Streetwise Professor

TAFKAS can’t recall if he has referenced him before, but the Streetwise Professor, Craig Pirrong from the University of Houston, maintains a very good blog.

His latest post is about the idiots in Germany and Sweden:

Heretofore the Germans have been the world’s leader in renewable idiocy, with their Energiewende debacle, which has raised power costs to among the world’s highest, and not led to decreases in CO2 emissions (due mainly to the intermittency problem mentioned above). Well played! So how are the Germans going to deal with this? Perhaps by making electricity MORE expensive, by adding a CO2 tax on top of the CO2 cap and trade scheme.

I would say that will be hard to top Germany’s leading position in the ranks of renewables retards, but the Swedes are giving it a gallant try. So get this. The Swedes are replacing cheap zero carbon power (from four nuclear plants) located near load centers like Stockholm with expensive zero carbon power produced my windmills in the frozen back of buggery in the far north of Sweden. One big problem, they are woefully short of transmission capacity from back of buggery to the places where Swedes actually live and work.

This will make power more expensive, and is already constraining economic activity in Sweden. Moreover, it is raising the risk of blackouts.

Sound familiar?

The good professor also references a study from the University of Chicago that looks at the difference in cost between renewable and conventional generation dwarfs any possible benefit from CO2 reduction.  The conclusion:

While the potential damages from global climate change have been widely documented, it is almost self-evident that failing to cost-effectively reduce emissions will ultimately limit the magnitude of these reductions.

Further, policies that substantially increase the price of electricity tend to have a regressive impact that hits low-income consumers hardest, and therefore may be especially unattractive in developing countries that account for a large and growing share of global emissions.

The most effective climate policy in technologically advanced and innovative nations such as the United States will reduce emissions domestically, but also involves developing low-carbon energy systems that are cost-effective enough to promote adoption in the rest of the world.

Rest of the world.

Way to go Canberra!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Streetwise Professor

  1. stackja

    Australians voters need to tell ‘Way to go Canberra!’

  2. Bruce in WA

    In Warnemunde, guide very proud of their new HELE cosl-fired power plant.

    Cruising in beautiful waters up to Oslo and looked across the balcony to see a wind “farm” despoiling the view and waters — I counted over 100 of the poxy things. A blight.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    The most effective climate policy in technologically advanced and innovative nations such as the United States will reduce emissions domestically, but also involves developing low-carbon energy systems that are cost-effective enough to promote adoption in the rest of the world.

    So if China is building 300 coal fired power plants in the ‘rest of the world’ does that mean low carbon energy systems are so hopelessly uneconomic that the ‘rest of the world’ said get lost to the greenies?

    Why Is China Placing A Global Bet On Coal? (NPR, 29 Apr)

    Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

    Days before the forum with its “clean and green” theme, the latest Chinese-built coal plant opened in Pakistan.

    Lefties, like NPR, are mystified by all this. Renewable energy is now so cheap no one should be building coal plants, should they? Meanwhile our electricity prices are doubling and trebling for reasons no one seems to be able to say. Weird, eh?

  4. NuThink

    While the potential damages from global climate change have been widely documented,

    The operative word here is potential – so set up a lot of potential disaster scenarios (FollyWood disaster style) and they become fact.
    So often too we hear about people not reaching their true potential. So will these disasters also never reach their true (read fake) potential? For Asterix the sky has the potential to fall on his head, but never did.

  5. RobK

    From the Uni of Chicago paper in the post:

    . The estimated reduction in carbon emissions is imprecise, but, together with the price results, indicates that the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated [for renewables] gexceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon.

    Obama put the “social cost of carbon”(sic) at $51.

    An expensive way to go backwards fast.

  6. min

    Back to how our ancestors did it , sacrifice some virgins

  7. Thanks! Much appreciated.

    -The Streetwise Professor

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.