Bush Should Take Lab Coat Off

Decisions about which new technologies to develop should be left to the market, not the government.  One reason is that markets generally make the more efficient choice.  Another reason is that when technological risks are taken in the market, they are taken with voluntary private money; when risks are taken by the government, they are taken with your money that has been coerced from you through taxation.

With all due respect, President Bush should take the lab coat off. 

  

(p. A16) FRANKLINTON, N.C., Feb. 22 — President Bush put on a white coat and visited a laboratory here Thursday to promote his goals for making alternative fuels from switch grass, woodchips and other plant waste.

After touring the laboratory, which is developing enzymes to make cellulosic ethanol, fuel distilled from plant byproducts, Mr. Bush spoke buoyantly about new technologies that may reduce the nation’s thirst for foreign oil.

 

For the full story, see: 

EDMUND L. ANDREWS.  "Bush Makes a Pitch for Amber Waves of Homegrown Fuel."  The New York Times  (Fri., February 23, 2007):  A16. 

 

Instead of Shrugging, Atlas Sometimes Moves to the United States

 

VenezuelaProfessionalsExitGraph.gif   Source of graphic:  online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

 

(p. A10)  CARACAS, Venezuela — Oil-rich Venezuela has experienced the kind of economic boom in recent years that should be flush with job opportunities. But an increasing number of professionals, many of them from the oil industry, are looking abroad for work, driven away by President Hugo Chávez’s effort to extend state control over the economy, and by inflation verging on 20%.

Since his re-election in December, Mr. Chávez has pursued an agenda of "21st Century Socialism," painting a future of "communal cities" and state-run cooperatives dedicated to production, not profit.

. . .

Still, at the U.S. Embassy call center for visas in Caracas, the lines have been jammed since Mr. Chávez announced in early January the nationalization of the electricity industry and Venezuela’s largest telecommunications firm. "It doubled practically overnight," said a U.S. diplomat.

The number of Venezuelans receiving U.S. legal permanent residence more than doubled from 2000 to 2005, when 10,870 got their green cards. In that period the overall number of green cards increased by a third. During that period the number of Venezuelan-born U.S. residents increased 42%, to 151,743, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

. . .

Any opposition-minded oil workers still left at PdVSA face a difficult environment. During the presidential campaign last year, PdVSA President Rafael Ramirez told company executives to join Mr. Chávez’s political movement or hit the road. In 2003, Mr. Chávez sacked around 20,000 PdVSA staffers — about half the company’s work force — for walking off the job, calling them "terrorists." A majority of them were the managers, accountants and field engineers who turned the state oil venture into a world-class oil company during a period of robust expansion in the 1990s.

Many found work elsewhere, including in Mexico, Canada and Saudi Arabia, at a time of high demand for experienced oil workers.

The lost expertise has taken a toll on PdVSA, the country’s largest single employer. Its share of the global market for crude oil supply is shrinking, and accidents and outages are on the rise. Analysts say the cost to PdVSA of producing a barrel of oil has nearly doubled in the past five years to more than $4.50.

 

For the full story, see: 

PETER MILLARD.  "Professionals Exit Venezuela; Chávez’s Grip on Power Drives Out Oil Experts; Support Hugo or You Go."  The Wall Street Journal  (Thurs., February 15, 2007):  A10.

(Note:  ellipses added.)

 

Alternative Energy Sources Have Their Costs, Too; And Some of Them Are Environmental

   The location in Highland County, Virginia where 19 wind turbines are planned.  Source of photo:  online version of the NYT article cited below.

 

MONTEREY, Va. — Wes Maupin says he will move this spring to a 20-acre spread here in remote Highland County, a pastoral place where sheep outnumber people and where little has changed since his boyhood, when he fished the county’s mountain streams with his father.

Mr. Maupin, a 52-year-old former corrections worker, does have one misgiving, though. Like many others in Highland, known for its rustic heights as Virginia’s Switzerland, he finds no joy in the prospect that these blustery Allegheny ridges could soon become home to the state’s first wind farm: 19 wind turbines, each taller than the Statue of Liberty, its pedestal included.

“Any wind farm,” Mr. Maupin said, “would surely change the character of this county forever.”

. . .

. . . Randy Richardson, president of Highlanders for Responsible Development, a group that opposes the project, said people worried about noise pollution from the turbines’ blades and light pollution from the red strobes that would alert aircraft to the 400-foot-tall structures.

 

For the full story, see: 

PAMELA J. PODGER.  "In a Corner of Virginia’s ‘Switzerland,’ a Division Over a Planned Wind Farm."  The New York Times  (Tues., February 13, 2007):  A17.

(Note:  ellipses added.)

 

 WindTurbineVirginiaMap.jpg   Source of map:  online version of the NYT article cited above.

 

Environmentalists’ Advocacy of Tire Reefs, Hurts the Environment


   Tire reef deposited in 1972 near the coast of South Florida will be expensive to remove.  Source of photo:  online verison of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

 

As we listen to the doom scenarios of environmentalists about global warming, we should ponder the evidence that, decades later, we sometimes learn that environmentalist proposals can be bad for the environment.  

 

(p. 23) “The really good idea was to provide habitat for marine critters so we could double or triple marine life in the area; it just didn’t work that way,” said Ray McAllister, a professor of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University who was instrumental in organizing the project. “I look back now and see it was a bad idea.”

. . .

Gov. Charlie Crist’s budget includes $2 million to help remove the tires. The military divers would work at no cost to the state by making it part of their training.

A monthlong pilot project is set for June. The full-scale salvage operation is expected to run through 2010 at a cost to the state of about $3.4 million.

. . .

“We’ve literally dumped millions of tires in our oceans,” said Jack Sobel, an Ocean Conservancy scientist. “I believe that people who were behind the artificial tire reef promotions actually were well-intentioned and thought they were doing the right thing. In hindsight, we now realize that we made a mistake.”

 

For the full story, see: 

"Tires Meant to Foster Sea Life Choke It Instead."  The New York Times, Section 1  (Sun., February 18, 2007):  23.

(Note:  ellipses added.)

 

“Nuclear Energy is Suddenly Back on the Agenda”

   The Belguim windmill looks nice, but the electiricty is produced by the nuclear plant in the background.  Source of photo:  online version of the NYT article cited below.

 

The latest word on energy, from the 2006 World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland:

 

. . .  nuclear energy is suddenly back on the agenda — and not just here.  Spurred on by politicians interested in energy independence and scientists who specialize in the field of climate change, Germany is reconsidering a commitment to shut down its nuclear power plants.  France, Europe’s leading nuclear power producer, is increasing its investment, as is Finland.

At a time when industrialized countries are wrestling with how to curb carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy has one indisputable advantage: unlike coal, oil, natural gas, or even biological fuels, it emits no carbon dioxide. That virtue, in the view of advocates, is enough to offset its well-documented shortcomings.

“It has put nuclear back into the mix,” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University. “We’re seeing a new balancing of the costs and benefits.”

 

For the full commentary, see: 

MARK LANDLER. "Europe’s Embrace; With Apologies, Nuclear Power Gets a Second Look."  The New York Times, Section 4  (Sun., January 28, 2007):  3.

(Note:  ellipsis added.)

 

 

Investments Increase in Electric Transmission

ElectricTransmissionGraph.gif   Source of graph:  online version of the WSJ article cited below.

 

U.S. utilities are significantly increasing their spending on new electricity-transmission lines, a trend that could ease choke points in the flow of power, enhance reliability and increase the potential for renewable energy.

The spending should put a dent in the chronic problem of underinvestment, a factor in the big 2003 blackout that left 50 million people in the eastern U.S. and Canada in the dark.

. . .

American Electric Power created buzz in November when it announced it will partner with Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s utility unit, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., to build more transmission lines in Texas. AEP is budgeting about $1 billion for Texas projects, some designed to serve wind power developers.

AEP has identified $9 billion in important transmission projects in its 11-state region, including $3 billion for a 550-mile line that would bring cheaper power to New Jersey from West Virginia. AEP Chairman Michael Morris said transmission projects "will begin to pay benefits to shareholders as early as 2007."

. . .

Some projects pay for themselves, in effect, by eliminating grid choke points that limit power flows. In Connecticut, a new high-voltage line to Norwalk from Danbury, cost $340 million but will produce immediate savings for consumers by allowing less costly power to flow into the area. That eliminates so-called congestion costs, or the difference between what it would cost to supply the need in the most economical way versus what it actually costs because transmission capacity is limited.

 

For the full story, see: 

REBECCA SMITH.  "Money on the Lines Utilities Invest in Transmission."  The Wall Street Journal (Tues., February 6, 2007):  A10.

 

Al Gore “Deserves a Gold Statue for Hypocrisy”


  Al Gore’s energy consuming mansion.  Source of photo: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/an-inconveniently-easy-headline-gores-electric-bills-spark-debate/

 

Here is the full text of a 2/26/07 press release from the Tennessee Center for Policy Research that has rightly received a lot of attention from the mainstream media and from the blogosphere:

 

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

 

Source of the press release:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

 

House Hearing on Global Warming Canceled Due to Severe Winter Weather


BlitzerWolfSituationRoom.jpg  Wolf Blitzer, the host of CNN’s "Situation Room" program.  Source of photo:  http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/inside_the_situation_room_24403.asp

 

Yesterday afternoon (2/14/07) on CNN’s "Situation Room" program, host Wolf Blitzer reported something close to the following:

 

‘A House of Representatives hearing on global warming was canceled today, because of the severe winter weather.’

 

Al Gore Freezes


   Al Gore.  Source of image:  http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/2006/01/

 

For the past couple of weeks, much of the country has been suffering from non-stop frigid weather.  So on "Weekend Update" on NBC’s Saturday Night Live (2/10/07), something close to the following was reported:

 

‘And in an ironic note:  this week while lecturing on global warming, Al Gore froze to death.’

 

Real-Time Pricing Results in More Efficient Electricity Generation


   Real-time electricity meters in a building in Central Park West behind resident Peter Funk, Jr.  Source of photo:  online version of the NYT article cited below.

 

The article excerpted below gets some of the story right.  It should emphasize more that the main benefit from real-time pricing would be that it would reduce the peak load.  Generation plants need to be built to handle peak-load.  The last generating plants to go on line are the least efficient.  if the need for such inefficient, peak-load, plants can be reduced, the costs of generating electricity can be enormously reduced.

There is talk of market competition in the states that have deregulated their electric utility industries.  But it should be remembered that even where most deregulated, the result is a long way from a paradigmatic free market.  The main point is hinted at in the article below.  The ultimate suppliers of electricity to the home remain government-protected monopolies. 

If we wanted a truly free market, maybe we should actually allow multple companies to connect to homes, the way we allow multiple television and internet companies to connect their cables to the home.  Then some low-cost Wal-Mart of electricty would arise, and blow the stick-in-the-muds away.

 

(p A1)  Ten times last year, Judi Kinch, a geologist, got e-mail messages telling her that the next afternoon any electricity used at her Chicago apartment would be particularly expensive because hot, steamy weather was increasing demand for power.

Each time, she and her husband would turn down the air-conditioners — sometimes shutting one of them off — and let the dinner dishes sit in the washer until prices fell back late at night.

Most people are not aware that electricity prices fluctuate widely throughout the day, let alone exactly how much they pay at the moment they flip a switch. But Ms. Kinch and her husband are among the 1,100 Chicago residents who belong to the Community Energy Cooperative, a pilot project to encourage energy conservation, and this puts them among the rare few who are able to save money by shifting their use of power.

Just as cellphone customers delay personal calls until they become free at night and on weekends, and just as millions of people fly at less popular times because air fares are lower, people who know the price of electricity at any given moment can cut back when prices are high and use more when prices are low. Partici-(p. A14)pants in the Community Energy Cooperative program, for example, can check a Web site that tells them, hour by hour, how much their electricity costs; they get e-mail alerts when the price is set to rise above 20 cents a kilowatt-hour.

If just a fraction of all Americans had this information and could adjust their power use accordingly, the savings would be huge. Consumers would save nearly $23 billion a year if they shifted just 7 percent of their usage during peak periods to less costly times, research at Carnegie Mellon University indicates. That is the equivalent of the entire nation getting a free month of power every year.

. . .

Under either the traditional system of utility regulation, with prices set by government, or in the competitive business now in half the states, companies that generate and distribute power have little or no incentive to supply customers with hourly meters, which can cut into their profits.

Meters that encourage people to reduce demand at peak hours will translate to less need for power plants — particularly ones that are only called into service during streaks of hot or cold weather.

In states where rates are still regulated, utilities earn a virtually guaranteed profit on their generating stations. Even if a power plant runs only one hour a year, the utility earns a healthy return on its cost.

In a competitive market, it is the spikes in demand that cause prices to soar for brief periods. Flattening out the peaks would be disastrous for some power plant owners, which could go bankrupt if the profit they get from peak prices were to ebb significantly.

. . .

The smart metering programs are not new, but their continued rarity speaks in part to the success of power-generating companies in protecting their profit models. Some utilities did install meters in a small number of homes as early as three decades ago, pushed by the environmental movement and a spike in energy prices.

 

For the full story, see: 

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON.  "Taking Control Of Electric Bill, Hour by Hour."  The New York Times  (Mon., January 8, 2007):  A1 & A14. 

(Note:  ellipses added.)

 

PowerRateGraphic.jpg   Graph showing the range of variation in hourly electricity rates in different months.  Source of graphic:  online version of the NYT article cited above.


“Bitter Cold Grips the Nation”: Evidence for Global Cooling?


   Screen capture from the MSN web site whose link is given below.

 

Several weeks ago, when much of the nation was experiencing above-average temperatures, network reports intoned how the warmth was a sign of global warming.  So using consistent reasoning, should they not now intone that the bitter cold is a sign of global cooling?  

Note that there is no mention of global warming (or cooling) in the Today Show report mentioned below.

 

On one of the NBC web sites, the Today Show report was described this way:  "Deep freeze Feb. 5: Midwest and Northeast residents hunker down for a deep freeze expected to last most of the week. NBC’s Kevin Tibbles reports."


Here is the link to the report: 

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=0de6ae06-e747-4aaf-9a7e-7e81ef9224f7&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16987213/&fg=