dispatches from TJICistan

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CoyoteBlo…

If you move solar panels out of the Arizona desert, they are going to produce less electricity. You almost don’t have to tell me where they are going — if they are currently close to the optimal spot for maximum solar energy production, then moving them is bound to reduce their output.

Seems obvious, huh? So why is it so difficult to understand that when the government moves capital and other resources away from the industries where the forces of market optimization have put it, output is going to go down.

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

…

We all know from reading the media that the Obama administration is 1) full of brilliant people way smarter than the rest of us and 2) driven by science. So this insightful exchange between a reporter and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs vis a vis this Spanish study should come as no surprise:

Q: Back on the President’s speech today, a Spanish professor, Gabriel [Calzada] Alvarez, says after conducting a study, that in his country, creating green jobs has actually cost more jobs than it has led to: 2.2 jobs lost, he says, for every job created. And he has issued a report that specifically warns the President not to try and follow Spain’s example.

MR. GIBBS: It seems weird that we’re importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case.

Q Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?

MR. GIBBS: I haven’t read the study, but I think, yes.

Q Well, then. (Laughter.)

In two sentences, Mr. Gibbs demonstrates that 1) He is an idiot and 2) He has no respect for science. The correct, intelligent response would be “I can’t comment, I have not read the study yet.”

Unreal.

How many jobs might we be talking about?

The following math is suspect, because we don’t really know how the tax incentives work, or what sort of behavior they compel, but it’s worth a first stab.

If the $20 billion is half spent on increased profits, one quarter spent on materials and one quarter spent on labor, then we’re looking at $5b on labor. If an employee costs $100k/year with overhead, then 50,000 employees can be paid for a year with the $20b.

If for every job created, two are lost, then we’re destroying 100,000 jobs, or 50,000 jobs net.

So: $20b removed from the government’s top line (and replaced with borrowing that we’ll have to pay for later), all in order to destroy 50,000 jobs.

Nice!

You may argue that spending $20b and destroying 50k jobs is worth it, if the new “sustainable” energy sources reduce the CO2 emitted.

However, it turns out that much of this “sustainable” energy doesn’t actually reduce the use of conventional power plants, and often results in increased CO2 production:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CoyoteBlo…

wind [ power ] must have a backup… every technology that might currently be used as a backup takes a really, really long time to start up… a large coal-fired power plant can take days to go from a cold stop to producing electricity. This is in part because there are a series of steps where A has to precede B which must come before C to start plants up, and partially just because immediately heating the whole system up would cause the plant to blow up just from the thermal stresses.

So, to back up wind power, traditional fossil fuel plants have to be kept warmed up with turbines spinning. This means that fossil fuels are burned but no electricity is produced… Germany estimated that 48,000MW of wind capacity was in fact allowing the shut down of just 2000MW of traditional fossil-fuel powered capacity.

A recent article in the National Post argues the Danes are seeing absolutely no substitution from their substantial investment in wind.

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.

It probably comes as no surprise that the Danes have the highest electricity costs in Europe. The article goes on to call wind power in the US a “huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.”

The perfect storm: arrogant preachy leftists throwing money at useless things – and rational but amoral capitalists running around picking up the money.

The only loser is the taxpayer who is on the hook for all that money.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 17th, 2009 at 6:35 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.