intention, I read his argument as being for the same sort of subsidies that other renewables (and nuclear for that matter) currently get: “… despite this encouraging analysis, the Federal government is currently offering a host of tax credits as incentives for solar- and wind-power adoption—but nothing to speak of for biomass.” And that biomass ca provide energy in a way that does not tax an overburdened transmission infrastructure. But, yeah, he’s a shill and should be taken with a grain of sawdust, admittedly. On that ground alone perhaps it would be best if I withdraw hat link as a cite.
As to your disputing that carbon is a cost that has just been dumped into the future and is now going to actually going to be accounted for. Well I’ll beg to differ. I guess by your definition paying fees for my garbage pick up is a tax too as are the fees that the nuclear industry pays to account for their waste (and for which they’ve gotten very little in return, but that is another thread). No, carbon is a cost that will be paid in future years and the amounts being bandied about do not even begin to cover its management.
Your claim that dealing with CO2 will depress the economy has already been debunked, see post#27: As the very imperfectly implemented and very flawed Kyoto Protocol nevertheless resulted in decreased energy intensity the EU accelerated its economic growth.
Your claim that incentivizing renewables did not increase them is well odd. Wind went up tenfold! That was the result of the incentives being enough to make it a cost effective choice.
Sam, thanks for taking the time to read it. I am glad I am no the only one who found it so interesting.
As to cost, I’ll just quote.
Also note this from the intro:
I’ve nothing against nuclear. Price the carbon and maybe nuclear will be the go to power source. Or maybe not. maybe one reneable, maybe another, or maybe not. Like I’ve said before, I just want to see the games begin.
For those that think that CO2 is “garbage”, this probably makes sense. For those that think that CO2 is an essential trace gas which has recently gone from about 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% of the atmosphere with no visible results … not so much.
Ten years ago the Kyoto folks were saying that we had to act now, now, now, or we’d fry. So they acted … then they couldn’t meet their you-beaut plan and schedule.
And instead of the oft proclaimed disaster, we’ve had ten years of basically flatline temperatures, while CO2 has continued to increase. I suppose the proponents of the CO2 myth will notice this someday …
Whenever someone says that another person’s claim has been “debunked”, it only decreases the credibility of the person saying that. It’s just a way to try to claim victory before the discussion is even joined.
The idea that taxes at the start of the manufacturing process (e.g. on energy or raw materials) do not depress the economy flies in the face of both accepted wisdom and common sense.
Your citation does not even address the claim in question, much less “debunk” it. All you have shown is that the European economy dropped its energy intensity over the period … so? One of the countries with the lowest energy intensity on the planet is Bangladesh … obviously, low intensity does not measure what you think it does.
Nor have you provided any comparison figures, which makes any comparison impossible. Yes, from 1990 to 2002 the EU did increase its energy efficiency by 15% … but the US, with no Kyoto and no punitive fuel taxes increased energy efficiency by 18% during the same period.
Spain, on the other hand, decreased its energy efficiency by 5% over the same period. Portugal decreased by 6%. Iceland decreased by 29% … gosh, that’s impressive, all right, that proves the case.
You see the problem with “debunked”? You haven’t even approached the issue in a serious manner, much less debunked it.
Wind is up tenfold! Sound the flageolets, wind the trumpets! Wind has gone from three hundredths of a percent to three tenths of a percent in only ten short years!!
Surely you are not serious. We’ve thrown big bucks at wind, and that’s all we get, a quarter of a percent increase, and you call that some kind of big win? A 0.02% per year increase? At a quarter of a percent per decade, it could take a while to get to 20%, n’est-ce pas? But that was not my point.
My point was that all of the subsidies were not enough to increase total renewable use in the slightest. During the time of the greatest subsidies, the most recent decade, US total renewable energy use has decreased. You can call that a win for subsidies if you wish … I’ll pass.
I thought I had been clear about that, hang on … OK, here’s my quote:
Virtually all of this information is available from the Energy Information Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, which I consider a reliable source.
For example, This document contains the amount of CO2 emitted per Quadrillion BTU for every fossil fuel.
This page Renewable Energy at a Glance is a very useful reference. Really, the whole EIA site is a gold mine of information. For example, here’s a Map of Solar Flux which I’ve used to figure out costs of solar power in various geographical regions.
Here’s a map of Wind resource availability. What I like about this one is that it shreds T. Boone Picken’s wind plan apart at a glance. Have a look at this powerpoint from his web site. On page 5, he’s got a map of the U.S. which shows a huge red swath through the center of the country that looks kind of like a big tornado. This is the ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind’ as he likes to call it. He’s making the claim that the entire center of the country is a huge wind resource.
Now look at the EIA map I linked to. It’s roughly the same shape for wind, but if you look very closely, those big areas in the midwest, although of higher wind speed than the rest of the country, aren’t high enough except in a very small number of places (the purple and dark red). Those are your $60/MWh and $80 MWh locations. Outside of that, wind is just too expensive. Pickens’ chart makes it look like you could just plop a wind turbine down anywhere in the midwest and start making cheap electricity.
For cost of implementation, I use some industry data that I have collected over the years from various sources, but it’s all widely available on the web. Where estimates vary, I try to find the most non-partisan figures, or average out various claims from various sources. Just Google it - there’s plenty of data out there. The EIA site has a lot of that kind of information as well.
For an example of cost estimates from what you might consider a source with a vested interest, here’s a good document from the World Nuclear Association. You can compare that to an anti-nuclear site like the Center for Policy Development.
Estimates do vary widely for some energy sources, because some of the costs are better stated as risks - i.e. we don’t really know what the cost will be until we do it. Nuclear in particular suffers from this, because capital costs can skyrocket due to permit delays due to activism and court challenges. And of course, for fossil fuels the prices of the raw fuel are constantly changing and somewhat unpredictable.
intention, could you cite where you got this from? I can’t make any sense of it. Judging from the percentages in this table, it seems like you’re using total energy usage (not electricity production), but 1.4TWh usage is so low, I just can’t figure out what you’re talking about here.
btw Sam, your wind map link goes to the solar map. Here’s the right link, and given that Texas is doing quite well with cost effective wind power generation in areas listed as “fair” on that map one thinks that cost effective need not require what they classify as any better than that. Here’s the same map with the actual wind power speeds and power class included (rather than the arbitrary “good”, etc). It seems that the first version is calling wind power class 3 as “fair” but that class is ample for cost effective electricity generation. Here’s another fun map to play with btw.
Do you have information on where Texas has its wind farms? There are a few ‘excellent’ locations in Texas, and I’d assume they are located there. Are they not?
Well Sam we’ll have to cobble it together ourselves. But in short, no they are not.
Wikipedia has a list of wind farm Texas locations naming the counties and here is a Texas county map. Almost all are apparently in locations listed by the EIA as “fair” wind resources. A small number in “good” ones. None seem to be in “excellent” locations. The greatest capacity seems to be in Taylor, Nolan, and Pecos, which are located near the edge between a “fair” and a “marginal” location for the first two, and looks like “marginal” for Pecos.
Not that I am a fan of Pickens mind you, but his “swath” does correspond to wind resources on par with where Texas wind farms operate cost competively…
As to his claim that these resources make the US “the Saudia Arabia of wind”, well that is classic Pickens crap. A global map of wind resources shows that South America is awash in wind and so is central Africa. China and India also leave us in the relative dust. Heck even Canada, Mexico, and Russia seem to have good wind. But the US supplies are still adequate.
You know what? My apologies, I read that global map wrong. Canada Mexico not so much. South America, Africa no. Western China has lots. But over land few places in fact do as well that swath through the center of America that Pickens touts. Acch. Sorry. Pickens is actually pretty much on the4 money. You want “excellent” you have to go out into open waters.
Actually they’re not. On a macro scale map like the ones in the links, it looks like the whole region of Texas around those wind farms is of fair and marginal wind, but if you zoom in, you find small areas of natural high winds that are excellent, and that’s where these wind stations are located. I was looking at a zoomable wind map at work today, and if you zoom in to those counties there are little pockets of high winds. I assume those farms are up on mesas or something?
Those areas do look like Texas - inside the large region of relatively mediocre wind there are small areas where natural terrain or altitude create a region of higher winds. The point is that they are a tiny fraction of what Picken’s implies is available. Your own cite says there are 453 potential wind sites in the U.S. Pickens implies that there are an almost limitless number.
Look, the engineering behind this is pretty straightforward. If you don’t have high winds, you have a lot less power available and it costs more money to extract usable power. You can’t just put a wind farm up anywhere in the midwest and expect it to be cost-effective. In the areas where winds are half or less of the highest wind speed regions, your power costs will at least double.
Then out of all the potential high wind regions where wind power is profitable, you want to build on the ones closest to the consumers of the power. Then you need to attain the land rights unless you’re building on only federal land, which further reduces the number of sites available.
Yes wind power is subsidized. Pretty much all electrical power generation is and/or has been subsidized in various ways. Perhaps we should look at the nature of those subsidies?
First there is money used for R&D. Nuclear had gotten much of it in its earlier days and now renewables are getting their share and it is indeed a good chunk of change relative to the amount of power they currently produce. It is however of no value in the analysis of whether or not wind, or any other renewable, is at a competitive subsidy advantage competing to sell power. What matters in that analysis are operational subsidies. In America renewables and nuclear power get comparable operational subsidies:
I’d be fine putting them on the exact same footing.
Coal OTOH has a different sort of subsidy, at least to my view. I agree with the above cited World Nuclear Organization’s take on coal’s subsidy:
I respect that Sam recognizes that this ignoring these “external” costs is indeed a subsidy even if I strongly disagree with his assessment as to whether or not it is a wise one. I understand that you do not see it the same way.
Fair competition to those of us who recognize these external costs means that those expenses be paid explicitly by the industries producing them.
I feel the need to re-emphasize that I have no idea which will be the most cost effective approaches to provide power accounting for all the real costs and the point of this thread was that I think presuming that it will be renewables, or some defined percentage of renewables, is getting ahead of the game. Nuclear is certainly in the running. Heck, clever grid management, like the use of megabatteries for managing grid stability and frequency regulation may be a significant means as well (Saving the 2-3% constant excess production currently wasted to have on hand for sudden demand spikes becomes more attractive when that also saves the utility the carbon costs in coal plants). Choosing the answer ahead of the competition stifles creative problem solving.
Sam, well it does seem that using the EIA’s gross maps to dismiss Picken’s claims is not justified and that of land-based resources the US is pretty much in the best position of the world. If land based wind is going to cost compettive any where it is in the Pickens identified swath. How much power could the usable powerful enough potential American wind farm sites produce? I don’t know. If one expands to consider using off shore wind farms in the Great Lakes however the potential is enormous.
And that’s just the potential off of Michigan’s coastline.
Is it exploitable in a cost competitive manner? I don’t know that either. Anchoring the turbines, dealing with wintertime ice, transmission lines … lots of potential problems. But the resource potential is there.
I can agree with all that. Like I said, I’m actually a fan of wind power. I think it will wind up being a reasonable percentage of overall electricity production. I was just annoyed with Pickens because he plays fast and loose with the facts and does his showmanship routine to spin everything in the best possible way.
The problem with low-density energy is that small details really matter. A site with a 5mph drop in wind speed will be significantly more expensive to operate per kWh. And wind is already at the high end of the financially feasible window. It doesn’t take much to push it to the point where it’s not remotely cost-effective. Pickens map does not show that nuance.
I didn’t understand the middle map’s “ridge crest estimate greater than 1000 ft” as that would be meaningless in most of Texas. The coastal areas make sense due to convective air as well as the moutainous areas to the West and South. The map Sam listed earlier corresponds directly to the wind generators I’ve seen from the air in the Mid-West.
I’d like to go back to something you said earlier in post 12 and the article you linked to. I don’t see how this could possibly be revenue neutral. The poor get another tax rebate and that leaves everybody else holding the bag. The price of electricity will absolutely go up and that will affect the economy which will reduce the amount of money available to invest in future energy technology.
And the idea of government auctions doesn’t address the issue when there are environmental groups who actively bid the credits up and retire them to keep them out of the hands of coal plants.
We can’t build any new hydro-electric plants because environmentalists are already trying to take down the ones we have. unless there are river locks that do not have turbine stations associated with them that source of energy is dead.
Wind power is great when they’re located away from people but it lacks a consistent power source. We might be able to establish water reservoirs as a way of pumping water uphill to store energy but I don’t know if that’s a practical way of evening out the peaks and valleys.
Solar is a great resource out West and It will be worth investing in transmission technology but that leaves coal and nuclear power.
We should release our cleaner coal reserves from Federal lands as a short term solution to coal as well as restrict the carbon auction to Co2 emitters. The money should be plowed back into cleaner coal plants and future technologies based on the best use of the money (best bang for the buck).
The advantage of coal is that we can link biodiesel production to these plants and produce our own fuel with the scrubbed CO2. We should be using our own resources (clean coal) to produce our own energy (electricity and transportation fuel). It’s a win-win situation that reduces CO2 both from the burning of coal and also increased fuel economy. It also takes us off the oil standard which adds to national security.
Bringing back up a subject long past posted (and answered previously by way of citing the shortage of supply in American manufacture relative to demand, especially by GE) -
Shipping actually is a big deal and just like for cars manufacturers, manufacturers of other large heavy items prefer to build near demand if they can. GE is building near demand all over the world, not just building in America and shipping out, and Vestas is building its capacity here to meet American demand, rather than shipping in. The nameplate often tells little about where it is actually made.
Magiver, the average taxpayer will see little net effect. Electricity bills go up and they get more money back in other ways. Of course no individual taxpayer is the average taxpayer. The greatest concern to many is that rising electricity bills are somewhat regressive in their effects. In Congressional testimony Pete Ozog laid it out fairly clearly.
As far as the topology of Texas, I have no personal knowledge and can offer no more than the cites I have provided.
I also cannot imagine that coal will not be part of the mix. The key is incentivizing the cleanest cost-effective use of it. It is otoh easy to have only those qualified to bid to be allowed to bid. Anyway, I do not think that environmental groups have enough money to meaningfully drive up the price.
That is not what both cites said that you posted to back up this statement. According to Pete Ozog’s statement it would cost someone in the lower 5th of income over 3%. At $17,500 that is an increase of roughly $550. That would be the minimum increase for the middle class. It would be a burden to most middle class budgets.
Again, according to Pete Osog, the program is designed to do 2 things: encourage people to make changes and provide relief for the poor (redistribute wealth). I’ve already done what I can afford to do to save electricity and any additional redistribution of wealth will drive businesses overseas. As the cost of products rise against those of foreign products we will lose jobs.
If a finite number of credits are issued then each retired credit reduces remaining number and will thus raise the cost.
Magiver the cite is intended to illustrate the point that the average effect on individual would indeed be a net out but a relatively small one - who bears how much of that cost however depends on what is chosen about what to do with the proceeds. The numbers you quote are how much a 15% reduction would cost individuals without the government distributing the proceeds back into the system. But (to quote just that pertinent part over again)
Bolding mine.
In that scenario the middle quintile would have essentially no net household budget effect. The 40% below modestly positive and the 40% above modestly negative. Of course the highest quintile would be in the best position to invest in efficiency changes.
That said I certainly recognize that the long term investment comes at a short term cost. You don’t get something for nothing too often. The over all net to taxpayers would have to be at least some cost and while there would be net gainers there would also be net losers. This is true both at the income and the employment level. Some regions and industries may see a stable or economically improving circumstance with stable electricity prices and tax refunds and with new jobs in transmission etc. Others will be hit more negatively. The worst affected over the moderate haul would be workers in coal towns as coal use would no doubt decrease (causing local job losses) while electricity from coal generation increased in price.
The option to increase taxes during a financial crisis will accelerate job transfer to nations who will add more coal plants to meet demand. This will effectively make the problem worse in a classic example of unintended consequences. We already went through this in my state with e-checks. Due to the modern computerized automobile the checks did little in the way of finding cars out of spec while at the same time creating the need for an unnecessary trip to have the test done.
Instead of shrinking the economy to fix a problem we should be growing it.