How Earth Hour Policies (Green Energy) Hurt Consumers: UK Edition

In UK, the push for green energy has only been prompting for higher energy bills.

The editorial of UK’s news outfit the Telegraph decries on the political obsession for green energy (hat tip AEI’s Professor Mark Perry)

With the worst snow conditions in the country since 1981, it’s worrying, to say the least, that gas supplies are running low. A month ago, The Sunday Telegraph warned in this column of the problems of an energy policy that puts expensive, inefficient green power before coal-fired and nuclear power. There have been a few signs that the Coalition is at last turning its attentions to the issue but, still, not nearly enough has been done. Now we are reaping the consequences. Because of a misguided faith in green energy, we have left ourselves far too dependent on foreign gas supplies, largely provided by Russian and Middle Eastern producers. Only 45 per cent of our gas consumption comes from domestic sources. All it takes is a spell of bad weather, and the closure of a gas pipeline from Belgium, to leave us dangerously exposed, and to send gas prices soaring. Talk of rationing may be exaggerated, but our energy policy is failing to deal with Britain’s fundamental incapacity to produce our own power.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, may have granted planning permission this week to a new nuclear power station, Hinkley Point in Somerset. But one nuclear power station, with two new reactors, isn’t nearly enough. Moreover, it will take a decade to build and, even then, will only provide seven per cent of the country’s energy needs.

It is time for the Coalition to tear up its energy policy before the lights really do go out. The first priority must be to repeal the Climate Change Act of 2008, with its brutal, punishing targets: reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and 26 per cent by 2020. These targets have already had a disastrous effect, forcing the closure of coal-fired power stations, and increasing tax-funded subsidies on wind power. Next month, electricity bills will soar even higher, thanks to a new tax on carbon dioxide produced by coal-fired and gas-fired power stations.

There are good intentions behind a green energy policy, and no one would wilfully want to damage the environment. But green technology – in its current incarnation, anyway – is just too inefficient and expensive to meet our energy needs. In some of the worst weather for more than 30 years, green power still only provides a tiny fraction of our energy needs. Solar power is of limited use in our cold, dark, northern climate. And wind power isn’t much better – cold weather doesn’t necessarily mean windy weather.

As previously pointed out, earth hour/green energy policies are essentially misanthropic for such policies promote economic hardship and even death. The above is just an example.

Popularity or popular themes don’t make ideas valid or sound. Take it from Albert Einstein: 

What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right

Electric Cars Aren’t Really Green

Contra popular wisdom, and opposite to the thrust by governments, e.g. US and Indonesia, to promote green energy via electric cars; electric cars aren’t really green. 

AEI’s Mark Perry summarizes the Bjorn Lomborg’s explanation published at the Wall Street Journal, (bold original)

1. A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in the Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission.

2. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. The amount for making a conventional car:14,000 pounds.

3. The life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

4. If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

5. Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from “zero emissions.” Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

6. Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it’s not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

7. Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers. This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

The world of politics is about smoke and mirrors.

Biofuels Aggravates Food Price Inflation, Promotes Hunger

One product of environmental politics has been to promote the politically privileged taxpayer supported, green energy industry.  Biofuels is part of the renewable green energy.

Yet the unintended effects of biofuels has not only been cronyism, but importantly, biofuels contributes to the constrains in food supplies that has led to higher prices and thus food shortages.

Here is the New York Times,

In the tiny tortillerias of this city, people complain ceaselessly about the high price of corn. Just three years ago, one quetzal — about 15 cents — bought eight tortillas; today it buys only four. And eggs have tripled in price because chickens eat corn feed.

Meanwhile, in rural areas, subsistence farmers struggle to find a place to sow their seeds. On a recent morning, José Antonio Alvarado was harvesting his corn crop on the narrow median of Highway 2 as trucks zoomed by.

“We’re farming here because there is no other land, and I have to feed my family,” said Mr. Alvarado, pointing to his sons Alejandro and José, who are 4 and 6 but appear to be much younger, a sign of chronic malnutrition.

Recent laws in the United States and Europe that mandate the increasing use of biofuel in cars have had far-flung ripple effects, economists say, as land once devoted to growing food for humans is now sometimes more profitably used for churning out vehicle fuel.

In a globalized world, the expansion of the biofuels industry has contributed to spikes in food prices and a shortage of land for food-based agriculture in poor corners of Asia, Africa and Latin America because the raw material is grown wherever it is cheapest.

Nowhere, perhaps, is that squeeze more obvious than in Guatemala, which is “getting hit from both sides of the Atlantic,” in its fields and at its markets, said Timothy Wise, a Tufts University development expert who is studying the problem globally with Actionaid, a policy group based in Washington that focuses on poverty.

With its corn-based diet and proximity to the United States, Central America has long been vulnerable to economic riptides related to the United States’ corn policy. Now that the United States is using 40 percent of its crop to make biofuel, it is not surprising that tortilla prices have doubled in Guatemala, which imports nearly half of its corn.

At the same time, Guatemala’s lush land, owned by a handful of families, has proved ideal for producing raw materials for biofuels. Suchitepéquez Province, a major corn-producing region five years ago, is now carpeted with sugar cane and African palm. The field Mr. Alvarado used to rent for his personal corn crop now grows sugar cane for a company that exports bioethanol to Europe.

Aside from biofuels, on the supply side, agricultural subsidies, agricultural protectionism and various forms of (regulatory) interventionism have all contributed to higher prices.

On the demand, aside from demand from China and emerging markets, global central banking relentless pumping of money have also pumped up prices of food. 

And given the acceleration of balance sheet expansions by global centrals in order to "promote aggregate demand" (in reality buoy asset prices to save the distressed too big to fail politically connected banking system and insolvent welfare states), the risks of food crisis, from the cumulative effects of interventions, cannot be discounted.

War on Plastic Bags: Debunking Three Popular Myths

I previously wrote about the unfounded claims on the supposed environmentally baneful effects from plastic bags.

Canada’s Fraser Institute offers their case by dealing with 3 popular myths: (bold and blue highlights mine)

The three central arguments used against plastic grocery bags are that plastic bags pollute the air and water, and pose a significant litter problem, clogging our lakes, rivers, and oceans.

Claim: Plastic bags pollute the air

According to most plastic bag critics, it takes roughly 12 million barrels of oil to produce the 100 billion plastic bags used in the US each year (Sierra Club, undated). 

Environmental activists note the production and decomposition of plastic bags emits greenhouse gases and other pollutants at every stage of a plastic bag’s life (New York Times, 2007). This, however, tells less than half of the story, as most analyses of bag impacts don’t consider the costs and benefits of plastic bags relative to alternatives. 

A study released in 2011 by the Environmental Agency of England helps put environmental impact claims in perspective. In Evidence: Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags, researchers offer a “cradle-to-grave” review of seven different types of grocery store bags: conventional lightweight plastic bags; plastic bags treated with a chemical to speed its degradation; a lightweight bag made from a biodegradable starch-polyester blend; a regular paper bag; a heavy-duty “bag for life” made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE); a heavier duty polypropylene bag; and a cotton bag (Edwards and Meyhoff Fry, 2011).

The researchers compared the environmental damage done by the bags using a number of indicators of environmental impact, including global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, and others. They found that the conventional plastic bag had the lowest environmental impact of the lightweight bags in eight out of nine impact categories and that biodegradable plastic bags had even larger environmental impacts than the regular kind. Paper bags performed poorly on the environmental impact tests, and the study found that they must also be used four or more times to match the global warming potential of the plastic bags. In sum, cotton bags were found to have a greater environmental impact than the conventional bags in seven of nine categories, even when  used 173 times—the number of times needed for its global warming potential to be on par with that of a plastic bag

Claim: Plastic bags pollute the water

Another frequently recited argument in favour of banning plastic is that we face a crisis of plastic-encrusted waterways. Environmental groups paint horrific pictures of plastic pollution like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which purportedly spans twice the size of Texas (Oceanic Defense,  undated). Though it’s certainly true that plastic bags can be harmful to all things aquatic, it’s important, again, to put such claims in perspective. As assistant professor of Oceanography Angelicque White reports, the claims about the size of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch are simply wrong (2011). She explains, “The amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial, but using the highest concentrations ever reported by scientists produces a patch that is a small fraction of the state of Texas, not twice the size.” Moreover, “there is no doubt that the amount of plastics in the world’s oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists. We have data that allow us to make reasonable estimates; we don’t need the hyperbole.” And the contribution of plastic grocery bags to ocean plastic pollution is relatively small: environmental group Grow NYC estimates that only “7.5% of our waste stream consists of plastic film such as supermarket bags” (2012).

Dangers of alternatives

Alternatives, such as trendy cloth bags, pose a danger. A closer look proves cloth bags are not only less environmentally safe as described above, but they pose their own risks to human health. In June 2010, Charles Gerba and colleagues at the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University released a study on contamination of reusable bags. As they explain in Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags:

“Large numbers of bacteria were found in almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half. Escherichia coli were identified in 12% of the bags and a wide range of enteric bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens. When meat juices were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours, the number of bacteria increased 10-fold indicating the potential for bacterial growth in the bags.”

While some critics dismissed the study due to its partial funding by the American Chemistry Council, real world examples corroborate Gerbera’s results (Huffington Post, 2012). In October 2010, for example, a teenaged soccer player in Oregon fell mysteriously ill, kicking off a nasty strain of norovirus that quickly spread to her teammates and left scientists puzzled. Epidemiologists ultimately uncovered the bizarre yet treacherous culprit: a contaminated cloth grocery bag from the soccer player’s hotel room. An NBC report explains, “The girl had been very ill in the hotel bathroom, spreading an aerosol of norovirus that landed everywhere, including on the reusable grocery bag hanging in the room. When scientists checked the bag, it tested positive for the bug, even two weeks later” (Aleccia, 2012)

To avoid such dangers, epidemiologist Kimberly K. Repp (whose report on the mystery above appears in the Journal of Infectious Diseases) rightly advises that, “we wash our clothes when they’re dirty; we should wash our bags too.” Unfortunately, however Gerbera et al found that “reusable bags are seldom if ever washed and often used for multiple purposes” (2012).

Economic Impacts

Finally, many proponents of the plastic bag ban spend the majority of their time on environmental benefits, and offer little substantive analysis as to the economic impacts of a plastic bag ban or tax. As it turns out, the economic case for plastic bag bans and /or taxes is less than airtight. A report released in January 2011 by the Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute conjectures that Washington, DC’s bag tax, by making purchases more inconvenient, will lead consumers to reduce how much they buy in the District, which “will eliminate a net of 101 local jobs. The job losses will cause annual wages to fall by $18 per worker and aggregate real disposable income to fall by $5.64 million. The wage and income losses will combine to lower income tax collections.” A recent study from the National Center for Policy Analysis also found that plastic bags cost jobs:

“The NCPA surveyed store managers in Los Angeles County where a ban of thin-film bags took effect in July 2011, to determine the ban’s impact on revenues and employment. Over a one year period before and after the ban, stores that fell under the bag ban experienced a 10 percent reduction in  employment, while employment in stores outside of the ban slightly increased (2012)."

Conclusion

The panic surrounding plastic grocery bags is largely unfounded. Despite continued demonization of plastic bags, the  evidence shows that they’re less likely to be contaminated, typically save more energy than paper or cloth alternatives, and are less hazardous to marine life than is commonly conjectured 

Populist environmental politics has mostly been about misanthropic and atavistic social controls, backed by specious theories, which yearns to bring back society to the medieval age. 

The unseen factor has been the transfer of resources or the promotion vested interest groups, using the environment as cover, such as taxpayer funded green energy industry which has continued to bleed taxpayers dry in the US and in the Philippines, green lobby and the logging interests.

Chart of the Day: The Bursting of the Renewable Energy Bubble

Environmental politics expressed through “manmade global warming” or now revamped as “climate change” has basically the same intent: promote political favored energy, as well as, establish social controls to supposedly protect the climate.

Yet the public hardly realizes that when government intervenes the result has always been the same: imbalances emerge and the laws of economics ventilated through markets will correct them.  This is simply the law of unintended consequence.

The renewable energy industry, which has been the principal beneficiary from climate change policies, have been thrashed by marketplace. Moreover politicization has led to unethical practices or has exposed cronyism such as the Solyndra scandal.

The chart above consisting of the market cap of the 30 of the world’s largest renewable energy companies has plummeted by more than 90% since the 2008 peak. 

From oversupply or to a build up of high capacity, to high energy prices, to the realization of fiscal realities and the European debt crisis, and to the stalemate in global climate negotiations, as explained by the Washington Times (chart also from them, hat tip AEI’s Mark Perry), has brought such politically hyped-to-the-firmament expectations back to earth.

Such outcome has been diametric to the largely free market based Shale gas revolution.

Bottom line: the market eventually explodes the illusions brought upon by politically inflated bubbles.

CFR: US President Obama’s Renewable Energy Jobs Comes at High Cost to Taxpayers

The highly connected and the alleged most influential think thank, the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) on their blog says that US President Obama’s subsidies to green energy industry comes at the great cost to US taxpayers.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that energy-related tax preferences will cost Americans $5.4 billion this year. Half of this, $2.7 billion, will benefit green sectors: $1 billion in nuclear subsidies, $1.3 billion in wind-energy credits for electricity production, and $400 million in solar-energy property credits.

So-called “section 1603” renewable energy grants, part of the 2009 fiscal stimulus package, will cost taxpayers a further $5.8 billion. If we assume that the grants are awarded across sectors in the last five months of this year as they were in the first seven, then the nuclear, solar, and wind energy sectors will receive $4 billion of this, boosting total green-sector subsidies to $6.7 billion this year.

Taxpayers will also provide $700 million in energy-efficient property credits. The credits apply mainly to solar, though we don’t know the precise allocation – so we leave it out of the figure, which therefore understates the cost of solar-backed jobs.

Dividing the total wind, solar, and nuclear subsidies by the number of Americans employed in these sectors (252,000), they are currently generating jobs at an average annual cost to taxpayers of over $29,000. Wind jobs cost taxpayers nearly $47,000 per job per year.

By way of comparison, the coal, oil, and gas sectors receive $2.7 billion in subsidies annually, and employ about 1.4 million Americans. The taxpayer-cost per job in these sectors is therefore just over $1,900.

The bottom line is that green-energy jobs cost taxpayers, on average, 15 times more than oil, gas, and coal jobs. Wind-backed jobs cost 25 times more.

That’s how cronyism works; taxpayers subsidize political pet projects operated and maintained by allies and friends. In return, the benefactors reciprocate through generous campaign donations, silent partnerships and other unscrupulous means of compensation.

This dynamic will hardly change no matter who wins next week in the presidential elections.

US President Obama’s Green Energy List of Failures

President Obama’s picking winners and losers have been bleeding US taxpayers. 

Here is a list complied by the conservative Heritage Foundation accounting for (so far) the 34 tax payer funded (crony) green energy companies that have lost money

From the Heritage Foundation

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
17. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
18. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
19. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
20. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
21. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
22. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
23. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
24. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
25. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
26. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
27. GreenVolts ($500,000)
28. Vestas ($50 million)
29. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
30. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
31. Navistar ($39 million)
32. Satcon ($3 million)*
33. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
34. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.

The above list includes some adjustments, pls. go to the Heritage site for the updates

Imploding Solar Energy Bubble Even in China

Government sponsored renewable “green” energy (predicated on climate change) has been imploding, not only in the US (e.g. Solyndra scandal) and Europe but in China as well.

From the New York Times (bold highlights)

China in recent years established global dominance in renewable energy, its solar panel and wind turbine factories forcing many foreign rivals out of business and its policy makers hailed by environmentalists around the world as visionaries.

But now China’s strategy is in disarray. Though worldwide demand for solar panels and wind turbines has grown rapidly over the last five years, China’s manufacturing capacity has soared even faster, creating enormous oversupply and a ferocious price war.

The result is a looming financial disaster, not only for manufacturers but for state-owned banks that financed factories with approximately $18 billion in low-rate loans and for municipal and provincial governments that provided loan guarantees and sold manufacturers valuable land at deeply discounted prices. 

China’s biggest solar panel makers are suffering losses of up to $1 for every $3 of sales this year, as panel prices have fallen by three-fourths since 2008. Even though the cost of solar power has fallen, it still remains triple the price of coal-generated power in China, requiring substantial subsidies through a tax imposed on industrial users of electricity to cover the higher cost of renewable energy.

The outcome has left even the architects of China’s renewable energy strategy feeling frustrated and eager to see many businesses shut down, so the most efficient companies may be salvageable financially.

$18 billion and counting of China’s taxpayers money now in jeopardy.

As always, eventually economic reality expressed through the markets upend governments’ grand delusions, more from the same article:

Chinese companies have struggled even though a dozen solar companies in the United States and another dozen in Europe have gone bankrupt or closed factories since the start of last year. The bankruptcies and closures have done little to ease the global glut and price war because China by itself represents more than two-thirds of the world’s capacity.

To reduce capacity, foreign rivals have clamored for China to subsidize the purchase of more solar panels at home, instead of having Chinese companies rely so heavily on exports. But the government here is worried about the cost of doing so, because the price of solar power remains far higher than for coal-generated power.

The average cost of electricity from solar panels in China works out to 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, said Mr. Li. That is three times the cost of coal-fired power. But it is a marked improvement from 63 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar power four years ago.

China’s official goal is to install 10 gigawatts of solar panels a year by 2015, using 20-year contracts to guarantee payment for electricity purchased from them. If costs stay where they are now, the subsidies would be $50 billion over 20 years for every 10 gigawatts of solar power installed, based on figures supplied by Mr. Li.

Even if solar power costs fall by a third, as the government hopes, he said, “it’s big money.”

China’s government’s goal may or may not be attained, but one thing is for sure: costs are not benefits. China’s force feeding of solar energy will come at a great costs to her taxpayers and to the development of other possible alternatives, most prominently shale gas.

Alternatively, the explosive global growth of free market based Shale gas will add to the economic and financial woes of the solar and other government sponsored renewable industry.

US Spent $72 Billion for Climate Change Since 2008

Writes Professor Gary North at the LewRockwell.com,

Remember when global warming was called global warming? You know: back in 2001, before a decade elapsed in which there was no measurable global warming.

It’s not called global warming any longer. That was just too embarrassing, because there hasn’t any global warming for a decade. This stable temperature has taken place, despite the fact that worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide are higher.

“In light of the 2010 data, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by fully a third since the year 2001, yet global temperatureshave not risen during the past decade. Global warming activists argue that carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary factor in global temperature changes, yet global temperatures show no change despite a 33% increase in global carbon dioxide emissions.”

So, the anti-warmers changed tactics. They invented a new threat: climate change.

Mankind is responsible for climate change, we are told. Therefore, the U.S. government is required to spend money to combat it, all over the world. It has no jurisdiction outside the United States, but that has not dimmed the hopes and plans of warmers

The U.S. government has spent over $72 billion to combat climate change since 2008.

This has failed. The climate keeps changing. Sometimes it’s warmer. Sometimes it’s cooler. It it refuses to cease changing.

This means that taxpayers must still be compelled by the government to do their fair share.

This means $72 billion down the sinkhole (wasted productive capital), $72 billion added burden for US taxpayers, and $72 billion subsidies for the benefit of Obama’s green energy cronies.

Abetted by the constant barrage of propaganda by mainstream media aimed at convincing the median voter, vested interest groups, who benefit from political privileges, have been screaming for more.

The Unraveling Global ‘Earth Hour’ Energy Industry Bubble

Like the welfare state, the supposedly politically correct environmental position represented by green energy projects are being exposed for what they truly are—delusions of grandeur.

Political support for green ‘renewable’ energy has been diminishing in Western nations.

From the Wall Street Journal, (bold emphasis mine)

The green economy strikes again, or shall we say strikes out. Oakland-based Solar Trust of America filed for bankruptcy this week, leaving its planned multibillion-dollar plant in California on ice. The company declared itself insolvent after its parent—Germany's Solar Millennium—filed for bankruptcy in December, and Solar Trust realized it wouldn't be able to pay a $1 million rent check due April 1.

Solar Millennium, in turn, had been hoping to sell a controlling stake in Solar Trust to the German company, solarhybrid, until solarhybrid also filed for bankruptcy in March. Then there's Q-Cells, another German solar company, which also filed for bankruptcy this week, sharing that fate with Solon, the Berlin-headquartered photovoltaic firm that went bust in December.

This cascade of insolvencies comes after Germany decided last year to slash the above-market prices it forces utilities to pay for renewable energy sources and to cut the subsidies that have locked German taxpayers into €100 billion in handouts to the solar industry. Even before the subsidy cut, German solar manufacturers were struggling under price pressure from China, which has responded to Western subsidies by ramping up its own production, undercutting higher-cost European and American producers in the process.

Greens in Germany and beyond are protesting that if only governments would continue soaking taxpayers to prop up solar, wind and other low-carbon favorites, these technologies would be viable. But even that is far from clear. Q-Cells and others had responded to Chinese competition by outsourcing some of their own production to Asia to cut costs. That wasn't enough to save them.

The real story is that green manufacturing, which was supposed to be the planet's salvation and Europe's new industrial base, proved to be as vulnerable to low-cost competition as many other industries. Far from creating a sustainable comparative advantage, German subsidies sparked the very rivalry now putting its home-grown industry out of business.

The Italian government appears to have taken note of these economic realities and last weekend said it would slash "excessive" subsidies for solar and wind power. Industry Minister Corrado Passera uttered the obligatory promise that Rome remains committed to generating a carbon-free, wind- and sun-powered economy, but that "we need to do so without overreliance on taxpayer resources."

So economic reality has been prevailing over mass hysteria.

Aside from gross mismanagement, mainly due to the moral hazard of political support which has been wasting taxpayers money, competition from Asia has added to the industry’s woes.

Of course, the most important factor is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, or the Santa Claus Principle, as most political zealots believe.

And considering the tremendous financial pressures to survive the welfare state, politicians see the latter as more of a priority than sustaining the economically unviable green industry, which ironically, has been contributing to the welfare state’s financial burden.

Under fiscal pressure from the ongoing debt crisis ordeal, Spain has also cut subsidies to unfeasible political pet projects.

From Bloomberg, (bold emphasis mine)

Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget deficit and rein in power-system borrowings backed by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011.

“What is today an energy problem could become a financial problem,” Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria said in Madrid. The government passed a decree today stopping subsidies for new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants.

The system’s debts were racked up as revenue from state- controlled prices failed to cover the cost of delivering power. Costs have swollen in the past five years because of an increase in regulated payments for the power grid, support for Spanish coal mines and subsidies for renewable energy plants…

Spain’s decision is a “first step” to rein in debts, and officials are working on a broader package of measures, Soria said. The nation isn’t planning a levy on hydropower or nuclear plants, nor will it take on power-system liabilities, he said.

The Spanish action follows Germany’s announcement last week that it would phase out support for solar panels by 2017 and the U.K.’s legal battle to reduce its subsidies for the industry.

Spain was an early mover in developing renewables plants, and support for wind energy helped Iberdrola become the world’s biggest producer of clean power, with plants in the U.S. and Brazil. The industry sustains about 110,000 Spanish jobs, according to the Renewable Energy Producers Association.

The government is wrestling with competing priorities as it struggles to convince investors it can meet a target to cut the budget deficit to 4.4 percent of gross domestic product this year, from 8 percent last year, while trying to create jobs in a country where 23 percent of workers are unemployed.

Oooooh that ought to hurt.

A relevant quote from Warren Buffett on bubbles,

Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.

Apparently green energy has been caught swimming naked and whose bubble seems to have been pricked.

Yet those proposing to promote green energy in the Philippines through the same political route of subsidies (whether consumer or supplier based) ought to open their eyes and see what has been happening abroad.

Any industry that cannot survive on its own [because the consumers don’t want them] and which requires political fiat to thrive extrapolates to a redistribution of resources from the economy to the political privileged groups. This is rank crony capitalism.

And crony capitalism results to huge wastages, economic inefficiency, discoordination of the economy and corruption among the many other nasty side effects. And this accounts for as the reverse Robin Hood where the poor and the middle class subsidizes the rich cronies (through taxes and inflation).

Worst is that the underlying (feel good) dogma of such environmental political religion has been founded on supposed infallibility and omniscience of computer based models.

As the great H.L. Mencken wrote,

Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

Cartoon of the Day: Wind Power: All the Pain for Zero Gain

From Watts up with That (hat tip Professor Mark Perry)

Quote of the Day: Climate Debate is all about the Feedbacks

Notice that the skeptics agree with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO₂; they just disagree about the feedbacks. The climate debate is all about the feedbacks; everything else is merely a sideshow. Yet hardly anyone knows that. The government climate scientists and the mainstream media have framed the debate in terms of the direct effect of CO₂ and sideshows such as arctic ice, bad weather, or psychology. They almost never mention the feedbacks. Why is that? Who has the power to make that happen?

That’s from Dr. David M.W. Evans at the Mises Institute.

The reality is that the climate change debate has hardly been about the environment but about the promotion of socialism and or statism.

The environment has only been used as pretext, front, and leverage or as means to advance an end, particularly the attainment of greater political power and control over lives from which the political class and their cronies acquire the mandate (from vulnerable voters manipulated by media) to rob their respective taxpayers.

Climate change politics, specifically the anthropomorphic strain, signifies a popular delusion and a sham that is being exposed for what they truly are.

CBS News: US Taxpayers Taking a Hit on Green-Renewable Energy Firms

Political supported green renewable energy companies have been sinking US taxpayer funds.


(hat tip: Mark Perry)

From CBS

It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. SunPower's role is to design, build and initially operate and maintain the California Valley Solar Ranch Project that's the subject of the loan guarantee.

First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose - even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans.

Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview. Last November at a hearing on Solyndra, Energy Secretary Steven Chu strongly defended the government's attempts to bolster America's clean energy prospects. "In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars," Chu said. "We are in a fierce global race to capture this market."

Economist Morici says even somebody as smart as Secretary Chu -- an award-winning scientist -- shouldn't be playing "venture capitalist" with tax dollars. "Tasking a Nobel Prize mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be general in charge of America's troops in Afghanistan," Morici said. "It's that absurd."

My comment:

This represents the political economy of anthropomorphic climate change. Argue about the validity of global warming then divert taxpayers money on money losing projects that benefits only politically allied cronies and their political wards.

This is further proof that even with subsidized money, green or renewable energy can hardly take off simply because consumers don't see them as reliable alternatives (in spite of the global warming bugaboo).

This also proves that government picking out of 'winners' is no guarantee of success.

Even more, the issue of moral hazard applies as cronies are hardly motivated to see the success of these companies since they know government will absorb the losses on their behalf and even perhaps knew or anticipated that these companies would eventually fail, hence, became milking cows.

And corruption will signify another aspect here, since public-private partnerships naturally leads to the prioritization of the whims of the political masters rather than of consumers.

Also one can pretend to know about the future (as the energy secretary) when we really don't.

End of the day what is unsustainable won't last. What is a fraud or unnatural will be exposed for what they are. That's how events have been playing out as shown above.

The Explosive Growth of Shale Gas

The growth momentum of the ‘sunshine’ Shale gas industry has been revving up.

From Bloomberg

Surging crude output in the Bakken shale formation is set to make North Dakota a bigger oil producer than OPEC member Ecuador.

The CHART OF THE DAY tracks North Dakota’s production, which has almost doubled in the past two years, as Ecuadorean output has stagnated.

North Dakota and neighboring Montana are home to the Bakken Formation, identified by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2008 as having as much as 4.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Companies extract the oil with hydraulic fracturing, a technique that shoots water, sand and chemicals into shale.

“There’s been an amazing jump in North Dakota output,” said Rick Mueller, a principal with ESAI Energy LLC in Wakefield, Massachusetts. “We are looking for output to be anywhere from 700,000 barrels to 1 million barrels a day within five years.”

North Dakota pumped a record 464,129 barrels a day in September, the most recent month with available data, according to the state government, up from 86,072 barrels 10 years earlier. The state is now the fourth-biggest producer in the U.S. after Texas, Alaska and California, according to the Energy Department.

Ecuador produced 485,000 barrels a day in September, according to a monthly Bloomberg News survey of oil companies, producers and analysts, near the top of its range for the past four years. It was OPEC’s smallest producer until Libya’s production was disrupted this year by the insurrection that toppled Muammar Qaddafi.

The momentous growth by Shale gas industry has largely been ignored by the mainstream obsessed by politically ordained ‘renewable energy’ or by peak oil theorists fixated with Malthusian dynamics

A good example can be seen from the Economist

EFFORTS to tackle climate change include heavy investment in renewable sources of electricity around the world. Solar power saw the biggest leap in 2010, with the installed base jumping 70% compared with 2009 to 40 gigawatts. Wind power also grew strongly, adding 24% of generating capacity. Yet the biggest source of renewable electricity, hydropower, and the smallest, geothermal, both only added 3% to capacity. Finding usable sources of either is becoming increasingly hard or costly. The region that saw the biggest growth in renewable energy projects was power-hungry Asia. Investment in renewables also saw the biggest leap since 2007, with $243 billion spent, a 30% increase over 2009.

Eventually the growth of the industry will likely reach a scale enough to incentivize a structural change or reconfiguration in the distribution of demand.

Anatomy of Political Distribution: Solyndra Scandal

Below is an example of the anatomy of political distribution

From the Washington Post (hat tip Professor William Anderson)

The Obama administration urged officers of the struggling solar company Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections, newly released e-mails show.

Solyndra, the now-shuttered California company, had been a poster child of President Obama’s initiative to invest in clean energies and received the administration’s first energy loan of $535 million. But a year ago, in October 2010, the solar panel manufacturer was quickly running out of money and had warned the Energy Department it would need emergency cash to avoid having to shut down.

The natural drive in politics has been to either generate votes or to expand/maintain political control over a particular turf. And political mandates of picking winners and losers results to conflict of interests.

The above article shows all these at work: conflict of interest, policy failure and the desire to win votes by shielding the negative effects of applied policies

Yet in politics, since there is no economic calculation involved or no discipline from profit or losses, government failures hardly gets the retribution or reckoning required which largely makes policymakers unaccountable for their actions and incentivizes them to keep repeating similar mistakes.

The net effect is negative externality or that society suffers from these.

Obama’s Energy Policies and Crony Capitalism

Why are oil prices high? As I have repeatedly been saying this has been because of government policies, particularly restriction to access (aside from inflationism)

From the Global Warming Policy Foundation (emphasis added) [hat tip Matt Ridley]

Harold Hamm calculates that if Washington would allow more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, the government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties. That's more than the U.S. national debt.

Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources, the 14th-largest oil company in America, is a man who thinks big. He came to Washington last month to spread a needed message of economic optimism: With the right set of national energy policies, the United States could be "completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century."

"President Obama is riding the wrong horse on energy," he adds. We can't come anywhere near the scale of energy production to achieve energy independence by pouring tax dollars into "green energy" sources like wind and solar, he argues. It has to come from oil and gas.

You'd expect an oilman to make the "drill, baby, drill" pitch. But since 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation's fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: "No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels."…

The White House proposal to raise $40 billion of taxes on oil and gas—by excluding those industries from credits that go to all domestic manufacturers—is also a major hindrance to exploration and drilling. "That just stops the drilling," Mr. Hamm believes. "I've seen these things come about before, like [Jimmy] Carter's windfall profits tax." He says America's rig count on active wells went from 4,500 to less than 55 in a matter of months. "That was a dumb idea. Thank God, Reagan got rid of that."

A few months ago the Obama Justice Department brought charges against Continental and six other oil companies in North Dakota for causing the death of 28 migratory birds, in violation of the Migratory Bird Act. Continental's crime was killing one bird "the size of a sparrow" in its oil pits. The charges carry criminal penalties of up to six months in jail. "It's not even a rare bird. There're jillions of them," he explains. He says that "people in North Dakota are really outraged by these legal actions," which he views as "completely discriminatory" because the feds have rarely if ever prosecuted the Obama administration's beloved wind industry, which kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year.

Obama’s policies have been designed at keeping energy prices elevated so that he can push his “green energy” projects to the benefit of his cronies, as the recent Solyndra scandal has manifested.

See video below

And more political blight from 'green energy' based crony capitalist policies are being exposed.

From Heritage Foundation,

Days before a recent deadline, the Department of Energy brazenly approved two additional loans for more than $1 billion for solar energy projects in the Obama Administration’s green jobs program. The latest ill-fated ventures include a $737 million loan guarantee to Solar Reserve for a 110-megawatt solar tower on federal land in Nevada and a $337 million guarantee for Mesquite Solar 1 to develop a 150-megawatt solar plant in Arizona.

Loan guarantees like these are destined to fail, because they are either granted to companies that could not remain viable without them or because the loan was supported by political connections; or both. This round of loans includes the latter—just as it appears Solyndra was aided.

For example, Solar Reserve lists PCG Clean Energy and Technology Fund (East) LLC as an investment partner. Ronald Pelosi, brother-in-law of the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, is an executive with PCG. Another investment partner: Argonaut Private Equity, the employer of Steve Mitchell, who served on the Solyndra LLC Board of Directors.

Green energy is no more than political based redistribution. Yet as the above shows, big government or the politicization of allocation of resources results to corruption, the gaming the system, inefficiency or wastage of scarce resources and taxpayer losses.

Green Jobs: The Anatomy of Government Failure

From the Washington Post, (bold emphasis mine)

A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show.

The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies.

President Obama has made “green jobs” a showcase of his recovery plan, vowing to foster new jobs, new technologies and more competitive American industries. But the loan guarantee program came under scrutiny Wednesday from Republicans and Democrats at a House oversight committee hearing about the collapse of Solyndra, a solar-panel maker whose closure could leave taxpayers on the hook for as much as $527 million.

The GOP lawmakers accused the administration of rushing approval of a guarantee of the firm’s project and failing to adequately vet it. “My goodness. We should be reviewing every one of these loan guarantee” projects, said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Obama’s efforts to create green jobs are lagging behind expectations at a time of persistently high unemployment. Many economists say that because alternative-­energy projects are so expensive and slow to ramp up, they are not the most efficient way to stimulate the economy.

“There are good reasons to create green jobs, but they have more to do with green than with jobs,” Princeton University economics professor and former Federal Reserve vice chairman Alan Blinder has said.

The loan guarantee program can also be unwieldy. It works like this: Companies negotiate with the Energy Department for a government loan guarantee, which means taxpayers will pay off bank loans if the project fails. Then the Office of Management and Budget must sign off on the guarantees, often changing terms…

Solyndra’s closure prompted concerns about whether the administration made good bets in the rest of its portfolio of clean-tech projects it had helped subsidize with taxpayer-guaranteed loans. The primary investors in Solyndra were funds tied to a major Obama fundraising bundler, Tulsa oilman George Kaiser.

My take:

Again the article proves that there hardly has been any qualm for political authorities to spend on other people’s money because they won’t be held accountable for decision failures.

The political process of picking winners does not guarantee success.

Wrong decisions by political stewards ultimately mean higher taxes which decreases the competitiveness of the economy. Oh don’t blame globalization for the effects of stupid domestic policies.

Importantly, this has been lucid evidence of how central planning fails and how politics can’t subvert the will of the markets.

With taxpayer guarantees, the political beneficiaries of loans (stimulus) from the government are not only protégés of the administration (crony capitalism) but notably have not been subject to the discipline of market forces, and thus, can or will recklessly handle finances even to the risk of finagling them. Call it corruption and moral hazard.