This is a surprise from Newsweek. Some recent examples of green subsidy: Fisker Automotive will receive a $529 million subsidy from the US government to build hybrid cars for the US market in California. This follows a previous subsidy award of $465 million to Tesla Motors to build electric cars. Both awards were made on the recommendation of former vice-president Al Gore. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an electric car fan, I drive one myself. But such projects should succeed or fail on their own merit and without public funds in my opinion.
By Stefan Theil | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 24, 2009
Excerpts from the magazine issue dated Nov 2, 2009
Climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades. Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies designed to encourage wind, solar, and other -renewable-energy markets. The goals are worthy: reduce emissions, promote new sources of energy, and help create jobs in a growing industry.
Yet this epic effort of lawmaking and spending has, naturally, also created an epic scramble for subsidies and regulatory favors. Witness the 1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emission permits by 2012). Government has often had a hand in jump–starting a new -industry—both the computer chip and the Internet got their start in American defense research. But it’s hard to think of any non-military industry that has been so completely and utterly driven by regulation and subsidies from the start.
It’s a genetic defect that not only guarantees great waste, but opens the door to manipulation and often demonstrably contravenes the objectives that climate policy is supposed to achieve. Thanks to effective lobbying by American and European farmers, the more cost–efficient and environmentally effective Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol is locked out of U.S. and EU markets. Even within Europe, most countries have their own “technical standard” for biofuels to better keep out competing products—even if they are cheaper or produce a greater cut in emissions. Because the subsidies are tied to feedstocks, there is zero incentive to develop better technology.
Both the International Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have asked Germany to end its ludicrous solar subsidies that will total $115.5 billion by 2013.
Read the article The Dark Side of Green at newsweek.com
@indiana bones: USA does NOT send $700 Billion per year overseas for oil. That is a myth, and completely bogus. US imports approximately 60 percent of our oil, or roughly 9 million barrels per day. At current price of around $75 per barrel, that works out to only $250 billion per year. And much of that goes to friendly countries, e.g. Canada.
Besides, why are you so opposed to importing oil? Are you also opposed to importing automobiles? How about clothes? Electronic devices? Natural gas (from Canada)? Electric power (again from Canada)? Any special reason you single out imports of oil? Please explain.
It is well to consider that every barrel of imported oil leaves a barrel of US oil in the ground, where it can be used eventually when needed for a war – and that day will come. Most of the Navy’s ships burn oil, and the Army vehicles and Air Force planes burn gasoline, diesel, and military jet fuel – all derived from oil. (not overlooking the Naval aviators, nor the Marines – all are vital and all use some form of oil)
@hotrod: if any of those alternative sources you cite for ethanol are viable, let them step up and prove it. Potato peels and winery waste will hardly amount to sufficient volume to justify the effort. The water woes in California will not be solved by the methods you offer, as no nuclear power plants will ever be built here again – and with good reason. Desalination plants are being built, but the environmental delays require years. Plus your argument about recycling water in an ethanol plant misses the point – perhaps deliberately? Corn itself requires water for irrigation, and is not subject to recyling. That irrigation water is in very short supply in California, also other Western states.
Finally, corn itself is not a reliable feedstock – nor sugar beets – as recent events proved when a freeze ruined much of the sugar beet crop in the U.S.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/mandatory-bio-fuels-very-bad-idea.html
Natural gas has a viable infrastructure already – pipelines crisscross the USA. Filling stations exist also. California has thousands of vehicles running on CNG or LNG, with more going on-road every day.
see http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/08/natural-gas-pipelines-in-us.html
And your cite of an explosion in an LNG plant is very, very old. No LNG plants in the US have exploded. Yet, California refuses to allow an LNG import facility – it was built instead in Mexico on the Pacific coast.
paulhan (17:07:11) :
I’m a big fan of renewable energy, but what I can’t understand is the need for such huge subsidies. The reason I’m a big fan is because the feedstocks are free…
No they aren’t. You just haven’t identified the cost yet.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, or a working perpetual motion machine.
Indiana Bones (12:39:11) :
These guys are cracking forward with ethanol aimed at a target price of $1.00/gallon:
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/10/coskata-fires-up-cellulosic-ethanol-demonstration-plant-near-pittsburgh.html
Cellulosic ethanol has been on the edge of a breakthrough for decades now, and will be as long as the subsidies continue.
Just thought I would point out that the odd cars in the image are petrol powered, not electric and were developed in the 60’s. They have a 50cc moped engine and are light enough to pick up and move around – which you have to do as they have no reverse!
I just returned from the BlueFire Ethanol presentation. A couple of general observations, and a more detailed comment later.
Their process is very complex, with many mechanical operations. The plant they are trying to build in Lancaster, California (near Los Angeles) is to consume 150 tonnes/day (bone-dry basis) of urban grass clippings and tree trimmings, and produce 4 million gallons per year denatured ethanol. This is a commercial demonstration plant, with full-scale plants designed to produce 55 million gallons per year. The plants will be energy self-sufficient by burning lignin to produce steam and electricity.
The capital cost is expected to be $400 to $550 million for a full-scale plant producing 55 million gallons per year.
They intend to build these all across the US, not just in California. Kum Dollison’s statement is erroneous in that regard.
*******
Roger Sowell (13:18:46) :
Natural gas has a viable infrastructure already – pipelines crisscross the USA. Filling stations exist also. California has thousands of vehicles running on CNG or LNG, with more going on-road every day.
see http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/08/natural-gas-pipelines-in-us.html
Agree w/this. LNG is IMO the best candidate for significantly supplimenting oil. A working infrastructure is important — for ex. I already use propane here for cooking w/a side benefit of warming the kitchen.
The US has alot of home-grown natural gas left compared to crude. Coal could be liquified too — a huge potential source.
Kum,
“After that, we’ll be looking at “cellulosic” ethanol”
Cellulose has an even lower energy density than corn, so I’d like to see how that works out.
” However, there are some really smart cookies that say oil is really going to get expensive within a couple of years.”
This peak oil prediction – that we’re going to reach peak oil production within 25 years – is a recurring theme that goes back to the early twentieth century and always seems to point to 25 years in the future.
In the former Soviet union, scientists believe oil is an abiotic process that occurs under the earth’s crust – and that is a consensus, over there, settled science really. And suppose they are right, what then?
Roger:
I stand corrected. I had relied on T Boon Pickens’ widely advertised number which apparently includes costs of US military activity to secure foreign oil. His latest claim (and he’s clearly biased) is we have spent $475B in 2008 on foreign oil.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
While $475B annually is a happier number – both are and should be unacceptable to a struggling US economy. IF we have an abundance of natural gas and can build nuclear power plants, and can liquefy coal, and can convert waste to alcohols, and can develop “green” alternatives – WHY not keep more of that money at home?
I have no problem with imports of other stuff. We import tons of cars and clothes etc. Energy is a lot more important and IS a national security issue. Which is the reason why there are active tests ongoing of jet fuels produced from biomass, CTL, etc. The less reliance on foreign oil from hostile areas – the less reason to put men and women in harms way to stabilize/defend those areas.
BTW, both Coskata and Range Fuels are a bit further along than Bluefire. They are admittedly fringy, early phase demonstration plants, but any movement in viable domestic fuel is welcome.
coskata.com
http://www.rangefuels.com/location-georgia.html
No, Roger,
Kum Dollison’s statement was NOT erroneous.
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/view/blog/getBlog.do?blogHandle=inothermedia&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc23f3b11601249cb223250830
They already had their DOE money all set to go in California for their second plant, but petitioned for, and was granted, the right to move the facility to Fulton, Ms.
Abiotic Oil? Really? I guess we’ll just go back down to Texas and “redrill” the East Texas Oil Field, eh? Great. Problem solved.
Allan M (13:39:39) :
Re: renewable feedstocks being free,
“No they aren’t. You just haven’t identified the cost yet.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, or a working perpetual motion machine.”
I agree as to no perpetual motion machine, but some renewable feedstocks are not only free, they have a negative cost.
One example is green waste, typically grass clippings, hedge and tree branch trimmings, and leaves. These are collected, transported to a landfill, and charged a tipping fee for dumping. Such materials can be used as fuel in boilers (after dried out), or as cellulosic ethanol feedstock. The ethanol plant can charge the producer something less than the tipping fee, thus obtaining less-than-zero cost feed.
Another example is bio-waste from existing industry, especially sawdust or wood chips, also excess recycled newspaper.
The quantity available for conversion to ethanol or electric power is tiny compared to the total energy requirements. The only thing that makes these feasible is the zero or negative cost of the feed. That will change as more plants are built and plants compete for feedstock – thus raising the price.
Kum, you may be correct about BlueFire Ethanol’s decision to build a plant in Fulton, but that is not what Mr. Cuzens told his audience last night.
Either way, I agree that California has passed the point of having overly-burdensome regulations for businesses. When businesses close and move to other states, thus creating unemployment in their previous location, regulations have gone too far.
In my view, if people’s health is at risk in one locale, they should do what people have done for centuries – move to another, healthier locale. That was the motivation for many people to move to California in the first place – a warm, dry Western climate without the health risks of the wet and cold East coast.
Peter Dunford (09:52:03) said :
Interesting photo choice, those little cars have two stroke petrol engines.
And he is correct, you can see exhaust smoke at rear of the yellow one. And they were built in 1964, (by Peel in the Isle of Man), so not actually relevant to anything in this thread. Come on guys, you can do better than this.