Monthly Archives: May 2008

The Outlook for Biofuel Gets Even Worse

Posted on by
Reply

Now people are concerned about the second-generation of biofuel crops–the crops that would be used to create cellulosic ethanol. Here’s what the NY Times says:

In the past year, as the diversion of food crops like corn and palm to make biofuels has helped to drive up food prices, investors and politicians have begun promoting newer, so-called second-generation biofuels as the next wave of green energy. These, made from non-food crops like reeds and wild grasses, would offer fuel without the risk of taking food off the table, they said.

But now, biologists and botanists are warning that they, too, may bring serious unintended consequences. Most of these newer crops are what scientists label invasive species — that is, weeds — that have an extraordinarily high potential to escape biofuel plantations, overrun adjacent farms and natural land, and create economic and ecological havoc in the process, they now say.

At a United Nations meeting in Bonn, Germany, on Tuesday, scientists from the Global Invasive Species Program, the Nature Conservancy and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, as well as other groups, presented a paper with a warning about invasive species.

“Some of the most commonly recommended species for biofuels production are also major invasive alien species,” the paper says, adding that these crops should be studied more thoroughly before being cultivated in new areas.

Controlling the spread of such plants could prove difficult, the experts said, producing “greater financial losses than gains.” The International Union for Conservation of Nature encapsulated the message like this: “Don’t let invasive biofuel crops attack your country.”

Disinformation about Wind Power from T. Boone Pickens

Posted on by
Reply

When the media or wind adovcates talk about wind energy they write things like, “Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is sinking billions of dollars into a new wind farm in Texas. It is likely to become the biggest in the world, producing enough power for the equivalent of 1.3 million homes.”

Wrong, unless you only want your lights in those houses on 30% of the time. Wind cannot power the equivalent of 1.3 million homes because you can’t plan when the wind will blow with the degree of accuracy needed. As a result, when you build a 4 gigawatt wind energy plant, like Pickens wants to, you have to build at least 3.2 gigawatts of backup generation for the wind turbines. That backup power will most likely be natural gas, much of which will be imported.

Here’s more silliness:

Pickens: The Department of Energy came out with a study in April of ’07 that said we could generate 20 percent of our electricity from wind. And the wind power is — you know, it’s clean, it’s renewable. It’s — you know, it’s everything you want. And it’s a stable supply of energy.

Wrong. Wind is not everything you want because wind is not a stable supply of energy.  The truth about wind is this–you can only produce electricity from wind when the wind is blowing (and not blowing too hard). That’s about 30% of the time. Electricity that only works 30% of the time is not “everything you want.” As an investor seeking to scam Texas ratepayers–who will be forces to buy your expensive electricty it is everything you want, but as a consumer who wants the electricity to work whenever you flip a switch, it is not “everything you want.”

Pickens ends the story with this piece of nonsense, ” But we are going to have to do something different in America. You can’t keep paying out $600 billion a year for oil.” Uh, okay. But electricity and oil have very little to do with each other. Only about 2% of the electricity in the US is generated from petroleum. That’s it. 98% of the electricity in America does not come from petroleum, so talking about how we pay $600 billion a year for oil when talking about wind makes little sense (unless you are talking about electric cars, but that don’t current exist).

There could be some decent reasons to build wind but from all appearances T. Boone Pickens just wants to scam ratepayers. I may be cynical, but he hasn’t made a case that he understands the downsides to wind energy.

The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! Marriage will mean nothing!

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s what Professor Bainbridge writes about marriage:

In 1947, it seems, some social critics told our parents that divorce and out of wedlock sex were killing marriage. In 2008, some social critics are telling us gay marriage is going to kill the institution of marriage. Yet, somehow marriage just keeps muddling along.

I’m surprised that this was Bainbridge’s take on this, especially since he is a pretty conservative Catholic.

When we try to have government enforce or create outcomes, like protecting marriage, we should expect things like the California Supreme Court’s recent decision on gay marriage.

Democrats Like High Energy Prices

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats are no serious about the price of oil or about increase the amount of domestically produced oil. They like to bring oil execs up to the Hill to excoriate them about high prices, but the Democrats and some enabling Republicans are actively blocking new energy sources. For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado. From the Rocky Mountain News:

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

“If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives,” Allard argued.

But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

There is more oil in oil shale in the US than there is oil in Saudi Arabia–by a long shot. And the Democrats don’t want to allow access to it. One of the Bush Administration’s biggest flaws is not pushing harder to use domestic energy sources (other that biofuel).

What’s Wrong With Free Speech?

Posted on by
1

.flickr-photo { border: solid 1px #000000; } .flickr-yourcomment { } .flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 0px; } .flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

~Noble Eagle~, originally uploaded by vector1771.

In Minnesota, three kids were suspended for not standing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This irritates me greatly. What’s wrong with a little free speech? Here’s what one person from the school district said:

“These three [students] didn’t [stand], and they got caught,” said Mel Olson, the district’s community education director. He said he backs the punishment, “being a veteran and a United States of America citizen, absolutely.” Olson served in the Marines in Japan during the Vietnam War.

Mr. Olson, I respect that you served in the Marines, but I’m really sorry you didn’t learn what we were fighting for during the Vietnam War. We were fighting for people to be free and have rights, such as the right for free speech. We weren’t fighting to force people to recite a governmental pledge. We weren’t fighting to coerce  people. I’m deeply saddened that you didn’t learn about freedom while in the Marines.

Personally, I don’t like the pledge. I’m not a fan of the government telling me I need to pledge my allegiance to the flag. I don’t have allegiance to a flag. I have allegiance to the United States. But more importantly, I have allegiance to our freedoms as Americans.

The Fallacy of Green Collar Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

This post does a good job of explaining the fallacy of “green collar” jobs. Obama, Hillary, and McCain argue that if we increase regulation and make energy more expensive, it will magically create new jobs making  clean energy and we wil come out ahead economically. This is silly and is another example of the “broken windows fallacy.”

French economist Fredric Bastiat told the story of how breaking windows may seem to create jobs, but such activity is actually wasteful. Bastiat explained that the most important thing was what was not seen, not merely seeing a glass repairman fix the window.

The story goes like this, someone breaks a window. The broken window gives a glass repairman more work, which in turn helps the glass repairman’s supplier because the supplier gets to sell another pane of glass. If one just looks at this part of the transaction, it seems like it would be economically beneficial to break a bunch of windows.

To anyone other than Obama, Hillary, McCain, and the promoters of “green collar jobs,” it is easy to see the flaw in the broken windows story–what matters is not just what is seen (the improved workload for the window repairman), but what the window repairman could have been doing if he didn’t have to spend his time fixing senselessly broken windows, as well as the things the owner of the window could have spent his money on if he didn’t have to repair the window.  This is a simple concept, but too many people don’t get it.

Here’s more from the post I linked to in the intro:

Has there ever been a more timely natural catastrophe than climate change? I mean, here we all are worrying about the future of the American economy—too much debt, jobs and industries moving overseas, new competitors in Asia and India—when what merrily comes along is a perceived civilizational challenge whose solution will not only create a better environment but also—talk about luck!—millions of those high-paying “green-collar” jobs and innovative new industries of the future that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been talking about. As Clinton said in one presidential debate, “This issue of energy and global warming has the promise of creating millions of new jobs in America. It can be a win-win, if we do it right.”

Heck, if climate change was a sham, it almost seems that it would be worthwhile to fabricate it, given all the apparent economic benefits. Then again, maybe not. Here is what William Pizer, an economist at Resources for the Future and a lead author on the most recent report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said at a symposium earlier this week here in Washington: “As an economist, I am skeptical that [dealing with climate change] is going to make money. You’ll have new industries, but they’ll be doing what old industries did but a higher net cost…. You’ll be depleting other industries.”