiesel?

  • ||

    Meh - alt Energy is boring - something for hobbyists who like to tinker, but it won't unfuck the mess we're about to wind up in.

    What's interesting to me is the fact that oil/gas prices are on the verge of skyrocketing, and once that happens we're going to have a bunch of hick conservatives who are stranded out in the burbs. Which course of action is more likely?
    1. More support of mass transit?
    2. They'll eat the cost, but try to mitigate it by buying more fuel efficient cars?
    3. They'll move intown or closer to work, and brave living next to the hordes of hipsters and blacks who are already there?
    4. They'll eat the cost, but slap a "Drill Here, Drill Now" bumper sticker on their POS car.

    Will this make cities more conservative? Or is it likely to make the conservatives who move there more progressive? Either way, I think the energy dilemma that's facing us will have a big impact on the political landscape.

    *Yes, I realize telecommuting is an alternative, but this is typically reserved for responsible adults. Conservative worker drones cannot function without a high level of oversight, drug testing, etc - so I do not think this is a viable solution for the sub-urban white mud people.

  • Paul||

    Honestly:

    2 & 4.

    Seriously. Last time gas prices got over $4 a gallon that's what happened.

    I'm not sure I understand your askterisk comment. It's very Michael Moorish:

    Moore 1: Conservatives are all wealthy and rule the international finance system!

    Moore 2: Conservatives are simpleminded inbred backwoods country folk, but you keep 'em around when you need your car fixed.

    Pick one and stick to it. It's easier.

  • Paul||

    *asterisk

    Funnier with the typo though.

  • ||

    You seem to have very odd ideas about who lives in metro suburbs. Have you ever actually set foot in one?

  • ||

    Marcia |5.6.10 @ 6:22PM|#
    "What's interesting to me is the fact that oil/gas prices are on the verge of skyrocketing,..."

    Right. That would be sometime prior to, oh, 2050? Or 2075?
    BTW, did that person die 'near a body of water'?

  • ben||

    The word 'unsustainable' bugs the shit out of me

  • Paul||

    Almost as much as 'sustainable' bugs me.

  • Sudden||

    I prefer "insolvent" anytime I am describing the fiscal situation of a Western government.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Along the lines of what Sudden said, whenever a progressive says something is "unsustainable", I reply, "oh, like our government spending?"

    If we have to put up with this shit, might as well have the fun of annoying them. Of course, they all think I'm racist now.

  • Brett L||

    You could say "Oh, like California." Its okay to discriminate against governments headed by Austrians.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    If Hahafornia was governed by Austrians, maybe it wouldn't be in such a mess.

  • ||

    No, they'd still be screwed up, but their trains would run on time!

  • Barack Al Manian||

    There are those who think America's continued reliance on fossil fuels is a good idea. But while energy corporations make billions, Americans are demanding a new way.

    Let me be clear - clinging to the failed policies of the last administration will leave America more dependent than ever on foreign powers who do not have our best interests in mind.

    My alternative energy plan, like Spain's successful model, will reduce energy costs, improve the lot of hard-working American families through the creation of tens of millions of green jobs, spur economic growth and ensure America's energy independence by 2015.

    I don't believe any of this, either, but you dumbasses who elected me will swallow anything, so I'll keep shoveling the shit as long as you'll keep eating it.

    Now I'll take no questions - RELEASE THE GIBBS!

  • marlok||

    dude, you could seriously get a sweet-paying gig in Washington

  • Maverick||

    Aren't Germans supposed to be smart? Why would smart people build a solar anything in a cloud-ridden country?

  • Jeffersonian||

    A cloud-ridden country at that latitude, no less.

  • an aggressive three||

    while doing the backpacking thing, i spent an entire july in berlin and needed a rain jacket at least once EACH day.

    flew to barcelona at the end of the month. when i got off the plane and saw the temperature was 42 celcius, i threw half of my clothes into a trash can.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Really. At least a lot of Spain is very sunny.

  • ||

    Because nuclear power is scary, and Germans have been wimps for decades now.

  • MNGChony||

    But what about the externalities?!?!?!

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Spain and Germany are cutting subsidies for a bad idea???!!!

    How the fuck did that happen? And can we get some of that over here? I'm looking at you corn farmers...

  • Jeffersonian||

    Even the most addled Eurocrat will abandon a trendy saltlick when it starts to bleed billions of dollars.

  • Brett L||

    Maybe we could borrow some of those Grecian rioters that seem to have keenly focussed the attention of Eurocrats on the negatives of radical austerity regimes.

  • Corn Farmer||

    You enjoy watching me count your money don't you?

  • Archer Daniels Midland||

    Back the fuck off. That's my job.

  • louboutin boots||

    GOOD

  • Chad||

    Get back to me when you start whining about the multi-trillion dollar coal subsidies we keep giving away.

    Until then, you are just being partisan hacks.

  • BakedPenguin||

    No profit making business should receive any money from the government for any other reason than the purchase of goods or services by the government for its necessary functioning.

    No industry should receive preferential tax treatment versus other industries for any reason.

    Now STFU.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Actually, non-profits should have been included in that first paragraph.

  • Chad||

    Not all subsidies are cash, dumbass. Free services are subsidies as well.

    Imagine I worked for one of your competitors. Imagine I convinced my crony friend in some government office that he should, say, have his office handle the IT for our business for free, but not yours. How is that any different than a cash handout?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Not all subsidies are cash, dumbass. Free services are subsidies as well.

    Which is why we're against the government doing so much of what it does. You understand the principle, but now you want to play semantic games because you got called on your BS. Fine, write up a list of all the possible means the government has to provide a tilted playing field so we can say "yes, we're against that, too."

  • Chad||

    No, you still refuse to acknowledge that the government ALLOWING someone to dump toxic waste on public property (and indeed, other peoples' PRIVATE property) is a subsidy. Indeed, one that would cost hundreds of billions in the open market.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's not a subsidy, Chad. You can twist it all you want, but logic only bends so far.

  • Ernie the Bear||

    Chad|5.6.10 @ 11:07PM|#

    Imagine I worked for one of your competitors.

    I just came on myself.

  • Chad||

    I also would like to add the reasonoids seem to be fond of corn subsidies as well, yet you complain about solar energy. I realize no one here is a scientist of my magnitude and education, but at least try to think critically. I know your associate degrees from the University of Phoenix probably skipped that, however.

  • Chad||

    Think critically? Around here? HELL NO!

  • BakedPenguin||

    I realize no one here is a scientist of my magnitude and education

    Shit. Until I read this, I thought it was the real Choad. Fished in.

  • Enyap||

    Apparently your education couldn't help you see the multiple post trashing corn subsidies in this thread alone.

  • ||

    What. The Fuck. Could POSSIBLY give you the impression that ANYONE here favors corn subsidies.

    We only bitch about farm subsidies every other week or so.

  • ||

    Chad's cause de célébrité is that we do not specifically address fossil fuel subsidies and his notion of externalities unpaid for, i.e. pollution being a subsidy in of itself.

    Which you, Sean W. Malone, and others have addressed.

  • Chad||

    Where as any libertarian around here (except maybe Ron) accepted that we should eliminating the externality-related subsidies? This would require a price, set by the government, on all sorts of things that are currently "free".

  • Brett L||

    Toll roads!

  • ||

    When have you, Chad, ever actually posted a single economics papers or any proof whatsoever of the magnitude of externalities? Never.

    You just invoke "externalities" as a magic word without having a clue what it means, other than it means that "everything I hate must really be subsidized by the government or have some sort of externality that justifies government intervention on my part." It is common enough magical thinking as well among a certain set of libertarians who really, really like something that needs to be subsidized to exist and want to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

    Besides your magical thinking, you enjoy arguing against strawmen and declaring victory.

  • engineer||

    Externalities are magical. Anything that gives Chad a stiffy has "positive externalities", and should be supported no matter what the cost. Anything that Chad dislikes has "negative externalities", and must be killed with fire (or windmill-produced electricity, preferably, since that would be "green").

  • ||

    When you actually know how large a trillion is, come back.

  • ||

    Yeah, Chad is off his game in this thread. Troll fail.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Last two sentences, translated:

    I'm better than you fucks. Only those who were properly educated in high-end universities should have their opinions taken seriously.

  • anona ||

    Right! Educated far beyond their two digit air temperature I.Q.. People that are so smart they couldn't find their ass with both hands if they sat on them. The only thing that should be taken seriuosly about the pronouncements by these folks is that what they promote is edvidence of such serious mental incapacity they are a danger to themselves and others, requiring immediate institutional committment

  • ||

    Get back to me when you start whining about the multi-trillion dollar coal subsidies we keep giving away.

    Do you know how large a trillion is? GDP is 14-15 trillion. We produce and consumer roughly 4 trillion kWh of electricity for the entire country, and the average price is roughly 10 cents per kWh. So you're supposing that we "keep giving away" roughly 5-10 years worth of our entire electricity production in just coal subsidies? How does that work?

    But don't worry, apparently you could get a job at Citigroup as a trader with that kind of knowledge of large numbers.

  • engineer||

    I think Chad is taking a leaf from the page of his idols at IPCC. Always inflate your figures to make the situation look way more dire than it is. Or scale them down (if they're the costs of things that you like), to make them seem reasonable.

  • Chad-bot||

    We give away a million billion dollars every year to coal companies while coal is causing global warming which will cause the oceans to rise 20 feet in the next 30 years and kill twenty gazillion people, when we could spend a billion a year switching to things I like, and avoid all those bad things! You libertardians just aren't smart enough to understand this because you lack my advanced education and intellegence!

  • anona||

    Buh buh but, the "WON" was supposed t o make the oceans stop rising when he was elected! He said so! Along with the air being cleaner and all sorts of other good things that would happen./s

  • ||

    OH wow, now that makes a lot of sense dude.

    Lou
    www.anonymous-web-surfing.cz.tc

  • ||

    I think we need to write the bills in Spanish so we can REALLY duplicate failed Spanish programs.

  • ||

    CHAD: Libertarians are not brain dead. They can't be neatly labeled into class or race, a favorite ploy of liberals. Liberalism is a disease which will be eradiated in the USA this November. Be afraid.

  • ||

    LibsAreBrainDead - you're right, libertarians are not brain dead. Right wingers and conservatives that pretend to be libertarians are absolutely brain dead. You see, it's not only business "entities" that have rights, people also have rights that those precious "entities" shouldn't be allowed to trample without regard or penalty. Difficult concept for right wingers, social cons and pretend libertarians but sit someplace quiet and think about your twisted dreams come this November.

  • ||

    "Externalities." Lessee, Chad the scientific genius- do you mean oil spil;ls? Exxon and BP get the tab for those. Air pollution? A fraction of what it was prior to the Clean Air Act (you can look it up). But of course what you really mean is the Apocalypse According to Saint Albert. Which, unfortunately for you, is no more real than those "green jobs."

  • ||

    Seems to me that if done right... Imagine the government put solar power on government buildings (schools for example) you could not only take them off the grid but during the summer the school might be able to sell money back to the grid to help pay for some of their operating costs. Yeah probably costs more than its worth to the government but it would help the schools more than dumping money on them has helped.

  • anona ||

    NOPE! Money loser. Panels have to be cleaned on a regular basis or they lose what little efficiency they do possess. Plus someone has to guard them 24/7 to keep the little jacka**es from throwing rocks at them, smashing them, or just flat-out stealing them. That means an overpaid union employee or three to baby-sit every installation. And another bunch to maintain them (union work rules) Got expensive fast, didn't it? You're also forgetting that there's a 20 year span to break even on cost using equipment that has a 10 year life...

  • ||

    Never mind Spain and Germany. Did no one notice that Oregon discovered that their generous wind subsidies were being gamed?

    Even though they're liberals, they weren't totally stupid. They changed and reduced the subsidies.

    But, being liberals, they weren't smart enough to eliminate the gravy train entirely.

    They're still getting gamed, just not as badly.

  • gagafh||

    We give away a million billion dollars every year to coal companies while coal is causing global warming which will cause the oceans to rise 20 feet in the next 30 years and kill twenty gazillion people, when we could spend a billion a year switching to things I like, and avoid all those bad things! You libertardians just aren't smart enough to understand this because you lack my advanced education and intellegence!

  • original battery||

  • ||

    Think? Think? This is the second Black President of the UNited states, the first being Billy the CLinton, if he thought, he wouldn't have run for President at all, he would have himself arrested and wrestled to the ground by his own S.S. I mean Secret Service for his acts of terroism and betrayal of his own country.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement