Comments on: For Green Power, Bust Monopoly Power http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution Building a conservatism that can win again Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:50:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: SFTor1 http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-68094 SFTor1 Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:23:32 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-68094 ed, You are handling yourself like a stand-up guy. Kudos to you. ed,

You are handling yourself like a stand-up guy. Kudos to you.

]]> By: E.D. Kain http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67970 E.D. Kain Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:20:26 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67970 That's one city I've always wanted to visit. A free beer is always a good incentive... Cheers! That’s one city I’ve always wanted to visit. A free beer is always a good incentive…

Cheers!

]]> By: balconesfault http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67965 balconesfault Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:23:40 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67965 E.D., if you're ever in Austin, let me buy you a beer. E.D., if you’re ever in Austin, let me buy you a beer.

]]> By: E.D. Kain http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67963 E.D. Kain Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:19:39 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67963 "not" nearly well-researched enough... (typos!!!) “not” nearly well-researched enough… (typos!!!)

]]> By: E.D. Kain http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67962 E.D. Kain Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:18:47 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67962 So - after all these very thoughtful comments, plus some emails, I realize that this piece was no nearly well-researched enough, and that it is marred by some of the not-so-well-researched statements. My apologies for this. I still hold to the idea that freer energy markets would be a good thing, and that where monopoly exists and where regulations are too strict and prices are too controlled, we need to deregulate. To the question of Enron, you have to understand that there was actual criminal behavior going on. It was an abuse that should not warn us away from the act of deregulation, but that should help point us toward doing it better in the future. Thanks for all the feedback! So – after all these very thoughtful comments, plus some emails, I realize that this piece was no nearly well-researched enough, and that it is marred by some of the not-so-well-researched statements. My apologies for this. I still hold to the idea that freer energy markets would be a good thing, and that where monopoly exists and where regulations are too strict and prices are too controlled, we need to deregulate. To the question of Enron, you have to understand that there was actual criminal behavior going on. It was an abuse that should not warn us away from the act of deregulation, but that should help point us toward doing it better in the future.

Thanks for all the feedback!

]]> By: SFTor1 http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67923 SFTor1 Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:08:33 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67923 Sinz: thank you for providing a more vivid picture of the private/public interface. Sinz: thank you for providing a more vivid picture of the private/public interface.

]]> By: balconesfault http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67916 balconesfault Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:37:51 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67916 My apologies - I thought you were trying to make the point that since non-fuel O&M costs for wind/solar were less than for conventional plants, it meant that we should not be investing in them. Tough to tell the reality based from the Randians sometimes. My apologies – I thought you were trying to make the point that since non-fuel O&M costs for wind/solar were less than for conventional plants, it meant that we should not be investing in them. Tough to tell the reality based from the Randians sometimes.

]]> By: ryanbuck http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67912 ryanbuck Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:34:35 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67912 balconesfault, I never thought we we're in disagreement. My questions are targeted toward the author and other free market deifiers that would reach the conclusions that the free market is the best path to greener technology. Public investment is essential for renewables if one wants them to make up more than the minute sliver in the capacity pie chart. Also, It's best not to slight people who argue the point that you agree with. balconesfault,

I never thought we we’re in disagreement. My questions are targeted toward the author and other free market deifiers that would reach the conclusions that the free market is the best path to greener technology. Public investment is essential for renewables if one wants them to make up more than the minute sliver in the capacity pie chart.

Also, It’s best not to slight people who argue the point that you agree with.

]]> By: balconesfault http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67908 balconesfault Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:16:35 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67908 <b>You forgot about adding the capital costs associated with construction and installation. In the report they are:</b> I didn't forget that at all. This is why there is a need for governmental involvement if we want to stimulate the renewable energy sector. If we followed the author's prescription for governmental involvement - <b> limit that role to laying pipes and power lines, and ensuring that when laws are broken, the perpetrators are punished.</b> - we wouldn't have any sizable wind/solar industry in America right now. If your point is to emphasize your scepticism <i>about the idea that the free market will lead to a supposed “Green Revolution”</i> I'm with you, however. And that is a major problem with the free market - and a major reason why people form governments, to do things that build for the long-term prosperity of the people which the free market just won't do on its own. You forgot about adding the capital costs associated with construction and installation. In the report they are:

I didn’t forget that at all. This is why there is a need for governmental involvement if we want to stimulate the renewable energy sector. If we followed the author’s prescription for governmental involvement – limit that role to laying pipes and power lines, and ensuring that when laws are broken, the perpetrators are punished. – we wouldn’t have any sizable wind/solar industry in
America right now.

If your point is to emphasize your scepticism about the idea that the free market will lead to a supposed “Green Revolution” I’m with you, however. And that is a major problem with the free market – and a major reason why people form governments, to do things that build for the long-term prosperity of the people which the free market just won’t do on its own.

]]> By: ryanbuck http://www.frumforum.com/no-deregulation-no-green-revolution/comment-page-2#comment-67902 ryanbuck Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:08:10 +0000 http://www.newmajority.com/?p=13728#comment-67902 balconesfault, You forgot about adding the capital costs associated with construction and installation. In the report they are: Nuclear 20 Gas 6.2 Coal 11.5 Wind 41.9 When added to the math you did, you get: Nuclear 35 Gas 51.2 Coal 45.5 Wind 52.9 Don't cherry pick data. If you are assuming that a start-up will have to build new turbines, then these real costs will have to be accounted for. For small start-ups, capital costs might be mitigated since they are not aiming for the installed base of a nuclear or coal plant, but then how can wind be expected to take on a large portion of the electrical generation capacity? Also for these small players dealing in intermittent power sources, won't they have costs associated with needing to purchase electricity from bigger utilities so that their customers won't experience outages? It would seem that smaller players would lost customers, assuming that they're customers are incredibly idealistic and sacrifice base load for being on wind. I'm not arguing for the coal, I'm just skeptical about the idea that the free market will lead to a supposed "Green Revolution" balconesfault,

You forgot about adding the capital costs associated with construction and installation. In the report they are:

Nuclear 20
Gas 6.2
Coal 11.5
Wind 41.9

When added to the math you did, you get:

Nuclear 35
Gas 51.2
Coal 45.5
Wind 52.9

Don’t cherry pick data. If you are assuming that a start-up will have to build new turbines, then these real costs will have to be accounted for. For small start-ups, capital costs might be mitigated since they are not aiming for the installed base of a nuclear or coal plant, but then how can wind be expected to take on a large portion of the electrical generation capacity?

Also for these small players dealing in intermittent power sources, won’t they have costs associated with needing to purchase electricity from bigger utilities so that their customers won’t experience outages? It would seem that smaller players would lost customers, assuming that they’re customers are incredibly idealistic and sacrifice base load for being on wind.

I’m not arguing for the coal, I’m just skeptical about the idea that the free market will lead to a supposed “Green Revolution”

]]>