Tag: green energy

Categories
regulation subsidy

The Hail of It

Joe Biden, energy, green energy, spending

Early yesterday, an out-of-control container ship ran into the Francis Scott Key Bridge over the Patapsco River in Baltimore. Early reports claimed that a dozen vehicles and 20 people went into the cold water, with only two survivors, so far, being rescued; last I heard, however, the total went down to six missing after the initial rescues.

It looks like an accident, and accidents happen, sometimes horrific ones. There’s a reason “thoughts and prayers” are mentioned at such times, all other talk seeming vastly inappropriate.

Nevertheless, President Joe Biden immediately promised that the federal government would pay to replace the bridge.

Eleven days earlier a more humdrum disaster gave us greater license to speculate. “Thousands of panels on a solar farm southwest of Houston, Texas, were damaged by a powerful hailstorm on March 15,” a Newsweek report informs us. “Aerial footage showed rows of cracked photovoltaic cells at the Fighting Jays Solar Farm near Needville in Fort Bend County. . . .” A vast array of solar panels, ruined by something not unheard-of in Texas: “baseball-sized hail stones” falling from the sky.

And seeping out of the panels? Toxic chemicals.

This is something that we, the voting public, must confront: the fact that most “green energy” replacements are fragile and often environmentally hazardous. Compared to natural gas they are ecological disasters.

While Joe Biden yammers about funding a new bridge, we need to force a more important conversation, about removing subsidies for pseudo-green alternative energy sources. 

To save us from the poorhouse as well as from environmental disaster.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly free trade & free markets

Expensive Cheap Energy

What is “green” energy?

There are two types. First, there’s photosynthesis.

Green plants sustain themselves through photosynthesis, creating energy for their own growth from the light of the sun. We harvest that energy pretty efficiently, with a reaper after most of the hard work has already been done. The sun is a great partner in this cost-effective form of “green” energy, as are carbon dioxide, water, soil minerals and harvesting equipment.

Then you’ve got your feel-good, ideologically motivated “green” energy, which needn’t be cost-effective at all! No matter how expensive creating this energy might actually be, the only thing that counts is whether participants in the process can declare that they are “saving the environment.” What difference, then, does it make whether far more money, and energy, is lost than gained thereby?

Such seems to be the notion behind the University of North Texas’s decision to install 36 “elliptical” exercise machines to turn the school into what the manufacturer, ReRev, calls “the largest human power plant in the world.”

The machines reportedly cost the school $20,000 and presumably required energy to build, pack, ship. But the machines also convert energy exerted during exercise to electricity at the rate of one kilowatt-hour every two days. A kilowatt-hour costs on average about ten cents in the North Texas area. So the cycling produces less than a penny of energy per hour.

But hey, at least it’s a workout.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

The Black Liquor Tax Credit

Senator John Kerry is incensed. He used the word “cheat.”

Senator Jeff Bingham insists Congress was not trying to make a tax loophole.

The fracas is over a four-year-old tax credit given to companies that mix biofuels with diesel. Congress wanted to encourage “greener” burning.

Well, it seems that paper companies have been burning a bioproduct in their plants for years, something called “black liquor.” It doesn’t sound green, but it is made from wood product. In response to Congress’s program, paper companies have taken to mixing it with diesel to qualify for the tax credit.

It wasn’t what Congress intended. But Congressfolk should hardly be surprised. A law has to apply across the board. You can’t make a general rule and then say, “Uh, no: We meant it to apply only to those businesses over there, not these ones over here.”

The New York Times notes that the scandal surfacing, now, might prove especially inconvenient for Congress, as the public roils over business and banking bailouts.

The congressional brain trust meant to give incompetent bankers billions. They didn’t mean to give International Paper $71 million, or Verso Paper $29.7 million.

Despite this, Congress has to live up to its own words. Not its intentions. In this case, Congress wants to blame corporations, not themselves. We’ll see if the august body of social engineers can pull that trick off.

Obviously, like Kermit the Frog, Congress is finding that it’s not easy being green.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.