On Dec. 21, 2012, I put $16 Million imaginary dollars in equal imaginary investments in 16 real energy companies; $8.0 in the Sustainable Energy space and $8.0 in the fossil fuel space. Excluding the value of dividends and transaction costs, but including the bankruptcy or crash of three companies in the sustainable energy space …
Airpocalypse Beijing.
副作用可以杀死 Fùzuòyòng kěyǐ shā sǐ Side Effects Can Kill
China, since 1947, has become an economic powerhouse. But back in 2007, National Geographic reported, here, on a World Health Organization, WHO, report, that 656,000 people died in China in 2006 from air pollution. National Geographic also reported that polluted drinking water killed at the rate of 95,000 people per year in China in 2006. In 2012, The Guardian reported, here, that in 2010, 1.2 million people died in China and North Korea from air pollution.
Side Effects can kill. 副作用可以杀死 Fùzuòyòng kěyǐ shā sǐ
Earth, The Blue Marble, courtesy NASA
COP 21 is, perhaps, the most important international effort in history. It concluded with an agreement by 196 nations to limit CO2 emissions to hold global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade or 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit (NPR).
The only way to do this is to phase out fossil fuels, quickly, and replace them with efficient use of sustainable energy systems, i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and insulation.
On August 17, 2015, I attended the Board of Public Utilities, BPU, hearings regarding New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan, EMP.
The beach and cyclone at Seaside Heights, NJ, before and after Hurricane Sandy, Oct. 2014
A lot of people, myself included, spoke about Sandy. (Photos, click here).
Many spoke of the need for the BPU to act independently of the Governor and think long term.
No one spoke about a need or want for more fossil fuels or more nuclear.
The lobbyist from the NJ GCA, The Gasoline, C-Store, Automotive Association told the commissioners how happy he was that he installed a solar energy system on his home and said that gas stations need robust electricity. They can’t simply install emergency generators that burn diesel or gasoline.
Lillgrund, Sweden, courtesy Siemens
I called for: 140% clean, renewable, sustainable electricity by 2030:
Including:
These, I explained, would make the grid more resilient.
I also added that Wall Street appears to be abandoning fossil fuels. This observation is based on the data collected from Dec. 12, 2012, and published on Popular Logistics, here, that show that for the period from Dec. 21, 2012 to July 21, 2015,
The full text of my prepared remarks is below:
At the 6th Annual Babson Energy Conference, “Energy, Environment, & Entrepreneurship: Challenging Assumptions, Changing Perceptions”, here, held March 30, 2012, Cimbria Badenhausen, (LinkedIn), an alum of the Marlboro College MBA in Managing for Sustainability, asked Tahmid Mizan, Senior Planning Advisor of Exxon Mobil, “Are you an ENERGY company or a PETROLEUM company?”
Mr. Mizan, of Exxon, didn’t answer the question.
Henry Ford, when asked why he doesn’t use focus groups, is believed to have said, “If I asked people what they wanted, they’d tell me faster horses.” (HBR) Continue reading
Fukushima reactors, after tsunami
On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear disaster shocked the world. Sadly, the thinkers in the anti-nuclear world were not complete surprised. We were startled, but we know that disasters, while unpredictable, are inevitable. Disasters are built into the nuclear power system. The best engineers are fallible. (Anyone who drives a car or uses a personal computer knows this.) We can engineer nuclear reactors to be “reasonably” safe – but that costs a lot of money. That’s why ALL nuclear reactors leak “acceptable” levels of tritium – it is too expensive to capture all the tritium.
We also know
In command economies, such as existed in the Soviet Union, or exists in Iran and North Korea, it is illegal – and dangerous – to question the government. In market economies, such as exist in the United States, Europe, and Japan, there are strong incentives to cut corners.
But back to Fukushima – following the disaster, nearly all of Japan’s 54 Nuclear Plants have been shut down due to pressure by the Japanese people.
The disaster deposited radioactive fallout on a semicircular area of Japan with a radius of 50 miles. It caused the permanent displacement of 160,000 people. An unknown amount of radioactive materials have been flushed into the Pacific Ocean. TEPCO, the owners of the reactors, have a $100 Billion liability (that will probably be absorbed by Japanese citizens over the next 20 or 50 years).
So after Fukushima, the question that we ought to be asking is not: “Can solar, wind, geothermal, marine current and other sustainable technologies meet our energy needs?”
The question is: “HOW can solar, wind, geothermal, marine current and other sustainable technologies meet our energy needs?”
I will be speaking on Monday, March 5th, at 6:00pm, at the Unitarian Universalist Meeting House on West Front Street in Lincroft, NJ. This will be part of a series of discussions along a 250 mile walk from Oyster Creek, in Ocean County, NJ to Vermont, Yankee, in Vernon, Vermont. I will make a statement similar to the talk at the Space Coast Green Living Festival, reported here.
A group of Japanese Buddhists, Fukushima eye-witnesses and US citizens will be walking over 250 miles from Oyster Creek to Indian Point to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants to bring awareness of the terrible risks of nuclear power. The “No More Fukushimas Peace Walk” is being led by Jun Yasuda.
Scheduled events open to the public:
Friday March 2nd, 7pm, “Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster for the U.S and continuing Japanese crisis”
Little Theatre, Georgian Court University, 900 Lakewood Ave, Lakewood N.J.
Speakers:
Hosts: Sister Mary Bilderback, Mary Paula Cancienne
For information Kasturi DasGupta, PhD 732-987-2336
Saturday, March 3, 6:00 pm,
Sky Walk Cafeteria, 2nd Floor, 129 Hooper Ave, Toms River, NJ (Connected to parking garage)
Speakers:
For information Burt Gbur, 732-240-5107
Sunday, March 4th, 6:00 pm,
Murray Grove Retreat Conference Center, Lanoka-Harbor, NJ Church Lane and US Highway 9
Speakers:
For information Matt Reid, 609-312-6798
Monday, March 5th, 6:00pm,
Unitarian Universalist Meeting House, West Front Street, Lincroft, NJ
Speakers:
For Information:. Elaine Held (732-774-3492).
Thursday, March 8, 6:00 pm
Puffin Foundation, 20 Puffin Way, Teaneck, N.J.
Speaker:
For information Jules Orkin, 201-566-8403
The walk will start at 10am on Saturday, March 3rd near the Oyster Creek area, and end at 129 Hooper Ave, Toms River. Starting times and places for March 4th and 5thwill also be announced on February 27th.
————————————————–
The mission of the Walk:
A plea for the people of New Jersey, New York and New England to recognize the grave dangers that nuclear energy poses to our lives, property, and all life on the planet.
We walk together in love and solidarity for a nuclear free future, and a more just, sustainable, and compassionate world built on respect for all living beings.
JOIN THE WALK FOR AN HOUR OR A DAY.
Edith Gbur 732-240-5107
Christian Collins 413-320- 2856
Cathy Sims 732-280-2244
Image courtesy of NASA. Our tax dollars at work.
Let us remember the Blue Marble. There would be no food – and no life – without sunlight and clean water.
The whales, and the dolphins, the deer and the polar bear, are our cousins.
Let us return to the UN on March 20, May 9, June 20, September 3, and December 21 with delegations of thinkers and builders of sustainability and demand, respectfully, that we as members of communities of Earth, whether economically “Developed,” such as the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, or Canada; or “Developing,” such as Brazil, China, India, and Mexico; whether materally rich or materially poor, set as our overriding goal “Sustainable Development.”
This, “Sustainable Development,” as defined by Gro Harlem Brundtland as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the abilities of future generations to meet their needs,” or as defined by John Ehrenfeld as “development that leads to flourishing forever,” is simply and precisely development around harnessing natural processes such as wind, sunlight, ocean currents, the heat of the earth’s core, rather than extracting and consuming natural resources such as coal, oil, subterranean methane, and uranium, and creating toxic wastes.
Let us embrace not only the negative goals of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing distribution of toxic substances such as the arsenic, lead, mercury, uranium, zinc, etc. emitted from burning coal but also the positive goal of rearchitecting our economies – our interconnected global economy – around sustainable development.
Not more stuff distributed inequitably, but GOOD stuff, equitably distributed. After all, do we need a new cellphone every two years? Or a new car every three or four? How many shoes, trousers, shirts, coats, cameras, televisions, etc. does a person need?
Let us do this as a protest outside the UN, along the lines of Occupy Wall Street and other demonstrations – with substantive statements, drums, guitars, flair, and enthusiasm, and cover it ourselves on YouTube, Twitter, the blogosphere, and Ted Talks, but let us also demand that our Representatives in state houses, governor’s offices, the House, the Senate, and the White House and city halls and state capitals across the world listen and bring our message to the UN for a day, an hour, or even just 15 minutes.
We want to celebrate a turning point in human history. Let us do this on March 20, the anniversary of the Brundtland Commission Report. And, as May 8 and September 2 respectively mark the 67th anniversaries of the Allied victory over the Nazis and Imperial Japan in World War II, somber turning points in human history, and let us return to the United Nations, and to our city halls, state capitals, congresses and parliments on on May 9 and September 3, and on the solstices June 20 and December 21.
And let us do this with hope for peace, love, and the future.
Jeremy Grantham, the founder of GMO LLC, a hedge fund with $93 Billion under management, will speak Friday, 12/2/2011, at 5:00 PM at the Marlboro College Grad School, 28 Vernon Street, Brattleboro, Vermont.
Grantham has written “Everything you need to know about global warming in 5 minutes,” which can be found at Think Progress and The Big Picture.”
He says “In the last 200 years we have increased the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 40%.”
(Ed. note: We have pumped about 1.0 trillion tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. This has increased the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb heat and water.)
It is prudent and conservative to ask “What will happen next?”
Grantham continues:
What is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important.
Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And … what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: Definitely life changing, possibly life threatening.”
It would be interesting to hear Mr. Grantham’s views on Cape Wind, Solar Energy, Marine Hydro, the Obama – Buffett idea to tax wealthy people, and the Popular Logistics plan for 100% Clean, Renewable Energy (here). However, I suspect I know what he might say:
How would you pay for it?
Granted that if we factored the environmental costs of carbon dioxide, arsenic, lead, mercury, radioactive wastes, zinc, etc. coal, oil, methane, and nuclear would be much more expensive than they are believed to be today. But we don’t factor in those costs….
In New Jersey between 2001 and 2010, e went from a total of six systems with a combined capacity of 9.0 KW to about 7000 systems with a combined capacity of 211,000 KW or 211 MW, and I expect another 3000 systems and about 200 additional MW in 2011. This is exponential growth, leading to the following questions:
- Does ‘Moore’s Law’ apply to Solar?
- Is this a Bubble?
- Or Is it a Paradigm – Shift?
Tweet | In ending the camp-out phase of Occupy Wall Street, Mayor Brookfield and Judge Stallman did the Occupy movement a favor. The Occupiers can claim victory. Now they can focus on delivering the message –And do so without worrying about the logistics problems of food, water, shelter, sanitation, medical care, all of which are important – they are, after all, why they are there.
Mayor Brookfield threw out the bath. Let’s save the baby!
See also –
| | Tweet | In “Wanted: Worldly Philosophers,” Roger Backhouse and Bradley Bateman say:|”IT’S become commonplace to criticize the “Occupy” movement for failing to offer an alternative vision. But the thousands of activists in the streets of New York and London aren’t the only ones lacking perspective: economists, to whom we might expect to turn for such vision, have long since given up thinking in terms of economic systems — and we are all the worse for it. ”
As these pictures, from here, and here, show, the “Occupy” movement supports labor rights and environmental protection. The “Occupiers” do not, therefore, lack perspective.
They – we – see my work here at Popular Logistics, here at XBColdFingers, or meet me at Zuccotti – lack influence.
Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz are the most famous economists whom Backhouse and Bateman might describe as “Worldly Philosophers with perspective.” Tom Friedman may not have have studied economics; but he too fits the bill of “Worldly Philosopher with Perspective.” There are others.
Sadly, Obama, Biden, Sommers, Geithner, and Chu, like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove and Rumsfeld, like Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Huntsman, Paul, Perry, Romney, and Santorum, don’t know the answers – and what is worse, they don’t even seem to know which questions to ask.
As noted above, “the ‘Occupiers’ do not lack perspective. They – we – lack influence.” To correct that I would like to personally extend an invitation to President Obama, Vice President Biden, any members of the cabinet, or the White House or campaign staff and any of the current candidates for the Republican nomination to meet me at Zuccotti Park, or at the time and place of their choosing, for a discussion on the issues.
Tweet Via NPR‘s All Things Considered, from correspondent Richard Harris, Feds Delay Decision On Pipeline Project
The State Department is delaying a decision for at least a year on whether to approve the Keystone pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, through the U.S. to Gulf of Mexico refineries. Nebraska’s state government and environmental groups have put intense pressure on the State Department and White House to reject the pipeline’s proposed route. NPR’s Richard Harris talks with Robert Siegel about the project.
Audio here (available after 1900 hours Eastern time, 10 November 2011).
Wikipedia’s entry Keystone XL Pipeline has a detailed – and, in our view, fair – account of the controversy. While on balance we do not support the Keystone pipeline, a very well-reasoned argument in favor of the pipeline can be foundon the blog of JEH Land Clearing, from which we’ve taken the following map of the proposed pipeline (route in red; other pipelines indicated are already in existence/operation). 
The Texas economy will benefit from the increase in production. The area east of I-35 is consistently in economic hardship (Port Arthur’s unemployment rate is hovering around 15%), and the construction, land clearing, surveying and refinery jobs will help lower the staggering unemployment rate. It is estimated that the Keystone Pipeline will help create over 20,000 jobs. Texas alone will see over $2.3B in new spending and the US will see about $20B in new spending. The increase of personal income in the state will be about $1.6B and the US will see an increase of $6.5BB. Profits will be re-invested in the local economy improving the quality of life and increasing the number of business in the area. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, one fact remains; the only one way to get heavy crude from Canada to the Texas gulf coast is a pipeline.
Excerpted from Oil Pipeline Invigorates Texas Economy
We support public works projects as economic stimulus, particularly those which come with improvements to energy and other infrastructure; in our view a massive wind/solar public works project in Texas might have the same effective economic stimulus with a better energy outcome, with a significantly lower environmental impact
What JEH doesn’t mention are the costs in terms of environmental damage, water, and health effects. These are long term costs, which are, in the parlance of neoclassical economics, “externalized,”or pushed into the future, and pushed off the balance sheets, kind of like CDO’s, or Collatoralized Debt Obligations, made famous by the financial crisis. Ecological economics recognizes that these costs must be considered, just as recent economic history forces us to recognize the real value of mortgages and mortgage backed securities. As we are learning, ignoring risk is unwise. Put bluntly, the Keystone XL pipeline is kind of like a $1.0 Million “McMansion” sold for $25,000 down, with a $1.0 Million mortgage which is, of course, a negatively amortized interest-only note for the first 5 years – at which time the borrowers will have to pay $1.1 Million, plus interest. But in reality, the $5 billion pipeline is like an aggregated set of five thousand negatively amortizing $1.0 Million toxic McMortgages on McMansions built of radioactive materials on toxic waste sites below sea level.
We intend to elaborate on the costs, risks, and benefits of pipelines in future posts; as well as a series on the Bonneville Power Administration, which has been supplying electricity in the Northwest for almost 75 years, and which we think is a model for energy-related public works projects.
Tweet Writing in the NY Times, Adam Davidson of Planet Money, asks “Can Politicians Really Create Jobs? Davidson says “No.”
But with all due respect to Mr. Davidson, as Barack – The Candidate – Obama said, “Yes, We Can!”
And yes, Presidential candidates can create jobs – presidential campaigns are staffed by people. So obviously, the President can create jobs. Anyone can. All it takes is a need for something to get done. Whether you do it yourself or you pay someone else to do it, it’s a job. So the real question for the President, the Presidential Candidates, our elected Representatives in Washington and in State and Local Government, and for us ourselves, is not “Can we create jobs?” The real question is “How do we create 10 or 15 million good new jobs?”
Davidson talks about Keynes and the Chicagoans.
Chicagoans believe that economies can only truly recover on their own and that policy interventions only slow the recovery. It’s a puzzle of modern politics that Republicans have had electoral success with a policy that fundamentally asserts there is nothing the government can do to create jobs any time soon…. Romney, Perry, Herman Cain and the rest won’t come out and say, “If elected, I will tell you to wait this thing out.”
This is what Herbert Hoover said and why Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the election in 1932.
Instead, Republican candidates fill their jobs plans with Chicagoan ideas that have nothing to do with the current crisis, like permanent cuts in taxes and regulation. These policies may (or may not) make the economy healthier in 5 years or 10, but the immediate impact would require firing a large number of America’s roughly 23 million government workers.
What John Maynard Keynes said is less that “government can create jobs” but is more along the lines of
“in economic times such as these, when there is high unemployment because business will not hire people to create inventory that is likely to remain unsold, government is the only entity that has both the means and the will to create jobs.”
Less “government can” and more “Government Must!”
What is our government, after all? Lincoln said it best:
– “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
And there is much work to be done. We need to rebuild our infrastructure. This includes our crumbling current infrastructure of schools, roads, mass transit, etc. This will create jobs. We also know that domestic energy production peaked in 1971. International oil production seems to be peaking now, altho given the state of the world economy, and the state of infrastructure in Iran, Iraq, and Libya, the international peak may be a few years off. However, we should build a sustainable energy infrastructure. We will need it eventually. It is good for the environment, it will strengthen our economy and our state of national security. But rather than by using a simple program to provide loan guarantees to various corporations; the government should mandate that all government buildings should be well insulated, efficient, heated and cooled with geothermal, and powered with a mix of solar, wind, local hydro, biofuel (from waste, sewage, manure, etc., not food crops).
Just as police and courts exist to protect people from those who would point a gun at their heads and say “Your money or your life,” enforcement agencies must protect people from those who would discard toxic substances into the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the ground from which we farm. We need to regulate banks and other financial firms. This too will create jobs. We need to provide health care to all our citizens, not just 5 out of 6, or 265 million out of 307 million, leaving 1 out of 6, or 45 out of 307 million without access to health care.
Davidson is wrong about one other thing. It’s not either go into debt to create jobs or fire people to cut taxes. Government has two sources of revenue: debt and taxes. It seems fair to me that a progressive tax policy, can be used to generate the revenues needed to pay for the jobs society needs to be done. Wealth, after all, is not created in a vacuum. Wealth is created by people buying things that other people are selling. People want to buy Apple computers, music players, cell phones. The people who design and build them get wealthy. The wealthy benefit by living in society; therefore demanding that all, including the wealthy, pay a fair share, as illustrated here, in my post on Progressive Tax Policy is fair, balanced, reasonable, and smart.
So can anyone create jobs? The answer is a resounding ‘Yes, We Can!’
Copyright, L. J. Furman, 2011, All Rights Reserved.
Tweet In Part 1, I criticized “How to Really Save the Economy“, an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011. So how do we really save the economy?
“One of the best kept secrets in New York City,” I wrote, “is the existence of a 40 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic solar array on the Whitehall Street terminal of the Staten Island Ferry,” pictured above, and first covered in Popular Logistics in 2007, here.
There are 90,000 public schools in the United States. Suppose we were to install a 40 KW solar energy system on each of them. PV solar modules require very little maintenance over their 35 to 45 year life expectancy. My initial thought was $5 per watt or $5,000 per kilowatt, but $4,000 per kilowatt is more realistic for the near term price of solar, particularly at the utility scale. This is where we expect the cost of solar in the Q4 2012 timeframe, without subsidies.
At $4,000 per KW of nameplate capacity, each of these 90,000 systems would cost $160,000. This 3.6 gigawatts of distributed daylight-only capacity would cost about $14.4 billion.
It seems to make sense to use taxpayer monies to finance these systems; taxpayers pay the electric bills for public schools and other public infrastructure, so rather than pay a utility to burn coal, oil, or gas, or harness nuclear fission, we could buy solar modules, put them on the roof and transform sunlight into electricity. But what are the other implications? What would it give us? And what do we do at night? How much juice do we get?
The US Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Lab’s (NREL) PV Watts solar energy calculator tells you the power you can expect from a given solar system anywhere in the US. Regarding night-time; solar is effective in conjunction with other sources of energy, and other clean, renewable, sustainable sources include wind, geothermal, micro-hydro, biofuel.
Every public school in the country would have a power plant that generates power, during the day, with no fuel cost and no waste., and no associated mining, processing, transportation, fuel costs and no waste management costs. At $5.00 per watt, or $5 billion per gigawatt, the capital costs are lower than the costs of new nuclear and significantly lower than the costs of coal with carbon sequestration, with none of the risks or hazards associated with the systems: no arsenic, mercury, lead, thorium, uranium, zinc, or carbon.
The systems would be tied to the electric grid, after all, while most of their operations are during the day, schools need power at night. If these systems could be disconnected from the electric grid, then we would have 90,000 structures distributed all over the United States, with power during the day in the event of power outages from storms, earthquakes, accidents, etc. Even if we lost 10% of them in a disaster like Katrina, or an event like Irene or the recent earthquake, we would still have 81,000 all over the country. Coupled with efficient refrigeration systems, we would have shelters with power to keep food and medications cold during emergencies; and these would be distributed across the country.
The solar systems would obviously have to be installed here, which would stimulate the economy, and we could even require the components to be manufactured here, further stimulating the economy.
Why not business as usual?
As reported here the North Anna nuclear plants in Virginia were shut down during the earthquake a few days before hurricane Irene. The Dominion plants in Virginia, and the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey were shut down and the Millstone 2 & 3 plants in Connecticut and the Brunswick plants in North Carolina were brought to reduced capacity during Irene, and the Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska has been shut down due to flooding, and losing $1 million per day, since June 6, 2011.
In Part 1, I criticized “How to Really Save the Economy, “an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011. “The United States,” according to Robert Barro, who teaches economics at Harvard and is a “fellow” at the Hoover Institution, “is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration.”
“This is inaccurate,” I wrote, Obama is the President, but the US Constitution provides a framework in which power is divided into three branches of the Federal government, and the power of the each of the branches is checked and balanced by the others, and “all power not expressly granted to the federal government is held by the states and the citizens.” It would be more accurate, therefore, to say,
“The United States is in the third year of an experiment in governance between the Obama administration, the Congress, the Judiciary, the Republican Party, various special interests, and the citizens. This appears to be an experiment in governance by not-governing. Due to significant differences of opinion with regards to the direction in which to drive the ship of state, the ship of state appears to be floundering. Governance by not-governing doesn’t work!”
In parts 3 and 4 I hope to present feedback from the telecommunications and wind industries. Meanwhile, another radioactive nail in the nuclear coffin – an explosion in a low-level waste management facility in France killed one person and injured four. DC Bureau, Associated Press reports “An explosion at a nuclear waste facility in southern France killed one person and injured four on Monday. Authorities said there was no radioactive leak, but critics urged France to rethink its nuclear power in the wake of the catastrophe at Japan’s Fukushima plant.The Nuclear Safety Authority declared the accident “terminated” soon after the blast at a furnace in the Centraco site, in the southern Languedoc-Roussillon region, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the city of Avignon. One of the injured suffered severe burns…. the body was burned so badly it was carbonized”
Tweet “The United States,” according to Robert Barro, who teaches economics at Harvard and is a “fellow” at the Hoover Institution, “is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration.” This is inaccurate. Obama is the President, but the US Constitution provides a framework in which power is divided into three branches of the Federal government, and the power of the each of the branches is checked and balanced by the others, and “all power not expressly granted to the federal government is held by the states and the citizens. It would be more accurate to say that the United States is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration, the Congress, the Judiciary, the Republican Party, various special interests, and the citizens.
Barro published this flawed analysis in “How to Really Save the Economy, “an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011.
“How is the experiment going?” Barro asks rhetorically. “Not well,” he answers.
How could it? On January 16, 2009, a week before the Inauguration, Rush Limbaugh, one of the leaders of the right wing of the United States said, “I hope Obama fails.” (The text is on Limbaugh’s site. An audio is on You Tube.) As I wrote, on Popular Logistics, here, a hope that the President fails is hope that the United States fails.
As was reported, here, in the Washington Post on August 6, 2011, and here on Popular Logistics, on August 8, 2011, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and the “Young Guns,” their Republican comrades in the House of Representatives, PLANNED as far back as January, 2009 to use the debt ceiling to create a political crisis. The Republicans have been trying to actualize Mr. Limbaugh’s hopes.
Barro is a professor of neoclassical economics, and a fellow of the Hoover Institution. What he doesn’t understand, and what President Herbert Hoover didn’t understand, is that under economic conditions such as we see today, while businesses and government are able to create jobs, business owners are risk averse, and won’t risk capital. The government MUST create jobs, because businesses won’t. Everyone who has a job and a 10 year old car, and is hesitant with regards to buying a new car, understands this. John Maynard Keynes understood this. Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this. Herbert Hoover didn’t – which is why he lost to Mr. Roosevelt in 1932, and why, 36 years later, President Nixon said “We are all Keynesians now.” (Note that Mr. Nixon has been called many things. However, “Liberal” is not one of them.)
So how do we really save the economy? See Part Deux.
One of the best kept secrets in New York City is the existence of a 40 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic solar array on the Whitehall Street terminal of the Staten Island Ferry, pictured above, and first covered in Popular Logistics in 2007, here.
There are 90,000 public schools in the United States. Suppose we were to install a 40 KW solar energy system on each of them. PV solar modules require very little maintenance over their 35 to 45 year life expectancy. At a cost of $5,000 per kilowatt of nameplate capacity, each of these 90,000 systems would cost $200,000. This 3.6 gigawatts of distributed daylight-only capacity would cost about $14.4 billion. The total costs would probably be less because PV Solar is subject to economic forces like Moore’s Law.
It seems to make sense to use taxpayer monies to finance these systems; taxpayer monies pay the electric bills for public schools and other public infrastructure.
Every public school in the country would have a power plant that generates power, during the day, with no fuel cost and no waste. And with no associated mining, processing, transportation, fuel costs and no waste management costs. At $5.00 per watt, or $5 billion per gigawatt, the capital costs are lower than the costs of new nuclear and significantly lower than the costs of coal with carbon sequestration, with none of the risks or hazards associated with the systems: no arsenic, mercury, lead, thorium, uranium, zinc, or carbon.
But what are the other implications? What would it give us? Again. see Part Deux
Strike 1 – Solar Power
When the NJ Clean Energy Program started in 2001, there were six (6) solar energy systems and a nameplate capacity of nine (9) kilowatts. By December 31, 2010 there were over 7000 systems with a combined capacity close to 300 megawatts, MW, of solar electric generating capacity. In the first six months of 2011, another 100 MW was added, bringing the total to 400 MW by June 30, 2011. By these metrics, the NJ Clean Energy Program has been successful.
