"Tilting at Green Windmills"

In a post last fall ("A Green New Deal?"), we mentioned Van Jones's explication of the idea, advocated by many progressives, that government subsidies for solar and wind energy would spur job creation. In his Washington Post column yesterday ("Tilting at Green Windmills"), George Will draws on research from a Spanish economist who suggests otherwise. An excerpt:

WASHINGTON -- The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

Tilting at Windmills: Peter Huber on Quixotic Efforts to Limit Carbon Emissions

John Mauldin's Outside the Box e-mail newsletter this week ("On Energy Production and U.S. Intelligence Failures") features two essays worth reading, especially the first one ("Bound to Burn") by Peter Huber. A few excerpts from Huber's essay follow.

Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions -- because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still.

We don't control the global supply of carbon.

[...]

We no longer control the demand for carbon, either. The 5 billion poor -- the other 80 percent -- are already the main problem, not us. Collectively, they emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do. We burn a lot more carbon individually, but they have a lot more children. Their fecundity has eclipsed our gluttony, and the gap is now widening fast. China, not the United States, is now the planet's largest emitter. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and others are in hot pursuit. And these countries have all made it clear that they aren't interested in spending what money they have on low-carb diets. It is idle to argue, as some have done, that global warming can be solved -- decades hence -- at a cost of 1 to 2 percent of the global economy. Eighty percent of the global population hasn't signed on to pay more than 0 percent.

[...]

Might we instead manage to give the world something cheaper than carbon? The moon-shot law of economics says yes, of course we can. If we just put our minds to it, it will happen. Atom bomb, moon landing, ultracheap energy -- all it takes is a triumph of political will.

Really? For the very poorest, this would mean beating the price of the free rain forest that they burn down to clear land to plant a subsistence crop. For the slightly less poor, it would mean beating the price of coal used to generate electricity at under 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

[...]

And with one important exception [nuclear power], which we will return to shortly, no carbon-free fuel or technology comes remotely close to being able to do that. Fossil fuels are extremely cheap because geological forces happen to have created large deposits of these dense forms of energy in accessible places. Find a mountain of coal, and you can just shovel gargantuan amounts of energy into the boxcars.

Shoveling wind and sun is much, much harder. Windmills are now 50-story skyscrapers. Yet one windmill generates a piddling 2 to 3 megawatts. A jumbo jet needs 100 megawatts to get off the ground; Google is building 100-megawatt server farms. Meeting New York City's total energy demand would require 13,000 of those skyscrapers spinning at top speed, which would require scattering about 50,000 of them across the state, to make sure that you always hit enough windy spots. To answer the howls of green protest that inevitably greet realistic engineering estimates like these, note that real-world systems must be able to meet peak, not average, demand; that reserve margins are essential; and that converting electric power into liquid or gaseous fuels to power the existing transportation and heating systems would entail substantial losses. What was Mayor Bloomberg thinking when he suggested that he might just tuck windmills into Manhattan? Such thoughts betray a deep ignorance about how difficult it is to get a lot of energy out of sources as thin and dilute as wind and sun.

It's often suggested that technology improvements and mass production will sharply lower the cost of wind and solar. But engineers have pursued these technologies for decades, and while costs of some components have fallen, there is no serious prospect of costs plummeting and performance soaring as they have in our laptops and cell phones. When you replace conventional with renewable energy, everything gets bigger, not smaller -- and bigger costs more, not less. Even if solar cells themselves were free, solar power would remain very expensive because of the huge structures and support systems required to extract large amounts of electricity from a source so weak that it takes hours to deliver a tan.

The second essay in this week's Outside the Box newsletter, "Torture and the U.S. Intelligence Failure", by Stratfor's George Friedman, I won't excerpt from here, as this post is long enough already, but it stands out from some of the more hysterical recent punditry on this subject in its calmly-worded survey of the subject.

The photo above, of Denmark's Middelgrunden offshore windmill farm, comes from Daylife.com. As a small, geographically compact country on the windy North Sea, Denmark may be one of the few places where wind energy can fulfill a large percentage of electricity. According to Wikipedia, wind power currently provides 19% of Denmark's electricity (the largest percentage provided by wind power anywhere). Globally, Wikipedia says that wind power fuels 1.5% of electricity use, though this number sounds a little high.

U.S. Energy Corp. Update

On Monday, U.S. Energy Corp. (Nasdaq: USEG) filed its 10-K and released its highlights for 2008, most of which we noted here when they were announced individually. Today the company held its conference call. CEO Keith Larsen mentioned that the company's Gillette, WY real estate development was currently 95% occupied, and is generating $225k in rental revenue per month. He also noted that the local economy in Gillette remained strong¹, despite the national downturn. Larsen also noted that the current low oil and natural gas prices offered promising opportunities to sign new exploration and production deals.

If the conference call was any indication, investor interest in USEG, such as it was, appears to have declined significantly. This may have been the shortest quarterly conference call I have listed to, by any company. There was exactly one question (I would have asked a question², but I was listening via streaming audio on the Internet). Other signs of a decline in investor interest:

- The company's Investor Hub message board has four posts in the last four months, all by the moderator.

- The company's Yahoo! message board hasn't had a post since January 27th.

Based on its year-end balance sheet data, USEG is currently trading for less than its net cash.

The photo above comes for U.S. Energy Corp's website. You can read more details on the company's interests in Molybdenum, Oil & Natural Gas, Uranium, Geothermal, and its Gillette, WY real estate project on the projects section of the company's website.

¹As of January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wyoming's unemployment rate was 3.7%, the lowest in the nation.

²My question would have been about what cost-cutting plans (if any) the company had in mind to get closer toward profitability from the cost side.

USEG Management Agrees with Commenter J.K.

In a comment on a recent post ("Why We Will Be Using Fossil Fuels for Decades to Come"), commenter J.K. wrote,

Forget wind and solar(-except maybe satellite based), the real next gen energy is geothermal. You don't have to rely on conducive weather conditions or harming the environment. We probably will be using predominantly fossil fuels for the forseable future though. Hopefully not.

U.S. Energy Corp. (Nasdaq: USEG) executives had mentioned on previous occasions that they were considering investments in alternative energy, and today USEG issued a press release announcing that it had invested $3.445 million for a 25% stake in Standard Steam Trust LLC, a privately-held geothermal energy company based in Denver, CO. From the press release,

``After spending considerable time reviewing the renewable energy sector, we firmly believe that our entry into geothermal provides our company with a strong position in a market that has tremendous growth potential,'' said Mark Larsen, President of U.S. Energy Corp. ``Geothermal is a renewable subsurface fuel, and our partners are applying their extensive experience in modern oil and gas plays to geothermal exploration. This sector shows significant promise at a time when carbon management is playing an increasing role in the generation of clean energy in our nation,'' he added.

Since Standard Steam Trust is privately-held, it's hard to speculate on whether USEG paid a fair price for its stake, but it is probably prudent, for political reasons if nothing else, for a diversified natural resources company to position itself as a player in "clean" or "renewable" energy as well. Perhaps this will give USEG some environmental bona fides that will help it somewhat in getting the necessary approvals for its molybdenum mine.

The graphic above, on harnessing geothermal energy, comes from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.