Electricity Rates Would Skyrocket

Listen to Barack Obama explain, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (Via Joshua Sharf.)

Around Colorado: April 7, 2009

Sam Adams Alliance

As noted, I won the "Modern-Day Sam Adams Award." Patricia Calhoun has written about it over at Westword, and bloggers Ben Degrow and El Presidente have also picked up the story. I appreciate the warm wishes.


Windmills and Mechanical Energy Storage

Earlier this year I wondered whether it might be possible for a windmill to "slowly lift a giant boulder in the air" in order to store the energy, then drop the rock slowly to run a generator. However, one my friends who is a professional scientist pointed out to me that a small-scale system just isn't feasible. You'd have to lift a huge rock quite a ways into the air for even a small amount of electricity. To get enough weight to generate significant electricity, you'd have to build a large and expensive infrastructure. The plan is at least well beyond the backyard model.

Another scientist, Brian Schwartz, pointed to a write-up of "pumped-storage hydroelectricity." The idea is that you pump water into a reservoir, then release the water downhill to run a generator. The problem with adapting such a system to wind power is that it's only feasible where the natural landscape provides the relevant features.

I think the lesson here is that there's no "get electricity quick" scheme that works. For most areas, the only feasible and cost-effective options, so far, remain fossil fuels and nuclear power. But the greenies don't like either of those.


Million Dollar Man

Ward Churchill wants his job back -- or a million dollars. Because, you know, it's not about the money for him. It's about the blackmail.


Tax Man on Steroids

Vincent Carroll points out that the State Supreme Court, in ruling that the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights doesn't really mean what it says, "sets up Coloradans to be nibbled to death by one tax hike after another."

Get ready to pay. Because state legislators are infinitely better at spending your money than you are.

Windmills and Mechanical Energy Storage

I know very little about electricity-generating windmills, so my comments here may seem naive to those who do. However, I know that some very smart scientists sometimes read my web page, and I thought perhaps my comments might prompt their more-knowledgeable replies. I started thinking about this during the recent Colorado wind storms, when I noted to my wife that it's too bad we can't harness some of that violent air flow.

As far as I can tell, there are two big problems with windmills. First, they work only at certain wind speeds. If the wind is too slow, they don't work. If the wind is too fast, they either break or don't work. Second, they directly turn a generator which in turn charges batteries. (At least this is how the windmill worked that I've seen close-up.) Batteries are expensive, limited in capacity, limited in life span, and inefficient in that they leak energy. (If they're not hooked up to batteries, you've got to somehow get that energy to someplace it can be used, which creates a new set of thorny problems.)

It occurred to me this morning that it might be possible for a clever engineer to solve some of these problems with an old-school approach: mechanical energy storage. Basically what I have in mind is a big spring-loading system, or maybe a flywheel.

It seems to me that if somebody could get a windmill to do two things at once, it might work pretty well. The first thing is to capture energy at all different wind speeds. Maybe the traditional propeller mill can accomplish this, or maybe what's needed is something more cylindrically shaped attached at two points. The big key is a geared system so that the mill can always spin (above a certain minimal wind speed) within a reasonable range. The second thing is to store the energy locally in some sort of mechanical-storage device. (Hell, it could just slowly lift a giant boulder in the air or something.) This mechanical storage system in turn runs the generator as needed. Also, you could hook up other moving things to charge this device.

I think part of what made me think of this are the giant mechanical clocks in Neal Stephenson's Anathem. That book also makes me sensitive to two points: most ideas are wrong (including most of the ones in that book), and the good ones are hardly ever original. I suspect one or the other is the case here, but nevertheless I thought I'd give it a go to see what more "praxic"-minded people have to say about it.

Thank You, Energy Producers

I found the juxtaposition of these headlines currently running at the Rocky Mountain News humorous:

Sub-zero cold snaps Denver's record low temperature by 13 degrees

17 below zero at DIA; more snow on the way

Ski areas face big challenges in globally warmer world, study says

I ventured out briefly last night wearing long pants, boots, and a wool jacket and hat. I was immediately chilled. It's the kind of cold that makes your nose feel like it's freezing shut.

But I'm toasty warm. I'm listening to music and typing on the computer. My wife retrieved the mail in her toasty-warm car. Soon I'll plug in the Christmas tree lights and cook up some dinner.

I looked out my window today and noticed that four of my neighbor's houses were emitting steam from their furnace outlet pipes. Mine was going, too.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the producers of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline that made my day safe and enjoyable on this beautifully arctic day.

The 'New Energy Economy' Euphemism

U.S. Senate hopeful Mark "Udall has track record advancing new energy economy," a Speakout headline asserts in the Rocky Mountain News.

A more precise way of putting it is that Udall supports corporate welfare and central planning in energy.

I don't demand that advocates of corporate welfare call it that, but they could at least admit to favoring "corporate subsidies."

But people seem to want to pretend that if we call it the "new energy economy" it's something other than old-fashioned socialism.

"Consumer Choice" Versus Liberty

The Rocky Mountain News surprised me with its call for more stringent federal controls on car designs. It's July 24 editorial starts out well enough, noting that "Washington's command-and-control approach to the promotion of ethanol and other biofuels has unleashed a host of unintended consequences."

But then the News concludes:

[W]e also hope lawmakers take a serious look at the Open Fuel Standard Act, a bill launched last week by Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Colorado's own Ken Salazar.

The legislation would require automakers to produce a greater share of flex-fueled vehicles over time. By 2012, half the new cars sold in America, of domestic and foreign origin, would have to run on both gasoline or a "renewable" fuel such as E85 (which is 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline)or biodiesel. By 2015, 80 percent of new cars would have to be equipped to handle either type of fuel.

The bill would not compel car owners to buy gasoline or E85; it would let them select the fuel they prefer, based in part upon price signals. And flex-fuel technology can reportedly be added when cars are built for about $100, or less than 0.4 percent of the average new car's price. ...

Washington would be genuinely expanding consumer choices, not compelling individuals to purchase something they may not want.

The first problem with the News's analysis is that, if the new standards genuinely would help consumers relative to the costs, people would rush to buy the flex-fueled cars without taking a beating by the federal stick.

More significantly, the News praises "consumer choices" outside of the context in which it's a good thing: the system of liberty.

Relevant is not only the choices of consumers but the choices of producers. People have the right to run their businesses the way they see fit, so long as they don't violate the individual rights of others. Consumers properly have the right to choose where to conduct business. What "consumer choice" is all about in the context of liberty is that buyers choose which goods and services to purchase, thereby rewarding the businesses that best meet their needs and allowing businesses that don't meet people's needs to fail. The federal controls violate the rights of property and contract.

To take a simple example, let us say that the Blue Shoe Company produces only blue shoes, and it has found a group of customers happy to buy its products for whatever reason. A federal control that forced all shoe companies to produce red and green shoes would be immoral, as it would violate the rights of the shoe producer as well as of the consumers who wish to do business with the company. An appeal to "consumer choices" would not change the moral status of the controls. The reason that there is not (so far as I'm aware) a company that produces only blue shoes is that most customers want a selection of colors, so shoe companies offer such choices. However, shoe companies often are highly specialized, some making only high-end formal shoes, some making only sneakers. The proper point of the law is to protect people's rights to control their property and contract voluntarily, not to superficially expand "consumer choices" by force.

Thankfully, the News published a reply by Justin Blackman on August 1:

The editorial stated that "consumer choice" would fix these problems and advocated yet another government mandate (the Open Fuel Standard Act) to "put motorists in the driver's seat." This piece of legislation would force automakers to manufacture flex-fuel vehicles.

Normally, "consumer choice" tells automakers what to sell.

Motorists will never be "in the driver's seat" as long as the command-economy mentality persists, and there will always be unintended consequences when the government restricts the freedom of individual consumers to choose what goods and services work best for them.

The solution to energy supply problems is to leave consumers alone and let us decide for ourselves where our money should go. After all, if flex-fuel vehicles are good products, wouldn't we buy them of our own free will?

So good sense prevails at the News in the end, as it so often does.

Udall Announces WindCar 3000

MEDIA RELEASE -- July 24, 2008

UDALL ANNOUNCES WINDCAR 3000

Boulder, CO -- Today U.S. Senate Candidate Mark Udall announced his solution to high gas prices: the WindCar 3000, an electric car powered by a giant windmill atop the roof that can also serve to catch favorable winds.

"The WindCar 3000 offers a practical alternative to Colorado's addiction to oil," Udall said."With gas prices around $4 per gallon, now is not the time drill or produce more oil in the U.S. Now is the time for forward-thinking individuals to adopt exciting new technologies and free us from oil."

The WindCar 3000 powers itself with free, renewable wind energy captured by a towering, state-of-the-art windmill attached to the roof of the car. When the car is in motion, the windmill blades can be set in place to anchor the WindNet, a large sail that can convert existing winds to mobile force.

"This revolutionary system, dubbed the Free Atop-Roof Coupling Energizer, makes use of free wind energy whether the car is sitting in the gusty driveway or sailing down the road. The system is especially effective when commutes are coordinated with prevailing winds. All aboard the New Energy Economy!" Udall said.

Udall announced a five-year plan to research, develop, and construct the WindCar 3000, which he expects to go into production no later than 2015. He said his first act as Senator will be to pass a special tax on oil and oil-powered cars to fund the project.

"Even though the price currently is estimated at $126,320 per car, we fully expect that price to come down as our hand-selected scientists find new ways to conserve energy. For example, with even lighter weight materials, the car would require less power, and on a low-wind day two people could even carry the car with specially-installed handles," Udall said.

The WindCar 3000 is expected to be able to travel at least 34 miles after only 20 hours of energizing in a high-wind area. With prevailing winds, the vehicle could travel much farther.

Udall sharply criticized his critics, saying, "Contrary to criticisms by oil-and-gas executives, high gas prices have nothing to do with my fellow environmentalists' efforts to shut down all energy production in the United States (including nuclear generators); the fault rests solely with those who produce the oil that powers our 20th Century-technology cars. And don't think for a second that it's my fault that corn gas actually harms the environment while simultaneously subjecting third-world populations to starvation and rewarding corporate special-interests. The WindCar 3000 is based on entirely new technology, and its development will be overseen by the top minds in the nation."

Udall concluded, "Obviously, this is a parody. In fact, I didn't actually make any of these statements, and this release is entirely made up. My real energy policy is very serious business indeed."

Hillman Talks Energy

On Monday I criticized The Denver Post for its baseless assertion that "New Energy" is driving Colorado's economy. Mark Hillman also has pointed out the economic damage of energy controls:

As if paying $4-plus for gasoline isn't bad enough, some of Colorado's political leaders seem bound and determined to spread pain at the pump to the cost of heating our homes this winter -- and for decades to come... Democrats try to freeze traditional energy sources to make alternative energy economically competitive.

Hillman criticizes Senator Ken Salazar for standing in the way of oil-shale production. Unfortunately, Hillman does not specify how Salazar is doing this. Salazar praises a "research and development program that Congress created in 2005"; if that means subsidies, then such federal assistance is wrong. Salazar also fears "the Bureau of Land Management is trying to organize a fire sale of commercial oil shale leases on public land." Of course the central problem here is that the federal government has nationalized vast tracks of land. Short of the ideal policy of privatizing all of this land, the federal policy should be to lease land (though any lease set would be arbitrary for this socialized land) to whomever can independently finance operations. Salazar believes, "The governors of Wyoming and Colorado, communities and editorial boards across the West agree that the administration's headlong rush is a terrible idea." But what they think should make absolutely no difference. They are not the ones putting up the investment money or doing any of the work.

Hillman also blasts Congressman Mark Udall, who is currently trying to join the Senate, for scapegoating "price-gouging," conflating reasonable tax credits with subsidies, and mandating different ethanol.

Finally, Hillman notes, "Udall and Salazar team up with Gov. Bill Ritter to stonewall against responsible energy development on the Roan Plateau. Meanwhile, Ritter still expects the energy industry to provide more tax revenue."

The Democrats impose controls and taxes on economical energy and mandates and subsidies for uneconomical energy. Then The Denver Post pretends that such policies are the "biggest" reason for Colorado's relative economic success, rather than an impediment to economic growth.