“Wish energy” has anti-green consequences
by Greg Krehbiel on 8 February 2013
When legislators comply with the fantasy world requirements of the environmentalists — we should get rid of nasty coal and scary nuclear and make energy from sun and wind and smiles — the results are completely predictable, and Europe is seeing them now.
The thing is, worthy goals lie behind this stupidity. Coal is dirty and we should move away from it. Solar energy is great and we should use it more.
Yet there is a frustrating refusal on the part of environmentalists (and the legislators they have by the short hairs) to cope with reality. They seem to have fallen for some sort of conspiracy theory that the energy companies could do all these things if we only forced them to. It just takes an act of legislative will. If we have thousands of petulant little brats stomping their feet at the state house, we can make a new world of daisies and sunshine.
So they set sales goals for electric cars that don’t really work and nobody wants. They set quotas for “alternative energy” that doesn’t exist. They close down perfectly functional energy for fantasy energy. It is so incredibly stupid.
Of course we should move towards cleaner energy. I would like to see a day when the only reason somebody digs up coal is to look for fossils.
But we have to do it sensibly, with realistic projections made by engineers and people who understand energy markets — not by “activists” in Birkenstocks.
-- 2013-02-08 » Greg Krehbiel
8 February 2013 @ 10:45 am
“So they set sales goals for electric cars that don’t really work and nobody wants.”
And which burn coal. They can’t even get the goals right.
9 February 2013 @ 9:13 am
I think there is a very fundamental problem related to these new technologies. In the not-too-distant past, it seems to me that we were largely a capitalistic economy, and the way you could tell good decisions from bad decisions was by looking at things like return on investment and cash flow and profit. It seems to me that there is a new definition of what is good and bad, using words like sustainable and green and fair market and progressive. As a conservative, I have to recognize that elections have consequences, and although more Republicans and conservatives were elected in 2012 the Democrats and liberals (when you include the presidency and the Senate and House of Representatives) the marquee election and control of the executive branch has gone to progressives. As a conservative, I would like to see definitions of these terms. As a businessperson, I would like to have some long-term predictability and rule of law. as a person who makes decisions on principles, I would like to know if there are any consistent principles from the left. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s coming.
9 February 2013 @ 10:42 am
Greg, you are completely correct that things like fleet fuel efficiency standards, sales goals for preferred technology, and similar goofy attempts to force results rather than look at incentives are doomed.
But solar electricity is already cheaper than coal when you count all the costs of coal. It’s just that the beneficiaries of coal, including the customers, are held harmless in many of these costs.
Get rid of the market distorting subsidies, and we’d see solar panels on most houses and businesses. For instance, the SMECO solar installation on Rt 5 in Charles County Md provides enough electricity to power the Waldorf mall. Why not put solar panels over the parking lot, which would also protect people from the rain as they enter the mall? Why not cover the mall roof with solar panels?
I have no idea why politicians of all political orientation can’t see the real incentives they create, although I suspect that they really do sometimes, and pretend not, as in the exemption for employers to cover health costs for employees who work less than 29 hours per week.
9 February 2013 @ 10:56 am
Solar is definitely getting better all the time, which is a great thing. And the “externalities” issue with coal is huge, but I’m not sure how to solve it. Something like a fee on every ton of coal to go towards a fund to treat people who got sick from coal, but I know it’s more complicated than that.
11 February 2013 @ 10:49 am
This is in no way meant to be an anti-solar comment. I’m in favor of realistic solar energy. But even solar isn’t magic. It has its externalities too, and isn’t quite as green as it’s promoters might want us to think.
Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes