Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf
Printable View
Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf
get real.
Spain is the case study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Mariana
Quote:
Juan de Mariana (1536, Talavera, Toledo, Spain - February 17, 1624, Madrid, Spain), was a Spanish Jesuit priest, historian, member of the Monarchomachs.
He studied at the Complutense University of Alcalá de Henares, and was admitted at the age of seventeen into the Society of Jesus. In 1561 he went to teach theology in Rome, reckoning among his pupils Robert Bellarmine, afterwards cardinal; then passed into Sicily; and in 1569 he was sent to Paris, where his expositions of the writings of Thomas Aquinas attracted large audiences. In 1574, owing to ill health, he obtained permission to return to Spain; the rest of his life being passed at the Jesuits' house in Toledo in vigorous literary activity.
Mariana's great work, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae, first appeared in twenty books at Toledo in 1592; ten books were subsequently added (1605), bringing the work down to the accession of Charles V in 1519, and in a still later abstract of events the author completed it to the accession of Philip IV in 1621. It was so well received that Mariana was induced to translate it into Spanish (the first part in 1601; completed, 1609; English translation by J. Stevens, 1699).
Mariana's Historiae, though in many parts uncritical, is justly esteemed for its research, accuracy, sagacity and style. Of his other works the most interesting is the treatise De rege et regis institutione (Toledo, 1598). In its sixth chapter the question whether it is lawful to overthrow a tyrant is freely discussed and answered in the affirmative, a circumstance which brought much odium upon the Jesuits, especially after the assassination of Henry IV of France, in 1610. A volume entitled Tractatus VII. theologici et historici(published by Mariana at Cologne, in 1609, containing in particular a tract, De morte et immortalitate, and another, De mutatione monetae) was put upon the Index Expurgatorius, and led to the confinement of its author by the Inquisition. During his confinement there was found among his papers a criticism upon the Jesuits, which was printed after his death as Discursus de erroribus qui in forma gubernationis societatis Jesu occurrunt (Bordeaux, 1625), and was reprinted by order of Charles III when he banished the Jesuits from Spain.
and whottt wants to nuke spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
so does it matter?
It's a 51 page study. Did you read it already?Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
I didn't.
Did you, Darrin?
Have you read Nock?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
no. i did read several pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
it's not a "home field" study.
now....if there is one documenting the making of russian vodka...i'm in. :toast
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I haven't finished reading it yet.
it's going to be hard to complete if you keep posting in other threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
you should look to congress. they did 1073 pages in 9 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Interesting.Quote:
It is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with similar exactitude or
confidence, and claim that the U.S. should expect a loss of from 6.6 million to eleven
million jobs as a direct consequence were the promise to create 3 to 5 million “green
jobs” met (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital
employed in renewable energy), although the study clearly reveals that if President
Obama would dedicate the massive resources needed to create those 3 to 5 million
jobs, the U.S. should certainly expect its results to follow such a tendency.
Spain very heavily susidized renewables, and it turns out that the most inefficient renewable, was small utility-scale photovoltaic.
A bunch of people overbuilt small scale photovotaic (small size utility plants) and the resultant waste of resources destroyed capital that presumedly would have been used elsewhere.
41 pages actually. I just finished it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Not a super-thorough, absorb it all, but a good once through.
Albert Jay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
No.
Recommend?
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Yes. More of the Buckley line of classical liberal/anti-statist thought than the Limbaugh line. The reason I asked is that he was well versed with the history and intellectuals of the Medieval and Enlightenment times (though also just as well with the ancient historical record). Kinda seems like someone you'd enjoy.Quote:
No.
Recommend?
I'm not not really versed, well or otherwise, in anything, but I do read widely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
If you have a particular recommendation I'd be grateful for it.
Since this is a bit off topic, I'll PM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
It does offer a good, concrete example of real-world experience.
Fair reasons why it can't be 100% iron-clad applied to the US:
1) US has a different profile and capacity for renewables.
--Generally farther south (think solar photovoltaic), and larger area providing a larger amount of more economically viable locations for all kinds of renewables considered in the report.
2) Report did not consider thermal solar, a newer technology promising some very good efficiency gains.
--Energy storage provided by thermal solar makes it MUCH more cost-competitive.
3) Spain's renewable model, especially for solar photovoltaic, differs somewhat from many US proposals.
--Small to medium scale utility generation in Spain differs from much of the more distributed models proposed in the US where roof-top panels provide power.
4) One cannot directly assume future efficiency of photovoltaic will be similar to past.
--Technology gains that improve efficiency and lower cost of installed capacity would mitigate such losses. Most of the losses in the report stemmed from photovoltaic sources. Wind and small-scale water power were MUCH more efficient.
5) One cannot specifically apply the model if the costs of other forms of energy are changing as well.
--If, say coal gets more expensive comparatively, because the Chinese consumption of coal skyrockets due to electrical capacity installation, then the installed solar and wind capacity actually might prevent job losses. Beware the "all other things equal" assumptions!
Good things about report:
It did generally jive with the overall economic competitiveness of various forms of power generation. Namely photovoltaic, as it stands now, is simply not that economically competitive for utility-scale power production.
Like any other competitive technology, a gain in market share by one sector is probably a loss in another. There are probably fewer people working in music stores with the advent of MP3 and P2P networks. Likewise, there are probably fewer people working at video rental stores with Netflix and DVD kiosks.
which Stan Lee do you prefer? 'Man of Iron' or 'Men of X'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Has Cap & Trade worked for countries overseas?
And by "Worked" I mean other than allowing Governments to steal money.
Why don't you teach us if you know so much about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
What about now?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Was this the first congress to pass a bill that wasn't read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Another fail about implying that this would happen in the United States, is that a lot of the energy proposals concerning "green" jobs here count jobs that would be created from efficiency gains.
Think simple tax deductions (subsidies) for, say, weatherizing existing buildings. This kind of job wasn't looked at in that paper, that focused solely on electrical production.
Just about any economist who studies this stuff will tell you the best "bang" for the buck comes from simply encouraging efficiency.
Another fail for this study is that it didn't account for what I consider an almost certain rise in the cost of competing forms of energy, such as oil and coal. One has to consider, in any cost to benefit analysis, differing potential outcomes, or how sensitive your model is to changes in your starting assumptions.
Consideration of the effects of changes on the starting assumption was not done in this study.
If one were to roll forward say, five years, and the cost of coal were to double, Spain would be in a very good position to benefit from that because of its investment in photovoltaic cells, which have a productive lifespan of 30+ years, with little to no maintenance.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/pa...s/wklyspot.jpg
What I see here is that demand for coal was starting to well out-strip supply until the global downturn. Bear in mind that US production, although not exactly world production, but this price spike in US coal was reflective of global supplies.
Here is an analyst who noted a similar trend that supports my conclusiont that coal supplies were not keeping up with demand in the spike period above.
Current prices for coal will continue to drop during the global economic downturn.
BUT
What happens when the global economy picks up, as it will eventually?
Supplies will not change markedly, and with the collapse in price, companies will not be putting money into deloping new sources. Existing seams will be slightly depleted, and not fully replaced.
So with an economic upturn, i.e. increased demand, coupled with decreased supply, you will see a pretty large spike in the price of coal, along with oil for that matter.
Compare competitiveness:
Country A invests in renewables and efficiency while energy is relatively cheap, decreasing reliance on coal energy.
Country B invests in coal, because it is cheaper relatively, and does nothing, locking itself into coal energy for 30 years for each coal power plant it builds in this time.
Fast forward to economic upturn. Cost of coal and oil skyrocket.
Which country's manufacturing base will benefit more?
One other thing to consider:
Costs of construction currently are cheap, due to slack demand.
It is cheaper to invest in renewable power plants than it will be when the economy picks up, and you are competing for construction firms with private industry.
RG,
What affect do you think taxing carbon emissions will have, especially during a recession?
It would have the primary effect of shifting economic resources from carbon-dependent sources of energy, to carbon independent sources of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The secondary effects would be that of encouraging efficiency, and job losses in the sectors of the economy most dependent on carbon-intensive (read: electricity) forms of energy, with gains in sectors of the economy that provide alternatives to carbon-intensive energy.
It would also have the effect of increasing the cost of energy in the short term. This would have the individual effect of decreasing disposable income, and likely reducing demand for imported goods on the macro-economic level.
Whether or not it would mean a net job loss is unknown, although more likely not in my opinion.
Based on the study presented in the OP however, my guess as to the scope of the losses would be that the ultimate net job loss would be rather minor, as such a tax would allow the free market to allocate capital to the best, cheapest alternative.
Spain's model allocated capital specifically to one of the least efficient alternatives to carbon-intensive energy, i.e. solar photovoltaic.
Their experience in re-allocating capital to renewables can therefore be considered as something of a "worst-case" scenario.
If the 9:4 ratio is therefore the upper boundary of the scope of net job losses, then any allocation of capital that is more market-based, MUST result in a lower net job loss.
if green was profitable someone would already be doing it.
But I don't think that's the environmentalist's argument.
I think supporters of green tech are saying that even though its not profitable right now, given enough subsidies it will be profitable in the future. and that is important.
So long term its going to be worth it, even though short term it isn't.
The problem of course is that people live in the short term and the environmentalists have no way of proving that green technology will ever be more efficient.
that's a problem and is obviously going to piss people off who have lost their jobs.
It is worth noting however, that the Obama administration's proposals have consistently stressed that allocating capital resources toward the MOST efficient alternative energy source, i.e. simple energy efficiency, would suggest the scope of net losses be rather small, especially given the Spanish data.
It is also worth noting that much of the net losses occurred because the photovoltaic construction boom coincided with a housing boom and historically high energy prices, both substantially driving up the costs of construction and reducing the ultimate measure of cost per unit of energy.
Since, in the current climate, construction of say, wind farms, large-scale solar plants of all types, or distributed solar, would have available to it a lot of construction labor and resources more cheaply than during an economic upturn.
Given that there is a probability of a net long term gain to the economy, simply because of the very probable increase in cost of carbon-based energy, even if we did nothing, this would seem to be an extremely good long term investment, because modifying our energy mix during a recession would be cheaper than it would be otherwise.
Oddly enough, the study in the OP actually would seem to support the current administrations plans to a great degree for these reasons, i.e. the opportunity cost for switching now is likely very low, if not outright positive in the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Good point.
(bookmarking page for when we discuss healthcare)
Compare competitiveness:Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Country A invests in renewables and efficiency while energy is relatively cheap, decreasing reliance on coal energy.
Country B invests in coal, because it is cheaper relatively, and does nothing, locking itself into coal energy for 30 years for each coal power plant it builds in this time.
Fast forward to economic upturn. Cost of coal and oil skyrocket.
Which country's manufacturing base will benefit more?
-----------------
Further, costs of any manufactured good, such as say, wind turbines, or solar panels, come down simply because of economies of scale, making them more cost competitive to alternatives.
Add to this the increases in efficiency of photovoltaics in the last years, and some rather tantilizing research that hold the potential of increasing this even more, and a good case can be made.
I think the solar thermal (solar concentrating) technology that is currently under development has the potential to be a game-breaker that has the potential for actually being cost competitive with coal under CURRENT conditions.
If nuclear were profitable, someone would already be doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by angrydude
Just to tweak the nuke-crowd's nose... :p: