“The US House of Representatives has taken an unprecedented step toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as it passed a Bill requiring utility companies to produce 15 per cent of their electricity from wind and solar power.
“Today, the House propelled America’s energy policy into the future,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
“This planet is God’s creation, we have a moral responsibility to protect it.”
Twenty-six Republicans crossed party lines to vote for the initiative.
Read more here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/05/1997149.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I don’t have a problem with governments encouraging alternative energy resources, but please let the market choose the technology.
Invoking the Christian God in support of a piece of straightforward political manoeuvring is enough to make Christ turn in his grave. If God is taking any notice of what we are doing to our environment, It must surely be wondering why It didn’t put more brains in our heads before letting us loose on this little blue planet. I am really starting to question this Intelligent Design stuff – which bit of us demonstrates ID had any influence at all? Maybe we’re a prototype that escaped from the lab.
Watching the US Congress engage in this race to the intellectual bottom is pretty discouraging. Perhaps the president will veto the bill – I hope the enlisting of God in support of the bill doesn’t spook George too much.
Amen to that, Boxer
I wonder what Lyndon LaRouche thinks about this?
Americans always invoke God. Whatever. Sounds like a great policy.
I didn’t mean to imply I liked the policy.
I much prefer the carbon trading route and let the market choose the winners. Though I have much to gain from biomass being one of the winning technologies, I wouldn’t want to see it get up because of some selective subsidy. If you must have a subsidy, like carbon trading, it should not discriminate. The technology is best chosen by those who understand it and those who have to pay for it.
I think the German model of photovoltaics for everyone at any cost is a bit daffy and in the end it will be scrapped at some substantial economic cost (which hospitals shall we closer to pay for this stuff-up?) and possibly significant environmental cost (where will we dump all these 2007 technology PV panels?). If the US Congress wants to make themselves feel good and score points off George W, why don’t they fix their health system and leave energy technology to the engineers?
Mel, you are obsessed with this la Rouche clown (which is apropos considering his obsession with conspiracy theories)
The problem, Paul and Boxer, is that most conservative thinktanks are still stuck trying to debate the science, even though blind freddy can see that the entire world is leaving that discussion to the scientists and the mosquito cloud of cranks hovering about the scientists, and putting more effort into policy creation instead.
With many conservative thinktanks and conservative opinion writers suffering credibility problems and a lack of pragmatic focus (part of the mozzie cloud), the conservative voice currently participating in policy development is weaker than it should be.
So we get policies like this.
Another reason why we get policies like this, is that govts like the US and Australian govt would rather avoid doing anything substantial, and instead they seek to merely bribe taxpayers with their own money, by throwing cash at harmless technologies like photovoltaics.
This is instead of tackling the real deal like emissions trading, or industrial emissions, or, you know, an emissions reduction target.
This bill still has to go through the Senate, which has a more balanced vote, and then its up to the President to sign off on the bill.
Pelosi has had few wins if any at all and the Dems are difficult to pull together. This is just another Dem ‘crowd pleaser’
rog – “This bill still has to go through the Senate, which has a more balanced vote, and then its up to the President to sign off on the bill.”
Where the Big Oil President is sure to veto it.
“The Bill sailed through the House on a 241-172 vote, despite fervent opposition from big oil and gas companies and the White House, which has threatened to veto the measure.”
From the same story.
Please accept my apologies for the foolishness of my country. We are wealthy enough to fund stupidity, which is a mixed blessing.
Its not all that radical a target, given current renewables are 6.1%, and the 15% target is in 2020. Wrong to claim that it will lower electricity prices – they will tend to increase unless a lot of the new renewables are hydro, (which seems unlikely).
If power generation is around one third of USA greenhouse emissions, then converting an additional 9% to renewables will lower overall emissions by only about 3%. The claim of 18% is absurd.
Boxer, it was obvious to me that you didn’t like the policy, however I think irony is lost on the obsessive moonbats, like meLaRoucha, here.
Given the massive subsidies to entrenched energy interests, a small help for new technologies is no big deal, and will actually help the US in the long run, as well as other countries. We will all benefit from the increased research into more efficient and reliable renewable energy.
Boxer – “I think the German model of photovoltaics for everyone at any cost is a bit daffy”
Completely agree here Germany is going down the toilet really fast because of the solar policy.
No wait it isn’t:
“Former environment minister Juergen Trittin was mocked when he masterminded the scheme for his claims it would create jobs and not hurt the economy.
“It’s grown much faster than anyone thought it would,” Mr Trittin said.
There are now 250,000 jobs in Germany in the renewable energy sector. Mr Asbeck expects the number of jobs in solar power alone to double to 90,000 over the next five years and hit 200,000 in 2020.
The EEG law has since served as a model for other countries, including Spain, Portugal, Greece, France and Italy.”
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/01/1994041.htm?section=world
and
“Qimonda, the top 3 DRAM manufacturer worldwide, operates in Dresden its largest semiconductor development center in Europe. “We are placed in Silicon Saxony – one of the most dynamic technology hot spots in the world,” said Frank Prein, Senior Vice President for Technology and Managing Director of Qimonda Dresden. Qimonda’s current R&D activities in Dresden cover technology development, including cell concept development, material investigation, equipment improvement and novel mask technology. “We are working on the region’s excellent cooperation environment to improve our R&D results and to further follow the aggressive shrink roadmap of our industry.”
Another leading semiconductor investor in Germany is AMD. The company sees its presence in Germany, and specifically in Dresden, as essential to its global market success. “With over $5 billion total investment in Dresden to date, AMD continues to utilize the excellent skill base in the region to develop and optimize next-generation microprocessor solutions. Two
state-of- the-art manufacturing fabs as well as dedicated design, engineering and operating system research centers play a central role in our worldwide operations,” said William Haerle, Associate General Counsel and Vice President for Worldwide Government Relations at AMD.
The strong communication and cooperation structures among equipment makers, materials suppliers and chip makers are distinctive characteristics of the semiconductor industry. These same types of relationships across the semiconductor value chain have the potential to become beneficial for the
(PV) cell and module makers. They could provide the opportunity for establishing more technical standards and production improvements, leading to lower prices and stronger demand for solar power. “The synergies between these two industries are increasing, providing promising business opportunities. In this respect Germany plays a key role as the European leader in both semiconductor and PV technology,” said Claus Habermeier, Senior Manager at Invest in Germany’s Palo Alto office.”
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093160056
We would not want that sort of innovation, job creation and technology here would we Boxer? It might distract us from mining coal!!!!!
Ender, when you say “Big Oil President” you are resorting to silly schoolyard namecalling.
Just for that you are on detention and must write “I must not pick my nose and eat it” 100 times.
rog – “Ender, when you say “Big Oil President” you are resorting to silly schoolyard namecalling.”
Are you suggesting that he is not a Big Oil President?
Ender
It is entirely reasonable that there is a large hitech industry in Dresden, establishing itself upon the basis of the government subsidy for PV collectors. Perhaps it will stand up in the end and the subsidy can be removed. But perhaps when the subsidy is removed it will all end in tears, because the subsidy has been applied for a political reason and it will most certainly be removed for a future political reason.
Examples?
1. Swedish renewable energy policy combined with EU agricultural policy subsidied willow for biomass. As the subsidies have been reduced, the industry is beginning to collapse.
2. Australia’s mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) policy. The target was reached, the market value of renewable energy has fallen and projects have collapsed. If you wanted to flush out the most enthusiatic renewable energy players and drive them into insolvency, this would be the best way to do it.
3. The floor price put under the wool industry many years ago. What a bloody tragedy for wool growers.
All of it politics trying to defy markets.
Carbon trading is also weak in this regard, but the energy consumer pays directly for the carbon, rather than the subsidy going via the tax system. It could be that the cost of carbon will become entrenched for several electoral cycles and the market will adapt. Market forces will still apply and the weakest will still perish, so if climate change goes off the political boil, and the carbon cap is removed, the very best of the new technologies will still survive(?). In the end, even if CO2 becomes non-issue, less reliance on fossil fuels is a good direction to trend towards and it might save us from a war or two in the future.
I doubt there has ever been a political issue that has not eventually lost its gloss. Just as the majority of scientific facts have also been overturned. Rooster, feather duster, inevitable.
Lets look at WWII. When the chips were down, governments funded huge research projects that delivered the goods. The war started with bi-planes and cavalry still being used. It ended with jets, rockets and the nuclear bomb. All just in six years.
It is absurd to claim that PV is creating 200-250K jobs in Germany. Modern factories making PV cells, or assembling panels, tend to require only a few hundred workers each. Add a few thousand jobs in research. Installation on rooftops etc would require a perhaps 30,000 or so (temporary) jobs). There is no way jobs created would get any were near 200K unless they add in the entire German Department of the Environment.
Semiconductors have a very wide range of applications, and are easily transported. Apart from a technically well trained workforce, they have no locational synergies with PV research and manufacture at all.
Environmentalists are nearly allways commercially naive and will believe any claims or figures from a department, or industry lobby, whenever it suits them.
Boxer – “It is entirely reasonable that there is a large hitech industry in Dresden, establishing itself upon the basis of the government subsidy for PV collectors. Perhaps it will stand up in the end and the subsidy can be removed.”
Yes and all the jobs etc that go along with it and the fact that Germany, a country with about as much sun as Victoria is now the world leader in solar energy. Here in Australia with our huge potential for renewables and some of the brightest minds can only lead on disrupting international treaties and coal exports. This is when these brightest minds, sick of indifference in Australia, go overseas to give jobs to other people. Examples are David Mills, Martin Green, Vanadium flow batteries that we now buy from Canada and evacuated tube hot water systems developed at Sydney Uni that we now buy from China.
However with anything there will always be winners and losers. Speaking of the MRET which is set ridiculously low and the Howard government refuses to raise therein lies a huge subsidy. One of the vocal lobbyists that kept the MRET so low was the congealed electricity industry (aluminium) that only exists because they can buy power at $0.06 or less per kWh whereas you and I pay 2 or 3 times that. I don’t see why Australia’s energy policy should be dictated by overseas corporations like Alcoa wanting handouts as it is at the moment. If you do not want to subsidise nascent industries then all subsidies should be dropped like the diesel fuel rebate which costs us 2 billion per year and the cheap electricity for aluminium.
Carbon taxes are only a way of internalising the cost of carbon emissions that until now we pay for in different ways. It is making the polluter pay and deny all you like however you do not know for certain that the enhanced greenhouse effect will not cause climate change. So your solution is just barrel on as we are and hope for the best.
Hi Boxer,
It is common knowledge in government depts that in order to actually achieve sustainable growth with an industry development policy, it needs to be long term, certain, and stable.
Boom bust policy cycles of yes we are funding renewable energy, no, we are pulling the rug out, do more harm than good, because they encourage the white shoe brigade more than anything.
What you are saying is an argument against policies such as the German feed-in tariff, and MRET.
However, it is also an argument for consistent govt policy, and long term targets, which Australia certainly does not have with respect to renewable energy. If you want to fault MRET, fault the people who implemented such a short term and conservative target.
By the way, the price of RECS is back up to $40/MWh now that VIC and NSW have implemented State-based reneawble energy targets.
BillC,
According to this IEA document
http://www.iea-pvps.org/products/download/rep_ar06.pdf
The German grid-connected PV market is about 700MW PER YEAR of installations, or almost 500,000 sytems, if you assume they are all 1.5kW in size.
and
the German PV industry will produce about 1,500,000 kW(peak) of PV modules in 2007, or 1,000,000 1.5 kW systems.
You can use these numbers to inform your calculations, don’t forget to add admin and marketing staff and other support staff such as IT too, not to mention employment in wafer production, cell production, module production, universities and research, inverter and other balance of system manufacture and sales, maintenance etc.
If you followed that link to the iea PV doc, it also had the following paragraph:
“The BSW [German Solar Industry Federation] estimates that meanwhile around 5 000 companies with 50 000 employees are active in the PV business [in Germany]. The turnover in 2006
amounted to 3,8 billion EUR and is still growing.
Steve and Ender
I agree that there are faults in MRET. It was set low and then abandoned because it was a political decision to set it up and it was abandoned due to a political change of heart. My observation, right or wrong, is that it would have been better if MRET had not happened.
Politics is what it is and if your future relies upon political decisions about subsidies, you are on very thin ice indeed. This may not be just, it may not be wise political behaviour, but politics won’t change because of your and my shared desire for more rational policies. It’s almost impossible to reach agreement upon what is rational, so I don’t see a way to improve politics. It’s a flawed but workable system in a democracy.
The statistics about the PV industry in Germany are impressive and I don’t mind if PV becomes the major source of our stationary energy. But my bet is the German government will pull the subsidy rug out from under all those people before that dream is realised. It’ll never happen? The British coal industry. Despite the importance of energy, and the massive disruption and the social upheaval, which still echoes today, Thatcher pulled the rug out from under British coal. There are rational economic arguments put by intelligent people on why Thatcher was right. I don’t know either way, but it happened. There will be another Thatcher, and her name might be Merkel.
And if you base the subsidies upon the science of climate change, fine, but my greatest concern about AGW is that it is no longer a scientific process, it is a political process no better than any other. And though your preferred AGW science may well be right, the historic fate of most scientific theories suggests that, politics aside, the most popular science of today may also be wrong to a significant extent. I think we should take action, but keep in mind that the whole premise for that action may collapse. Proceed with caution. Don’t mortgage your house to the hilt to reduce CO2 emissions.
SJT
War as an example of what can be achieved when the chips are down is fair enough to a point, but it also demonstrates the problem of political inconsistency. This is why Churchill declared, “Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others.” He was hampered by fluctuations within his government. Politics rages on during war. Read “Inside the Third Reich” by Albert Speer for some interesting insights into the domestic political machinations within wartime Germany. There are significant similarities between the war in Iraq and the defence of India from the Japanese in 1942. Bombing Hiroshima may have brought WWII (arguably the most just of modern wars) to an end just before public support for the war collapsed.
I work within a government. I know how fickle they are. And they are fickle because they respond to the polls and the most fickle thing of all is public sentiment. It’s like throwing firecrackers into a mob of sheep. If you want it to be better, you have to change species. Or resolve Churchill’s dilemma.
Boxer, re: trade & let the market sort it out, don’t forget the trade rules are set by humans. There’s a risk they can be sleeper pinkos in bureaucracy.
Markets can be very short sighted in their choices. Particularly so when there is a high degree of risk (ie uncertainty) so business will keep trying to hedge its bets to reduce exposure. Means low investment and a conservative approach to innovation.
Boxer – “And though your preferred AGW science may well be right, the historic fate of most scientific theories suggests that, politics aside, the most popular science of today may also be wrong to a significant extent. I think we should take action, but keep in mind that the whole premise for that action may collapse. Proceed with caution. Don’t mortgage your house to the hilt to reduce CO2 emissions.”
You are absolutely correct here. History is littered with grand scientific theories that have been proven wrong with later knowledge. However history is also littered with scientific theories and laws that have stood for thousands of years like Pythagoras and Euclid. We should proceed with caution however that is not the present course of action.
At the moment making money is top of the agenda and nothing can possibly interrupt this flow of money from poor to rich. This is fine however we are not being cautious with climate change we are being cautious with making money. If we properly accepted the risk of climate change then we would be expending all efforts to slow greenhouse emissions. At the moment, because we can, we are only expending all efforts that do not interrupt money making.
At some point in the future perhaps, money making will be pushed off the agenda by a series of really serious climate events whereupon it will be impossible for money making to be top of the agenda. However if we were rational people then action 20 years earlier could have prevented such events.
I am not saying that these event WILL occur just that we presently know enough to judge that there is a significant risk of them happening however as you point out all the science could be wrong. The problem, like with any risk assessment, is that it could well turn out to be correct we do not know at present what will happen.
So in the light of this short term problem solvers like ourselves adopt an ignore, wait and see policy that does not disrupt the really important things of obtaining food to eat and shelter from the elements.
Pinxi, your’e right, there are still reds under some beds. I suspect you’re one of them (makes the sign of the cross).
To continue with the sheep analogy.
I suppose a completely open market is like running sheep in pastoral country without fences and after the feed around a water hole is exhausted, the sheep all die. Even the really really clever sheep don’t plan on walking to the next waterhole before everyone is too weak to make the journey. The clever ones are too busy getting the as much as possible from the little that is left.
So we put up some fences like the carbon cap and trade, move the sheep around the country and try to keep them all alive, but we leave it up to the sheep to choose what to eat.
When governments start picking winning technologies like Germany or the (probably doomed) bill passed by the US house of reps, that’s like telling the sheep which specific plants to eat and which to ignore. This likely to be pointless at best, and probably counter-productive, because some plants that are nutritious are left uneaten, so the mob is less productive than if the sheep had been left to make their own choices.
Boxer,
I’m 100% with you that a carbon trading scheme can only be a good thing: even in the extremely unlikely scenario that AGW turns out to be a non-issue, and we somehow manage to discover vast new reserves of fossil fuels in the next few decades, at worst we will have developed new technologies and energy sources before there was a dire need for them, made huge strides in efficiency, particularly at the consumer end, and most likely reduced indisputable forms of local environmental pollution (carbon monoxide, nitrous and sulphuric oxides etc.).
Far more likely is that in a decade or so’s time the need to dramatically reduce GHGs will be indisputable to even the most extreme right-wing conservative, global fossil fuel supplies will have started drying up dramatically (locally, that really only applies to oil), and we will have the technology and best practices ready to go that will enable us to achieve the GHG reductions and survive without reliance on dwindling fossil fuel supplies.
And while I agree that in general it’s preferable not to have the government pick winners, significantly more funding could still be going to scientific research in fields that are likely to produce breakthroughs (whether in nuclear fusion, PV technology, superconducting coils, etc). I don’t see really major breakthroughs in energy technology (such as nuclear fission was) happening without at least some government involvement. Further, some of the most promising plans to wean us off fossil-fuel-based electricity involve significant infrastructure building (e.g. a nation-wide HVDC grid) that would seem unlikely to get underway without government funding.
Except that the forcing and financial support of “renewable energy sources” leads to money wasting and even more energy consumption that using the old ones until something really useful comes out.
So far, the biofuel production caused only increase in food price, soon the subsidies will lead to shortage of land for growing food and all the “energetically useful plants” don’t grow from itself – they are in fact consuming oil in fuel for tractors and fertilizers. Their cultivation may look profitable maybe in brazil – but that’s because there are people working on the fields for 3$ daily.