Dirty Energy vs. Clean & Green

Some writers have a divine muse to inspire them. I have my friends on the local blogosphere. No muse can compete.

Lately they have been complaining about how much money Senator Thune receives from "Dirty Energy". It occurs to me that the demonic term "dirty" like its angelic counterpart "green," is impressionistic. It describes how the writer feels about a particular source of energy, but is altogether divorced from any consideration of the actual consequences of using that source of energy.

For example, see the recent New York Times article on Portugal's massive investment in renewable energy (hat tip to Cory Heidelberger). It is a very interesting article, and perhaps unintentionally revealing.

Today, Lisbon's trendy bars, Porto's factories and the Algarve's glamorous resorts are powered substantially by clean energy. Nearly 45 percent of the electricity in Portugal's grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17 percent just five years ago…

[A]ggressive national policies to accelerate renewable energy use are succeeding in Portugal and some other countries, according to a recent report by IHS Emerging Energy Research of Cambridge, Mass., a leading energy consulting firm. By 2025, the report projected, Ireland, Denmark and Britain will also get 40 percent or more of their electricity from renewable sources; if power from large-scale hydroelectric dams, an older type of renewable energy, is included, countries like Canada and Brazil join the list.

Portugal is a success story, because it has gone from down and dirty to green and clean. Well, sort of. Forty-five percent clean is presumably fifty-five percent dirty. The trouble is that the success is measured only in how much power comes from the beautiful technologies. That is success only if you assume that the green technologies are really clean technologies. Are they?

Presumably, green technologies are supposed to lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases. Has Portugal achieved such a reduction? There isn't a word about that in the article. Presumably, these technologies should result in a reduction in the importation and use of "dirty" energy, or else the total package isn't really any cleaner, is it? Has Portugal achieved such a reduction? If the author had any curiosity about that, she managed to suppress it.

Has the transition to renewable energy benefited the Portuguese people in economic terms?

"So far the program has placed no stress on the national budget" and has not created government debt, said Shinji Fujino, head of the International Energy Agency's country study division.

Well, that's one measure of success. It hasn't bankrupted the country. Yet. On the other hand, it has increased the cost of electricity to Portuguese households by 15%. They were already paying twice what Americans pay to flicker on an energy efficient bulb. What it hasn't done is to produce green jobs.

In Portugal, as in the United States, politicians have sold green energy programs to communities with promises of job creation. Locally, the effect has often proved limited. For example, more than five years ago, the isolated city of Moura became the site of Portugal's largest solar plant because it "gets the most sun of anywhere in Europe and has lots of useless space," said José Maria Prazeres Pós-de-Mina, the mayor.

But while 400 people built the Moura plant, only 20 to 25 work there now, since gathering sunlight requires little human labor. Unemployment remains at 15 percent, the mayor said — though researchers, engineers and foreign delegations frequently visit the town's new solar research center.

I like that term "locally." Aren't all jobs local?

To judge by the article, the Portuguese government has done a masterful job of realizing a great dream: generating a substantial portion of its electricity from green sources. What we don't know is whether these sources are really any greener or cleaner than dirty sources. To answer that question, you would have to ask it.

We also don't know from the article what percentage of this new, clean, power is coming from wind as opposed to hydroelectric sources. Some of the windmills are employed pumping water back up into the artificial lakes that dams create. Does damming rivers and flooding valleys benefit the environment? Environmentalists used to be opposed to that sort of thing.

And then there are the birds. A single wind farm on Altamont Pass in California has been killing between five thousand and ten thousand birds a year. That is probably the extreme example, but it has been operating since the 1970's! In case it hasn't occurred to you, migratory birds often travel where the wind is.

Maybe wind power can meet part of the human need for energy in a way that benefits both us and is kinder and gentler to the environment. Maybe wind power is an economic sink hole that turns wind energy and bird and bat guts into government subsides. We might ought to know which is which before we invest more. One thing is for sure: the language of dirty vs. clean and green energy is an impediment to even asking the right questions.

Comments

[Robert]

I just wanted to note (I haven't read this whole article, and don't really plan to), that you completely mistook the point of the article written about Portugal. It is saying 45% is from "RENEWABLE SOURCES." This article is not talking about clean and dirty or how it affects our environment, and therefore should not be referenced in an article about clean and dirty. Your references should be held void.
The article which was quoted is talking about renewable resources v.s non-renewable resources. That is, if we suddenly run out of coal, oil, methane and other fuels, then portugal could still be producing 45% of the power they had before. Do you notice how the previous sentence, which I wrote, has nothing to do with the cleanliness of the power, but merely the origin? Did you learn nothing in high school English class that you can't distinguish between sources that fit your topic and don't?
So next time you decide to pick a rant, pick an article to reference which discusses a topic completely relavent to your topic. That way, you are saying something intelligent (hopefully) and not just spewing out words.

<3 Love

[Miranda]

"Today, Lisbon's trendy bars, Porto's factories and the Algarve's glamorous resorts are powered substantially by clean energy."

Either I am hallucinating, or the word "clean" appears in that sentence.
I know you didn't read the whole article, but surely you could have read the first paragraph quoted here.

[KB]

Robert: Apparently your habit of flamboyant commentary on things you haven't read goes along with saying things that you haven't thought through or bothered to learn anything about. You write this: "

"if we suddenly run out of coal, oil, methane and other fuels, then portugal could still be producing 45% of the power they had before. Do you notice how the previous sentence, which I wrote, has nothing to do with the cleanliness of the power, but merely the origin?"

Wind farms are heavily subsidized by governments. That means that wealth is shifted from other parts of the economy in order to make wind generation happen. The wind energy we have today could not be viable without cheap fossil fuels. For example, those enormous cranes used to erect and maintain wind towers aren't powered by solar energy. The factories that build the wind towers aren't lit by hamsters turning wheels. The rare earth materials in the generators aren't brought over by clipper ships.

Maybe wind power has a future, but we will never see it unless we try to accurately measure its benefits.

[Donald Pay]

Nothing is more heavily subsidized by governments and more dependent on socialized costs than oil, coal and nuclear. Most of our defense establishment at this point is one huge subsidy to protect fossil fuels from any disruption. You can subsidize the dirty energy of the past, or you can subsidize the clean energy of the future. To most thinking people, this is not a hard decision.

[BillW]

Donald - You wrote, "Nothing is more heavily subsidized by governments and more dependent on socialized costs than oil, coal and nuclear." I have asked you for data to support the mabtra you keep intoning here before without any luck. What are the chances of you ever backing this statement up?

KB - In fact the entire economy of Europe is in the toilet - with Spain, Portugal and Greece leading the charge. The notable exception is Germany where they are reducing government spending, exports are booming, and they live largely on nuke power.

[KB]

BillW: It would be uncharitable to take Donald's statement at face value.

Donald: I note that in the U.S., government subsides to coal for the purposes of generating electricity is under $.50 per kilowatt/hour. Subsides for wind and solar power generation are both over $23 per kilowatt/hour. If all subsides to coal, gas, and oil were removed (a good idea, says I), all of these would continue to be produced. That's because they are cost effective. Likewise with nuclear power, though the subside there is about a buck and a half. If subsides to wind and solar power were abolished, those industry would disappear over night.

You illustrate my argument beautifully. Oil is the past. Bad, bad, oil. Wind is the future. Good wind! Since we know this, why bother to ask whether wind power is even logical, let alone practical. I would be happy to think that wind and sun could provide clean, cheap energy for me and my children. I can't help noticing, however, that a barrel of oil represents millions of years of sunlight and brewing. Wind and solar represent today and yesterday. That might be problem. Just because we like the idea of wind power doesn't mean that the problem can inevitably be solved.

[Donald Pay]

BillW.

You are kidding, aren't you? Go to work.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=coal+industry+subsidies&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=coal+industry+sub&gs_rfai=C-GpHglJnTPr7O4GwNJjxheIGAAAAqgQFT9A7wz4&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=nuclear+industry+subsidies&aq=1&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=nuclear+industry+subsid&gs_rfai=Cng0NWFJnTMq0NZP4M_nxkYkMAAAAqgQFT9DW9UM&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=us+oil+industry+subsidies&aq=1m&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=oil+industry+subsidies&gs_rfai=CYEXYNFJnTOnTAY_KMpSAscYGAAAAqgQFT9ClrTc&fp=8631cdd35a4d476d

[BillW]

Donald - you're kidding, right? A link to a Google search that brings up a lot of blogs, environmental wackjob sites and liberal newspapers saying there are subsidies is not "data". It merely demonstrates that a few other people meditate to the same mantra you do.

I read one of the sites, however, just to see if there are any actual facts underlying your position - one with the headline "U.S. House Votes to End Subsidies and Tax Breaks for Oil Companies", published by somebody called 'environment.about.com'. That should get to the meat of it, right?

Only it seems as if the "Subsidies and Tax Breaks" are actually a bunch of Dems wanting to put a lot of royalties back on Big Oil that the Republicans took off. So a premium charge is slapped on oil - a charge over and above regular taxes (that's what a royalty is, Donald) - and when it is taken away releveling the playing field, you and your tree hugging playmates bray about oil being subsidized? Only around the Sierra Club campfire and on the Greenpeace boat is repealing a royalty a subsidy.

A subsidy is the 30% of the cost of converting your house to solar power the state of California picks up. That is a far cry from repealing a surcharge.

You're going to have to do a little better than that.

[Donald Pay]

BillW.

If you don't want to do your own research, don't. Continue to believe whatever you want without any basis whatsoever. Part of wading through all of the facts and opinions out there is to understand the issue from all sides. If you don't care to do that, I have no respect for your opinion on these matters.

[Donald Pay]

BillW, you apparently don't know anything about royalties. A royalty is paid to an owner of property. I receive royalties from Hess for mineral rights I inherited when my parents bought into some get rich quick scheme in the 1960s. In the case of royalties remitted to the US government, they are paid to the owners (the citizens of the US) for the oil under their property (US government lands). You would make a very bad businessman if you gave away your property for free. I think we now understand why our economy tanked under the Bush Administration. Thank you for pointing out that Bush was a very poor steward of the country's economic interests in its oil property.

[BillW]

Still no facts or data though, huh Donald - just telling me to go search out the facts to support your arguement.

Linclon was fond of asking "If you called a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would the dog have?" When answered "5", he would point out that calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one. Dogs have four legs no matter what you call them.

You can call money dicated by law to be paid to the government a royalty. For that matter you can call it anything you like. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a tax. And it is a far cry from a royalty paid to a private property owner. Declaring oil to be my property since I am a citizen of the United States as rationalization to tax the oil companies is a sham.

[George Mason]

Donald old boy; Since you appear unwilling or incapable of answering BillW's questions perhaps you might try asking this question of your favorite liberal blogs. If wind and solar are such great deals and have such great payouts,why are the electrical generating companies not investing their own money in this equipment? Why does this occur only with the use of large sums of taxpayers dollars?
We also await the answer to the question from an earlier blog post on this subject; how are you going to supply the base load when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing?

[Donald Pay]

There's all the facts you want. You just don't want to face them. If you don't seek out any information which contradicts your preconceived notions, you are never going to learn anything. I used to think this willful ignorance was funny. It's really dangerous from both an environmental and economic standpoint to our future and our children. Shame on you.

To be truthfull, I'm at a loss for how to begin your remedial education on energy. You aren't living in anything near reality. There are books and scholarly articles you can read. Bone up on some basic, then we can have an intelligent conversation. Your goofy idea about royalties is clear indication you have no understanding of energy issues.

Part of the problem is your questions and statements and George Mason's belie assumptions that don't make much sense in the real world. For example, my energy provider Alliant Energy, is buying and investing in renewables and energy efficiency (though not to the extent that I would want). So, I can't give you any reasons why utilities aren't investing. They simply are. If you don't accept that reality there is nothing I can supply you. Now you probably won't accept that Alliant Energy is investing in renewables, because it doesn't fit with your ideological unreality, so I'll provide you a link below. But you really need to make some minimal effort to investigate before you ask dumb questions.

http://www.alliantenergy.com/Environmental/RenewableAlternativeEnergy/index.htm

[BillW]

... and still not a single fact to substantiate your oft-repeated assertion about the subsidies to fossil fuels ... hmmm.

[George Mason]

Donald; Alliant Energy along with most of the eletric generating companies in the midwest is reaping a handsome sum off the taxpayer by what they proclaim is their investment in windpower. They have a vested interest in your belief that they are investing in wind power, which they are at the expense of the American taxpayer. If you pay taxes then they are double dipping off of you. So what happens if the subsidy goes away? Those windmills will slowly disappear because the owners will not be able to afford the maintenance because the cost will exceed the profit. How's that for a little education. So there is an answer for you, when can BillW and I and the other readers get something from you that doesn't look like corporate propaganda.

[Donald Pay]

Still no facts from you guys. All we get are unreferenced ignorance.

[BillW]

Donald !!!!!

You make an assertion repeatedly on this site - then when asked for facts to support your assertion you produce none - and criticize me for not doing your homework. If you have no data to support your statements, then stop making the statements. Don't criticize me for simply asking you to back up your words. The more you criticize me the more apparent it is that you have no facts to support your assertions.

[duggersd]

George Mason, I asked a guy who taught at a tech about the labor involved in those turbines. I was curious as to how many turbines one technician could service. He told me when they are new one tech can service about 10 turbines. When they get to be 5 to 10 years old, one tech can service about 5 turbines.
For several years the school system at Faith has been trying to build a turbine farm so they could use revenues from the turbine farm to fund their school. In the conversations I had with the superintendent I discovered the turbines cost about $1.8 million each to produce (about 5 years ago). He had no shortage of people wanting to purchase the power, but to this date, the first turbine has not been installed. I believe it never will. And he was counting on all kinds of subsidies and grants to get it done.
Oil was recently struck when a water drilling team hit oil instead of water. Wouldn't it be ironic if the Faith School System wound up getting enough revenues from oil that they would not need the turbines?

[Donald Pay]

I keep waiting for your data showing that oil, nuclear and coal are not subsidized. I have yet to receive it.

[Donald Pay]

I'm still waiting for your data, fellas. Oh, some an interesting article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewables

[BillW]

"I keep waiting for your data showing that oil, nuclear and coal are not subsidized. I have yet to receive it."

So you are waiting for someone else to prove a negative, Donald?

And still no data from you - just a citation to an article in The Guardian which Guardian features editor Ian Katz stated in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper" which cited a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance whose head of research is a former Clintob staffer.

Donald, you make statements that you cannot support, you criticize others for asking for evidence to support your assertions, your sole sources of information are radical left wing opinion writers, you assume yourself to be correct unless others can do the impossible task of proving negatives, ... what are we going to do with you, Donald?

[George Mason]

Dugger; You have answered the question. If the wind farm was that good a deal they would have had no problem receiving financing from private sources(since the Return on Investment would be so spectacular). Because it is not they have to wait for the taxpayers to pony up to build it and require additional subsidies so they can sell it at market rates..

[George Mason]

Donald; As to your periphrastic postings; now that your back to subsidies you need to return to the original blog post.

[Donald Pay]

BillW. Are so challenged you can't do a mouse click? Really, I haven't had to spoon feed anyone like this since my daughter was in diapers.

Nuclear plants could not be built without government sponsored loans and loan guarantees. Coal requires lots of exemptions from regulation to be price competitive with wind.

[Donald Pay]

BillW. Are so challenged you can't do a mouse click? Really, I haven't had to spoon feed anyone like this since my daughter was in diapers.

Nuclear plants could not be built without government sponsored loans and loan guarantees. Coal requires lots of exemptions from regulation to be price competitive with wind.

[BillW]

So no facts - broad statements and insults. Typical liberal wisdom: "I'm right and if you don't agree it's because you are stupid, evil or both."

Donald, enjoy the last few months of liberal leadersip in the USA. Obama was elected for the simple reason that over the 30 years since Carter was in the White House 40% of the people alive to experience him have died. You have to be over 50 to remember how hollow and ineffective the thinking of folks like you is. During the last year and a half the old folks got a refresher and the young folks got an education. Thankfully those who think like you are headed back to the outhouse for another 30 years.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

[BillW]

You haven't fed me anything Donald other than links to left wing opinion pieces - or perhaps that is all 'data' you have to support your case ... left wing opinions and insults to anyone who sees otherwise.

[duggersd]

A case in point in the economics of green industries:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704868604575433882374313148.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

[Braian]

risks it costs over $1 million USD to put up ONE wimlnidl so.. when you see 500 or 600 or 800 of them in a big field, you can calculate the cost One of them produces enough electricity to power, what . 5 houses? of all of the wimlnidls we have ALLLL OVER the us . thousands .. it only accounts for 1% of our energy. also, they are cool, but it sucks having millions of 400 foot tall wimlnidls dotting the what would otherwise be a beautiful landscape. also, there are only certain places in the world, certain types of landscapes that are truly conducive of having wimlnidls. and of those places, most of them have them already. and even there, they don't ALL ALWAYS spin.. when they aren't spinning, they aren't producing.benefits . that's 1% less coal that we have to burn. but realistically, there doesn't HAVE to be ANY coal burned at this point. it could all be nuclear. meltdowns are very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely. the only reason they've ever had one was because the staff there didn't keep up with the equipment because they didn't feel they had to.. and of course there was a meltdown. The problem is the waste it produces. germany subsidizes solar power they allow the sale of solar energy by the public. because of that, there are TONS AND TONS AND TONS of solar panels all over the place, and about 46% of their energy COMES from solar whereas 2% of the US's power comes from solar. problem is, if it's dark, it's not producing there are ways to convertt water into electricity, but governments won't allow it. sea water could be filtered, have electrolites added, hydrolicized to an "unstable" liquid, and burned by machines that generate electricity there's an over abundance of sea water, and hell the level is getting higher each year is it not? the only biproduct of such a thing would be atomized water not co2.

[Novie]

The wind doesn't start blowing just bsecuae you turned on a switch so you're gambling that wind energy would be available when you need it. There's a capital investment in both land and in the generator itself, there's maintenance, there's transmission costs, basically it amounts to a high startup cost, a constant operational cost but results in a variable uncontrollable generation of energy. The risk is that you won't have the power when you can sell the power and you may have too much power when you can't sell the power.