Voice For Liberty

Tag: Climate change

  • Wind power: it’s not free

    A letter from a citizen in today’s Wichita Eagle makes the case that electricity generated from coal is less expensive than electricity from wind. I don’t know if the writer’s numbers are correct. Considering all costs, though, it is true that wind power is very expensive.

    Here’s something from the American Wind Energy Association: “Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants can generate electricity for less than 5 cents/kWh with the Production Tax Credit in many parts of the U.S., a price that is competitive with new coal- or gas-fired power plants.”

    Note that it takes a taxpayer-provided subsidy to make wind power competitive in cost with coal. This is at odds with claims made by some that once the wind plant is built, there’s little cost.

  • GPACE poll on Kansas energy

    Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy recently released a poll that purportedly shows great interest in Kansas for clean energy sources. Looking at the poll, however, leads to little confidence in its results.

    Some of the results the poll produced are totally meaningless. For example: “Results show that most voters (almost two-thirds) think the price of coal will increase over the next 25 years.” Is this poll relying on Kansas voters as experts in coal futures? This result is probably more the result of the Kansas press repeatedly reporting the wishes of radical environmentalist groups.

    The poll also asks questions that produce results like this: “88% of Kansans feel that it is important that Kansas become energy independent by developing natural gas and wind resources that already exist in the state.”

    “Energy independent” sound like a good thing, doesn’t it? It conjures up the fear of the United States being reliant on Iran or Venezuela for its energy. But we’re not talking about enriching rogue countries. We’re talking about our neighbors in Colorado and Texas, for example. Have we declared a trade war with these states? We happily export beef, wheat, and airplanes to our neighboring states. What if Texas decided it didn’t want to be dependent on Kansas for airplanes?

    One of the poll questions asks Kansans how important it is that Kansas’ electricity production in the future “will help stimulate the state’s economy and create jobs.” The poll question doesn’t state this, but it clearly alludes to the environmentalist lobby’s mistaken belief that a switch in energy policy will create thousands of “green” jobs and drive the economy forward. Jobs will be created, to be sure. But wealth and prosperity, which is what we really want, will not be created.

    This green jobs myth is dangerous. Ask Spain. As reported in Green energy policies causing harm in Europe, each “green job” created in Spain cost $774,000. Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs provides additional information.

    The same question asks Kansans whether it’s important that future electricity sources “can be provided at a long term fixed price.” The future cost of the renewable energy sources that GPACE supports — wind and natural gas, mostly — can’t be predicted. They are both already much more expensive than coal, and their future cost is unknown. This question may be alluding to the threat of taxes or caps on carbon emissions. These policies will affect natural gas power production too, although to a lesser degree than coal.

    It is certain, however, that taxpayers will have to continue to subsidize wind power production, or it would not be used. But this poll didn’t ask a question like “should Kansas’ future energy policy include a power source that is so costly that it must be subsidized?”

    The same question also asks if it’s important to produce energy in a way that doesn’t cause climate change. Who wouldn’t agree with that? The question, however, ignores important factors of cost. There’s also the realization that anything we can do in Kansas is virtually meaningless in the context of the entire world, as shown in KEEP’s Goal is Predetermined and Ineffectual.

    As reported in other stories here, GPACE has a history of asking misleading questions. The results of this poll may be read by clicking on Wind Energy, Net Metering, and Kansas Energy Sources.

  • Green energy policies causing harm in Europe

    In their Washington Times article Lessons from Europe, Iain Murray, Gabriel Calzada, and Carlo Stagnaro warn us in the United States about “green” energy policies that have been implemented in Europe. These harmful policies are just like the ones we are considering here.

    The cap-and-trade system that’s been in place in Europe has done little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The scheme has been repeatedly gamed and manipulated by industry and governments so that emissions have actually increased faster than the those of the United States, with none of the big reductions promised materializing.”

    Meanwhile, electricity bills are going up, and Europe has become more dependent on natural gas imports from Russia.

    Spain has gained experience with the costs of green jobs. Large government incentives meant that the renewable energy sector in Spain grew rapidly — at a large cost that taxpayers and consumers will continue to pay for a long time.

    Furthermore, it turns out that green jobs are expensive. Here’s what Bloomberg reported about a study released by one of the authors of the Times article:

    The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

    “The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

    The Times article notes that “most of these ‘green jobs’ were transitory, anyhow, mostly connected with construction, not operation.” This is a common criticism made of the proposal to build a coal-fired power plant in Kansas. Yes, thousands of jobs will be created, but only for a year or two, say the critics. It turns out that green jobs have the same life cycle.

    It turns out that cap-and-trade has not worked out well for Europe. Neither has heavy government subsidy worked to create jobs at a cost that we can afford.

    We have to wonder, then, why President Obama is so committed to cap-and-trade in the United States.

    Furthermore, have outgoing Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and soon-to-be governor Mark Parkinson thought of things like this?

  • Articles of Interest

    Capitalism, CFL bulbs, green indoctrination, bailout constitutionality, Facebook, Twitter

    ‘The Road to Serfdom’ revisited: Markets display uncertainty over future of capitalism itself (Scott S. Powell in the Washington Times) Discussion of how government interventionism in the economy is not helping. “President Eisenhower called it ‘creeping socialism.’ Nobel Prize winner Friedrich von Hayek called it ‘The Road to Serfdom.’”

    Do New Bulbs Save Energy if They Don’t Work? (New York Times) Many customers are not happy with compact fluorescent light bulbs. Short life for the expensive bulbs is a common irritation.

    ‘Green Hell’ Coming Soon to a Life Like Yours (Human Events) A review of a new book that merits reading. “Be prepared the next time your child comes home from school with some nice ‘green’ project or attempts to lecture you about how you ‘should’ be doing more ‘sustainable’ activities to ‘save’ the Earth. You will be ready to confront teachers, political leaders, neighbors, and annoying aunts with the astounding new book by Steve Milloy titled Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.”

    Bailing Out of the Constitution (George Will in the Washington Post) Is the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 — that’s the $700 billion bailout of banks from last year — constitutional? Perhaps it isn’t, argues Will. It has to do with the Vesting Clause of Article I says, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in” Congress.

    Is Facebook Growing Up Too Fast? (New York Times) Facebook will soon have 200 million members. All are not happy, evidence being the recent controversy over a redesign of some of its most important aspects. There’s also the “coolness” factor: can kids like a social network that their parents are now using?

    When Stars Twitter, a Ghost May Be Lurking (New York Times) “In many cases, celebrities and their handlers have turned to outside writers — ghost Twitterers, if you will — who keep fans updated on the latest twists and turns, often in the star’s own voice. Because Twitter is seen as an intimate link between celebrities and their fans, many performers are not willing to divulge the help they use to put their thoughts into cyberspace. … It is not only celebrities who are forced to look to a team to produce real-time commentary on daily activities; politicians like Ron Paul have assigned staff members to create Twitter posts and Facebook personas. Candidate Barack Obama, as well as President Obama, has a social-networking team to keep his Twitter feed tweeting.”

  • Articles of Interest

    Stimulus, invisible hand, Kansas wind.

    Stimulus Delusions (T. Norman Van Cott at the Foundation for Economic Education) More argument that the economic stimulus is harmful to the future of our economy. “Does it matter whether the dollars come from taxes, government borrowing, or the government’s printing press?” No, of course it doesn’t.

    Stinson Morrison forms stimulus practice (Wichita Business Journal) A law firm with a Wichita office (Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP) establishes a “Stimulus Strike Force.” No, it’s not an effort to save the taxpayers from having to pay for a harmful, pork-laden spending program that will permanently expand the size of government and is unlikely to solve the problem it’s meant to fix. Instead, this group will “help businesses analyze, understand and access federal stimulus funds and programs. Specifically, team will focus on legislative and executive branch lobbying, government procurement and compliance advice related to the stimulus.”

    Adam Smith and the invisible hand (Helen Joyce in Plus Magazine) This is a very nice explanation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand concept, with explanations of how the Prisoner’s Dilemma applies to subsidy-seeking. Also, Arrow’s Theorem — “there is no consistent way to aggregate the preferences of individuals to give a single preference which can be regarded as the preference of society” — is explained.

    Topeka media outlets cutting employee pay (Lawrence Journal-World) More bad news for newspapers, and in this case, radio too. Hopefully journalism will find a way to survive.

    Kansas wind industry booming (Lawrence Journal-World) “Kansas has tripled its wind generating capacity in the last 15 months, and wind power supporters are hoping that is just the beginning.” One of the comments left to the story reads “Hey hows business going? Its booming!!! Sounds great. Yeah but I don’t make any money and it cost taxpayers a fortune.”

  • Physics for future presidents is for all of us

    In the most unlikely of all cities, at the most unlikely of all universities, Richard A. Muller tries to a inject a dose of sanity into science, especially the debate over climate change.

    “Surrounded by tree-hugging academics at UC Berkeley, he dares to argue that coal and nuclear fission are good sources of energy.”

    The Forbes Magazine article A Berkeley professor dares to debunk the popular wisdom about the future of energy reports, and it’s essential reading. It explains his criticism of Al Gore and the New York Times’ Tom Friedman.

    The website supporting the Muller’s popular class Physics for future Presidents includes podcasts of lectures, and the complete chapter on climate change from the textbook. This easy-to-read-chapter presents a reasonable and balanced view of the science and some of the politics and economics of climate change.

    Global warming alarmists say that those who don’t agree with their doomsday scenarios are denying science. It turns out, however, that not all scientists agree, especially with the recommendations that will destroy our standard of living in America.

  • Academic Study Challenges Projections of Green Jobs

    Global warming alarmists often argue that transforming our economy to reliance on “green” sources of energy is good because millions of jobs will be created. These new green jobs, it is claimed, will drive our economy forward and create wealth.

    In Kansas, our governor believes in green jobs. She was a keynote speaker at a recent “Good jobs, green jobs” conference. Our likely incoming governor Mark Parkinson speaks the same language.

    A just-released study from the University of Illinois adds to the critical body of evidence that shows that many of the claims made about green jobs aren’t true. From the press release announcing this study:

    While acknowledging the importance of energy conservation and ongoing research and investment into new technologies, the authors set out to evaluate the fundamental soundness of green job claims. In aggregate, the academic team’s study concludes that a lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives. Furthermore, the reports that were reviewed have been issued without the benefit of peer-reviewed analysis or transparency of their models and calculations. (emphasis added)

    Furthermore:

    Key findings of the study show that no definition for green jobs exists causing great discrepancy in how numbers are counted; that green job estimates often include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods or services for consumption; and that problematic assumptions are made about economic predictions, prices and technology advancements leading some to ultimately favor mandates over free market realities. These serious flaws, as well as the failure to include technical data, render the prevailing green job estimates virtually unreliable.

    These are the myths identified by the authors:

    • Everyone understands what a “green job” is.
    • Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
    • Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
    • Green jobs promote employment growth.
    • The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
    • Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
    • Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

    The study comes out of the University of Illinois College of Law. An article about the study with an easy-to-read (short) summary of the myths may be read by clicking on 7 Myths About Green Jobs. The full study is at Green Jobs Myths.

  • Earl Watkins, Sunflower Chief Executive, speaks at AFP event

    Earl Watkins, President and CEO of Sunflower Electric Power Corporation recently spoke to a group of citizen activists as part of AFP – Kansas Day at the Capitol. Here’s a few notes from his talk.

    Did you know that Sunflower Electric is a not-for-profit organization?

    The demand for electricity changes constantly, moment-by-moment, throughout the day. Since electricity can’t be stored, matching generation to consumption of electricity is a challenge. Adding wind power makes this an even more challenging job, as wind power is very erratic.

    Watkins told a story of how a group of Kansas University students contacted him as part of their investigation of the “slothful and wasteful” practices of excess electricity consumption. Watkins told how when he attended KU, he had a radio and an electric typewriter in his dorm room, not to mention the forbidden hotplate. Today, however, these students have many electrical devices in their dorm rooms — refrigerators, microwave ovens, televisions, and computers, for example. Electrical power is a huge factor in the increased quality of life, especially for college students.

    The average age of Sunflower’s natural gas-powered plants is almost 40 years.

    While Kansas is often portrayed as having rich wind resources, the wind doesn’t always blow when power is needed. “The fact of the matter is, of the four seasons for harvesting wind, the summer in the day is the worst,” Watkins said. The highest demand for electrical power, of course, is on hot summer afternoons.

    It is the cost of the various forms of power generation that Sunflower uses that drives the decision as how to generate power and invest in capacity. These costs per kilowatt-hour are 1.5 cents for coal, 5 cents for wind, and 9 cents for natural gas.

    If the permit for the new coal plant is denied, Sunflower will be forced to build new wind and natural gas capacity. It’s estimated that the extra cost to consumers — remember these forms of generation are more expensive to build and operate than coal — is about $600 per household per year.

    Afterwards I asked Watkins a few questions. One concerned Cessna Aircraft Company chairman, president and chief executive officer Jack Pelton and his role as leader of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP). How, I asked, does Pelton expect to build airplanes in Wichita when the wind isn’t blowing? The answer is that it’s easy for him to trade Western Kansas for a relationship with the Sebelius administration. This relationship has paid off handsomely for Pelton and Cessna, with $33 million in state money heading his way, and potential for more. My post Jack Pelton, Leader of Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group explains.

    Also, does the fact of Governor Sebelius’ impending departure from Kansas have any potential impact on the Kansas House of Representatives and its voting? He indicated that perhaps it would.

  • Articles of Interest

    Charity, Kansas legal intrigue, Kansas infant mortality rate rises under Sebelius, taxing it all, bailouts not wanted, cap-and-trade costs, school choice saves.

    The Charity Revolt: Liberals oppose a tax hike on rich donors (Wall Street Journal) true-blue liberals who run most of America’s nonprofits, universities and charities” are worried that Obama’s plan to limit deductions for charitable contributions will cost them. This article introduces a term I saw for the first time: “New Charity State,” and it is a real danger. “Mr. Orszag [White House budget chief Peter] revealed the real agenda at work when he pointed out that the money taken from the ‘rich’ would be used to fund such Obama state-run charities as universal health care. The argument is that any potential declines in private gifts, whether to universities or foundations, will be balanced by increases in government grants paid with higher taxes — redistribution by another means. This is how Europe’s welfare state works: Taxes are so high that private citizens have come to believe it is only the state’s duty to support cultural institutions and public welfare. The ambit for private giving shrinks.” Ambit: sphere or scope, I learned.

    Who is playing politics in the Kansas Judiciary by leaking information to the press? (Kansas Meadowlark) More intrigue.

    State’s infant mortality rate rises under Sebelius (Kansas Liberty, a subscription service) “Roderick Bremby, the secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, told lawmakers Tuesday that between 1988 and 2007 the infant mortality rate increased in Kansas from a rate of 6.9 to 7.9 per 1,000 live births. Bremby said that though infant mortality rates for white babies actually decreased slightly during that time, rates for non-white babies increased greatly.” Wait … wasn’t Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius just appointed secretary of health and human services for the entire country? With this record?

    The 2% Illusion: Take everything they earn, and it still won’t be enough (Wall Street Journal) Can President Obama finance his spending plans by increasing taxes only on the rich? “Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions. … A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.”

    Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money (New York Times) It seems that even free money isn’t all it’s promoted to be. “The list of demands keeps getting longer. … others say the conditions go beyond protecting taxpayers and border on social engineering.”

    The Climate Change Lobby Has Regrets: Cap and trade is going to cost them (Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal) Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, decided to go along with the government’s plan for cap-and-trade as a way to control carbon emissions. “At the time, Mr. Rogers explained: ‘If you don’t have a seat at the table, you’ll wind up on the menu.’ Duke sat, yet it and its compatriots are still shaping up to be Washington’s breakfast, lunch and dinner.” Ms. Strassel explains how now we are beginning to realize just how expensive cap-and-trade will be for consumers, and how lucrative it will be for the government: “President Obama’s auction bonanza would earn the feds $650 billion in 10 years, according to the administration’s budget estimate — and that’s a low, low, low estimate.”

    Finding room for school choice (John LePlante, Saint Paul Legal Ledger) The government school lobby says that school choice programs drain precious money from public schools. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary: “In December, 2008, a research office of the Florida Legislature evaluated a school choice program in that state, and estimated that it saves state government $1.49 for every dollar spent. … Here in Minnesota, a 2005 report published by the Humphrey Institute stated that a majority of K-8 private schools in Minnesota charged less than the state sends to public school districts as their ‘basic formula allowance.’ The allowance is only one block of money, albeit the largest one, that the state sends to school districts. So can we ‘afford’ school choice programs? Perhaps we ought to ask the question ‘Can we afford to not have them?’”