German taxpayers have poured $130 billion into subsidizing solar panels, but ultimately by the end of the century, this will postpone global warming by a trivial 37 hours. The electric car is even less efficient. Its production consumes a vast amount of fossil fuels, and mostly it utilizes fossil fuel electricity to be recharged. Even if the U.S. did reach the lofty goal of 1 million electric cars by 2015 — costing taxpayers more than $7.5 billion — global warming would be postponed by only 60 minutes.
These beguiling policies cost a fortune but make little difference to the environment because the technologies are still not ready. That’s why we need to invest more in long-term research and development for green innovation. This would be much cheaper than current environmental policies and would end up doing more good for the climate.
But it wouldn’t pay off political cronies.
As he notes, it’s time to start having sensible, not economically stupid environmental policies.
[Update late morning]
The EU carbon market continues to collapse.
Good.
But it wouldn’t pay off political cronies.
Huh? Lomberg’s recommended solution is more investment in energy R&D — i.e. more Solyndras. Isn’t it your contention that such investment is rife with political favoritism?
If cronyism and economic efficiency are your top concern, a carbon tax makes more sense than either solar/wind/electric car subsidies or more R&D spending. But I don’t see much political support for that option — the word “tax” is so radioactive that politicians and voters seems to prefer inefficient subsidies.
If you think that Solyndra was “R&D,” and particularly of the long-term variety, you apparently don’t know what that phrase means. But that’s no surprise, considering the source.
Of course Solyndra was R&D. And longer-term R&D tends to be even riskier; in Lomberg’s world we’d have an even higher fraction of government-funded R&D efforts coming to nothing.
Do you endorse Lomberg’s call for higher R&D spending on green innovation? If so, how do you reconcile it with your concerns about cronyism?
Jim,
Solyndra was an idea so stupid, a high school student could execute the calculation that demonstrates it wouldn’t work. A junior high school student could build the experimental apparatus demonstrating it wouldn’t work for less than $100.
Basically, the idea was cylindrical solar cells. It’s a simple calculation to show that per unit area collection efficiency is 1/2 that of a flat cell.
Solyndra was high risk/high payoff in the same way jumping off a tall building and trying fly by flapping your arms is high risk/high payoff. It was high risk/high payoff the same way square wheels are high risk/high payoff. It was high risk/high payoff the same way paving roads with cheese is high risk/high payoff.
Except in all of the above cases, the theoretical calculation demonstrating that the idea won’t work is actually harder.
It was pure, unadulterated stupid.
The fact that there are people in charge pretending that Solyndra is part of an intelligent research program into solar energy is as clear an indicator that government investment solar energy is a waste of money as is possible.
Of course Solyndra was R&D.
And of course once again you flaunt your ignorance. Solyndra was a subsidized manufacturing concern, not R&D.
in Lomberg’s world we’d have an even higher fraction of government-funded R&D efforts coming to nothing.
But at least it would have a possibility of a high payoff. Anyone with half a brain could look at Solyndra’s business plan and tell that it made no sense.
Do you endorse Lomberg’s call for higher R&D spending on green innovation?
I have no problem with basic research into improved energy generation and storage technologies.
If so, how do you reconcile it with your concerns about cronyism?
Government research doesn’t intrinsically have to involve cronyism. Except, apparently, with this administration.
Solyndra was a subsidized manufacturing concern, , not R&D.
They were researching and developing novel manufacturing methods for a novel product. Innovation in manufacturing is as important as innovation in product design, and the two often go together.
Anyone with half a brain
And yet it attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment. There’s no question it was risky, but that’s the nature of R&D.
I have no problem with basic research into improved energy generation and storage technologies.
Then you (and Lomborg) should be glad that Obama’s put more money into those areas than any recent predecessor.
Government research doesn’t intrinsically have to involve cronyism.
It involves giving lots of government money to selected private researchers and/or firms, knowing that there may not be any positive results. It will be easy for political opponents to demagogue those selections and failures as cronyism.
Solyndra’s huge facility in the bay area was most certainly not an R&D facility. The bay area is replete with PV R&D companies that operate on a fraction of the budget, building size, and head count Solyndra did. Solyndra was tooled up to mass produce CIGS PV cells for industrial users. Their technology was a bust. They were hyped as a model, and fed cash, with the thought that all PV needed was the critical mass of Capitol, and $/watt would magically drop and save us all from evil carbon. The US government operating in its proper role looks like NREL, where they support the efforts at clean energy with standards and some technology, but they let private folks put up the money if they think the idea is good. Solyndra was an attempt to bypass the checks and balances of the market. Predictable results
The CIGS technology was hoped to be significantly cheaper then Poly Crystal SIlicon. Unfortunately Silicon costs fell like a stone, it’s why we see cells at 50 cents/watt. CIGS is still being pushed but as a niche technology. Solyndra also had a trick of round tubes to increase hours of peak sunlight. A reasonable idea, but, they couldn’t get costs down fast enough to get to a $/watt competitive to Silicon.
If the silicon prices keep holding, this summer we will see installs explode.
And yet it attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment.
Because the White House set up a sweetheart deal to put the investors first in line to get repaid if the deal went south.
Then you (and Lomborg) should be glad that Obama’s put more money into those areas than any recent predecessor.
As with all government programs, I’m less interested in how much money goes into them than in how effectively it is spent. But statists tend to measure inputs rather than outputs.
It involves giving lots of government money to selected private researchers and/or firms, knowing that there may not be any positive results.
Not intrinsically. It could be done internally by DoE.
rather than outputs
Renewable power output is way up under Obama.
It could be done internally by DoE.
So the answer to cronyism is to make the researchers federal employees? More like NASA, less like Space-X? I think you’ll agree that there are downsides to that approach as well.
Renewable power output is way up under Obama.
Only because it’s being subsidized, not because it makes economic sense.
Food stamps are way up under Obama, too.
So the answer to cronyism is to make the researchers federal employees? More like NASA, less like Space-X?
Yes.
I think you’ll agree that there are downsides to that approach as well.
There may be, but nowhere near as bad as the current ones with handing out free money to campaign contributors. SpaceX doesn’t do basic research. They develop their vehicles on the shoulders of giants at NASA, over the decades. For example, their heat shield material, while improved, is based on concepts originally developed at Ames. The Merlin draws on a lot of ideas from NASA-funded engines going back to the sixties. All SpaceX has done (not to denigrate it, because no one else has done it) was to finally take all the lessons and basic research learned over the past half century or more, and incorporate them into manufacturing and flying cost-effective vehicles.
As Stan noted, if you want good basic R&D done in renewables, let NREL handle it, not politicos in the White House.
it’s all in $/MWh and $/Watt.
The Solar niches are getting bigger and bigger. If you have a hunting cabin or a project away from the grid, Solar is a slam dunk now.
If the market were so unstable, Foxconn wouldn’t be entering it.
You’re talking last mile solutions which only have economic value because of lack of infrastructure [costs]. Against any infrastructure, solar takes decades to payoff if it does at all. Companies entertain it because the government throws money at them to do so. Take away Solyndra grants and see what happens.
The key part is getting the knowledge out of NASA and into the private sector where it can be used. The same is true for “green” whatever research. It wont do anyone any good if the only people who can access it are government employees.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. Does NASA have windmill or battery or solar cell technology that it’s not sharing with the rest of the world?
Renewable power generation is up only partly due to Obama. Individual states have made mandatory renewable energy targets, and that is due to the Governors primarily, and voter based initiatives as well. BTW, Most of the renewable power is wind, not solar. I’d hate too see a full accounting of how that has worked out for the rate payers. The windmills I see off of I-80 in WY, are always motionless, except at night when nobody needs the power.
Overall I would guess renewable generation is way up from highly insignificant, to barely noticeable.
“The windmills I see off of I-80 in WY, are always motionless, except at night when nobody needs the power.”
Next up: we need to spend a trillion dollars on batteries to store that energy until the next day, when it is needed!
Perhaps giant electric fans to blow on the windmills when power is needed? It would make as much, if not more sense than some of these projects.
Getting back closer to the topic of this thread, why do greens so easily give a free pass to enormous expenditures like those of Germany & other similarly inclined EU countries that have produced near zero effect? So Germany has delayed (supposedly) global warming by 37 hours for $130 B? Maybe the entire EU has delayed it 60 hours tops?
What would the global reaction be if tomorrow government handed out $500B to Lockheed, Boeing, ATK, even SpaceX for arguments sake, to build hardware to deflect a newly detected NEA threat that had a +50% chance of hitting the earth in 10 years. The money gets spent, rockets are launched, the mission is acclaimed as a success of how government can push technology and commercialization of key technologies, and then some kid with a backyard telescope measures the new orbit of the NEA, and calculates that the impact has not been avoided, but that it will hit 3 days later than the original estimate.
I think We know the answer to the disparate reaction between the two scenarios. Can you say “Warmist Religion”?
Saying global warming has been slowed by X hours is the same misuse ofbscience that is driving the alarmists.
Whichever side you take in the GW debate, I hope everyone would see economical solar systems, if they can be developed, as good news.
The complaint is that, absent subsidies, solar isn’t economically competitive. If it were, the government slush funding wouldn’t be needed.
I don’t know anyone, including me, who is opposed to cost-effective solar. It would be very useful for space. But we won’t get there through crony socialism.
Maybe. It’d be bad for California–it’d require a massive revamping of its electrical distribution and generating network (there’s not much chance of the electric buy-back law being reversed). I wonder how many power companies would cut their losses and leave.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/solar-achieves-grid-parity
Deutsche bank says it’s happening now.
No offense to Deutsche bank, but will it be “grid parity” once the subsidies go away? There always were applications of solar panels that didn’t require subsidies.
Not just the subsidies for AE, but the tax via carbon credits on the grid. It requires both to get what is being called “parity”.