Wikipedia defines crony capitalism as an “allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials.” Crony capitalism has sadly played an important role in state and, especially, local government for just about ever. But Hawaii suffers from a particularly strong case.
Hawaii’s history of crony capitalism dates back at least to the mid-1950s. Before then, the future state was run by an oligarchy consisting of the Big Five land-owning companies and a sixth company that was mainly involved in construction. The oligarchy ran the political, economic, and social system of the entire territory in a system that would be considered more feudal than crony capitalistic. Nearly all of the private land in the islands was owned by one of these companies or a relative handful of other families, companies, or trusts, leaving only about 3 percent of the state available for fee simple ownership by ordinary residents.
That began to change in 1954, when reform-oriented Democrats, bolstered by the votes of children of immigrant workers from Japan, China, and the Philippines, took control of the legislature for the first time in the territory’s history. Among other things, the Democrats promised land reform so that more land and opportunities would be available to the average person.
As George Cooper and Gavan Daws showed in their classic 1985 book, Land and Power in Hawaii: The Democratic Years, the main beneficiaries of the reforms imposed by the legislature were the legislators themselves, not their constituents. The Big Five may have lost political power, but they continued to control the land and development by including powerful Democrats in every land deal. Cooper and Daws painstakingly reviewed thousands of development projects and found that traditional developers simply partnered up with the Democrats in deal after deal. In some cases, the legislature would pass a law benefitting one of the oligarchs and, within days, the members of the legislature who worked hardest on the bill would have their names included in a new deal.
One of those legislators was elected U.S. Senator when Hawaii became a state, and today is the second-longest serving senator in history. From his post as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye makes sure that plenty of pork reaches his state.
The launch of generic drug or Kamagra brand encouraged these patients to avail the treatment. sildenafil 100mg viagra How It Works In Women’s Reproductive Health After the above we have discussed about the health of the male kesehatan reproduksi, http://pamelaannschoolofdance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Recital-Checklist.pdf order cheap levitra below we will discuss about how to work the system or reproductive health in general terms, see the explanation below that we can from wikipedia. 1. Massage- Give and Take Massage could be beneficial. free cialis without prescription Arteries are playing the crucial role in the sexual life bulk tadalafil and relationship. Evidence of Hawaii’s crony capitalism can be seen in Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hanneman‘s push for a horrendously expensive and totally unnecessary 20-mile rail line that is projected to cost more than $200 million per mile. Since all of Honolulu’s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, the rail line will do nothing to save energy or reduce pollution. But Mayor Hanneman hopes that it will propel him into the state governor’s office, for which he is running right now.
Saddle Road on the island of Hawaii. Click for a larger view.
The Antiplanner may have enjoyed another example of Hawaii’s crony capitalism on the Big Island. During a long bike ride from Hilo to Waimea, I could not help but notice that the state was widening the two-lane road into a road that must have been 60 feet wide but was still striped for only two lanes. I certainly enjoyed the extremely wide shoulders that, even with rumble strips, could comfortably fit four cyclists riding abreast. But why did they need so much asphalt when, say, 44 feet — two fourteen-foot lanes and two eight-foot shoulders — would have been more than adequate. Even in the unlikely event that traffic should someday justify four lanes, the rumble strips mean that the state would have to repave them before restriping them. It makes me suspect that this project (described on page 3 of this document) is somehow a gift to local contractors.
Crony capitalism presents a problem for liberals and libertarians alike. Left-wing reforms give government more power, which gives incentives for corporations and the wealthy to manipulate that power to their own benefit, with the result that the reforms have exactly the opposite of the goal of bringing power to the people.
Libertarians believe government should consist of a few basics, such as police and courts, needed to protect people and their property, leaving everything else the private sector. But places with minimal governments — such as America in the nineteenth century — saw plenty of crony capitalism. Meanwhile, Transparency International’s corruption perception index lists several big-government countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, among the least-corrupt countries in the world. (The United States is ranked 19; note that the index only measures perceptions of corruption, not corruption itself.)
To the extent that the index is meaningful, perhaps it means that corruption has less to do with the size of government than with the other checks-and-balances built into the government. If so, then someone should identify which checks-and-balances do the most to minimize crony capitalism and push to build those in to our system.
The Autoplanner: Wikipedia defines crony capitalism as an “allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businesspeople and government officials.†Crony capitalism has sadly played an important role in state and, especially, local government for just about ever. But Hawaii suffers from a particularly strong case.
THWM: Then Mr.O’Toole you should feel right at home since you’re on Koch’s pay roll.
Aloha,
Disclosure: I am a member of the Sierra Club in Honolulu and voted for rail when it was on the ballot here. The rail initiative passed, btw.
I could not disagree more with you about the need for rail in Honolulu to reduce our carbon footprint, save energy and get us off the maddening addiction to cars. Commuters in Honolulu only have two options now: drive in maddening rush hour congestion or catch the bus in maddening rush hour congestion. Both options burn gasoline. the rail line will be electrically powered and the local power utility is making a big push to use renewables in its fuel mix. I am also very pleased that the city is integrating rail into its islandwide bike plan. that should greatly improve the bike culture here and the make it easier for people to bike to rail stations.
The environmental community in Honolulu is strongly behind rail.
Thanks for the local info, scrappy. Do you know or have links to the calculations made predicting the energy and carbon savings?
scrappy, since you voted for Hawaiian rail, can we also trust you to vote by paying full farebox to offset capital, interest and O&M etc.? At $200 million per mile, it should only be a few hundred dollars every time you step on board. Or are you going to let your neighbors pay your way?
BTW, “maddening addiction to cars” = maddening addiction to convenience and efficiency.
Just wanted to say I love todays post by Mr. O’Toole. Extremely balanced and honest. Criticism of the usual suspects, but good recognition of market failures and problems the libertarian philosophy inevitably encounters. Well done. I couldn’t agree more with the idea “…that corruption has less to do with the size of government than with the other checks-and-balances built into the government.”
I’ve said it before. It’s not about eliminating the things we don’t favor, but participating in the process to make sure there is accountability, and that our preferences are accurately represented.
Pingback: Honolulu’s Rail Plan » The Antiplanner
scrappy said: I could not disagree more with you about the need for rail in Honolulu to reduce our carbon footprint,
JK: Don’t you know that;
1) there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995 and
2) the earth has been cooling since 2002 and
3) the recent rate of warming is not statistically significantly different from the rates of warming in these earlier periods: 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998.
4) the debate on climate change is NOT over.
All above is per IPCC lead author and CRU chief, Dr. Phil Jones. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
5) Water vapor causes most of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 only being no more than about 30% of any greenhouse effect. See realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
6) Of the total annual CO2 emission, man emits only about 3-4%, with a lot of that being land use and cement making. See http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html
7) In the ice cores that Al Gore showed in his slide show, he claimed that CO2 caused the temperature to rise. That was a lie. Actually CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600_1000 years) after Antarctic temperature. See: Realclimate.org/index.php?p=13. (Note their convoluted logic to try to save their claim that CO2 is still guilty.) Also: http://www.sustainableoregon.com/co2climate.html
8) The best evidence we have that CO2 is causing the climate to heat up is that “we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcingâ€. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
So, you may want to re-evaluate your belief in man’s CO2 causing climate change.
scrappy said: get us off the maddening addiction to cars.
JK: Why do you find it maddening that other people make choices that you don’t like? Do you have a problem allowing others freedom? Why do you find it maddening that people want to save time by driving instead of wasting time on transit. (As a bike rider you probably like to waste your time.) Why do you find it maddening that people want the convenience of having a car take them directly to their destination without walking, waiting and maybe transferring. In the rain. In the hot sun. Why do you find it maddening that people choose a transport option that costs a tiny fraction of what transit costs? See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html and http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html
scrappy said: Commuters in Honolulu only have two options now: drive in maddening rush hour congestion or catch the bus in maddening rush hour congestion.
JK: Why not fix the congestion – it will help more people per dollar spent than any toy train ever will.
scrappy said: Both options burn gasoline.
JK: A whole lot better than coal. Coal puts Uranium, Thorium and Mercury into the atmosphere.
scrappy said: the rail line will be electrically powered and the local power utility is making a big push to use renewables in its fuel mix.
JK: Let us know when the find a renewable that actually saves energy and works 24/7.
scrappy said: I am also very pleased that the city is integrating rail into its islandwide bike plan. that should greatly improve the bike culture here and the make it easier for people to bike to rail stations.
JK: Why would you want to make it easier for people to get to money wasting, energy wasting and time wasting mass transit?
scrappy said: The environmental community in Honolulu is strongly behind rail.
JK: They fall for every crackpot feel good BS that comes along. They are mostly scientifically and economically illiterate and read only the Unte weekly reader and the Sierra Klub weekly reader. They tend to believe the Limits to Growth, the Population Bomb and Silent Spring were right and peak oil will cripple society. Most of all they still believe in global warming after 8 years of cooling and 15 years without significant warming.
But most of all the typical Sierra Klub member wants to force others to live their way while bemoaning their perception that George Bush wanted to force his views on others.
Thanks
JK
Scrappy, geothermal power could be a good idea too for the Honolulu area.
Jim,
Unless I’m misreading something, the interview with Prof Jones that you linked to provides the following: “C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”
If the recent rate of warming is not statistically significant and can therefore be dismissed, why do you not qualify the rate of global cooling as not statistically significant?
Also, if coal puts all those pollutants into the air, what do you recommend as a way to deal with them? I imagine you’d favor technological changes (clean coal, scrubbers, etc.), but how do you want them to be implemented? Is there a way to communicate the impact of these pollutants to power companies so that they will deal with them without resorting to strict regulation?
bbream, you can’t reason with the pet crazies who deny basic physics. Save your energy.
DS
Pet crazies? Yeah. They’re everywhere.
Dan said: bbream, you can’t reason with the pet crazies who deny basic physics.
jk:
1) Which basic physics would that be? What is the correct physics?
2) If you are asserting that global warming is man caused, please cite some real evidence. Note that alleged effects of warming such as disappearing ice (there are other causes) and cute carnivores drowning are not evidence of man’s causation.
Thanks
JK
Jim,
Come on. You know correlation implies causation.
Regarding gov spending & Keynesianism, here’s a good article: http://mises.org/daily/4482
Main point, which should be relevant to all, but usually forgotten: Gov spending takes from & reduces private spending. The general lefty thinking is to increase gov spending to increase GDP. Bogus! History repeatedly proves that.
Scrappy,
So the station areas for the new rail in Honolulu will have all shopping, employment, entertainment & other such needs that many residents will require to avoid using mad cars?
Honolulu is building a nuclear plant?
There’s not really another option there to avoid emissions.
In addition to the points that JK covered, about the AGW alarmist hoax, here are some other sources. You could keep your head in the sane, like Dan, & have faith in fake science.
http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://www.kusi.com/weather
Where is the money for the ~$10/trip coming from?
BTW, construction of anything for $billions produces mega emissions. How’s the analysis on how many car or bus trips that will take to cancel out?
Regardless, emissions by usage for personal cars & public transit are very close & some overlap (ie some cars are better then transit avg; some routes worse than car avg.).
Is there geothermal potential in Hawaii? I know they have volcanoes, but does that work there for geothermal? Is there wind potential? If not, what is the renewable energy source?
In other flat-earther news, poor Rand Paul can’t give the age of the earth. Cognitive dissonance or unfortunate positioning too far into lunatic fringe?
We report, you deny…erm…decide.
DS
“lunatic fringe?”
34.5 percent of the world is Christian. 84% of the world is religious. Fringe? Only if you’re a Liberal, atheist elitist comprising just a percentage point or two of the world population.
Lunatic? While I hold fast to scientific explanations, I do not think that those with religious views and who take biblical creation accounts literally are lunatics. Misguided, perhaps. Ignorant, maybe. But am I better than them?
Dan sure thinks he is.
This is typical Liberal prejudice and elitism that falls back on appeal to ridicule rather than practicing tolerance. And if you ain’t red, we ain’t hearin’ your mumbo jumbo creation stories.
Don’t matter. The scientific alarmists have spoken! Humans will be extinct in 50 years.
For real lunacy, one need look no further than recent headlines.
British campaigner urges UN to accept ‘ecocide’ as international crime
Proposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer
There’s much, much more lunacy to be found.
But that’s ok! Humans will be extinct in 50 years! Hooray!
“Flat Earther”???
Oh, how mature & relevant.
Nobody really claims that. So absurd to accuse others of thinking that.
It’s not like the spherical shape was determined about 2,000 years, by a Grecian.
Well, the Earth is still the center of the solar system & its good that dinosaurs didn’t eat too many homos. Homo rectumus that is.
“bbream, you can’t reason with the pet crazies who deny basic physics. ” – DS
Wind power proponents?
Last week I enjoyed a very nice tour of the Vestas nacelle facility. Apparently I missed which part defied physics and required the phrenology doctor to come in and voodoo bless the part to make the turbine work.
;o)
DS
Dan, you didn’t get it, about wind power.
The issue that prk166 brought up was not the fact that any wind energy works, but how consistent & cost efficient that it is not.
What a great use for taxpayer money, fly to Europe & look at things. Porkulus? To be paid by next generation & bankrupt us now?
(Assuming it was for a public work capacity. Could be mistaken.)
highwayman
For your bogus charge of crony capitalism, there is one necessary element missing–government.
Regardless, many people can do marketing for a business.
However, that is not even the case here.
Firstly, how much has Koch paid O’Toole. When? For what purpose?
Koch sells dozens of products (Chemicals, Energy, Asphalt, Natural gas, Plastics, Fibers, Minerals, Fertilizers, Petroleum, Ranching, Pulp and paper, Finance Commodities trading); they are most, if not all, business products, meaning not directly bought by consumers.
And even then, their products are not dependent on any kind of lifestyle.
BTW, the predominant energy source for public transit is diesel. Gas is not needed to be advertised to be used. Neither is a car; the type of car is.
For urban issues, one of the big cronyisms is for the makers of rail.
Do you have stock in Siemans?
Do you want people to be messier so that you get more cleanup business as a janitor? Are you an SEIU member?
It’s not about checks and balances. Our Constitution makes those abundantly available, though they are rarely exercised effectively. 19th century America may have had more outright corruption, but to suggest that the crony capitalism observed today is comparable is just wrong. As government has gotten larger, the rent-seekers, advocacy groups and others have proliferated with them. Empty the trough and watch them scatter.
Scott said:
highwayman
For your bogus charge of crony capitalism, there is one necessary element missing–government.
Regardless, many people can do marketing for a business.
However, that is not even the case here.
Firstly, how much has Koch paid O’Toole. When? For what purpose?
Koch sells dozens of products (Chemicals, Energy, Asphalt, Natural gas, Plastics, Fibers, Minerals, Fertilizers, Petroleum, Ranching, Pulp and paper, Finance Commodities trading); they are most, if not all, business products, meaning not directly bought by consumers.
And even then, their products are not dependent on any kind of lifestyle.
BTW, the predominant energy source for public transit is diesel. Gas is not needed to be advertised to be used. Neither is a car; the type of car is.
For urban issues, one of the big cronyisms is for the makers of rail.
Do you have stock in Siemans?
Do you want people to be messier so that you get more cleanup business as a janitor? Are you an SEIU member?
THWM: Then why is Koch paying a lobbyist like O’Toole to defend some thing that is there by default, that namely being “roads”?
The rich are not against state economic intervention that favors them!
highwayman,
I’m going to say this one more time. Put up or STFU. Your comments here border on libel and defamation.
Receiving a grant and being a lobbyist are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Or do you not understand that?
I usually ignore your bull$hit spam, but you MUST stop your libelous and defamatory statements immediately.
Grow the F*** up and stop flinging poo like chimps at the zoo.
“Last week I enjoyed a very nice tour of the Vestas nacelle facility. Apparently I missed which part defied physics and required the phrenology doctor to come in and voodoo bless the part to make the turbine work.”
-DS
True, true. 🙂
My flippant comment was directed at ignoring the basic physics required to make that turbine produce energy, not that a turbine can in theory produce energy if the wind is blowing. And it can. And they do. But not with any sort of consistency nor velocity that will do anything other than consume resources that are better used elsewhere. Spending money on trying to turn wind into a major power source makes about as much sense as spending money on trying to turn my 88 year old grandmother into a world class soccer player.
prk166,
I’ve heard the consistency criticism about wind energy, but I haven’t heard much about the velocity criticism. Could you provide some sources on this?
Highman,
How is Randal a lobbyist? Doe he meet with Congressmen?
Even if so–So what? Roads benefit 100% of citizens, and 80%, very directly for those owning cars.
How does Randal advocate more roads by taxes? He does not!!!
You have not provided any evidence of Koch paying Randal & for what purpose.
How is Koch invested in roads? What is the annual in roads?
Roads are not there by default.
Out of 3-4 million miles of roads, there is not a motion to remove many.
It’s true that there are businesses that favor crony capitalism. Most of the “rich” are not rich because of cronyism.
If you really want to make points, it will help to have supporting facts & reasons.
But not with any sort of consistency nor velocity that will do anything other than consume resources that are better used elsewhere. Spending money on trying to turn wind into a major power source makes about as much sense as spending money on trying to turn my 88 year old grandmother into a world class soccer player.
Yes, the physics is there. The ability to completely replace cheap energy? Not there. The ability to be a part of a varied portfolio of power when cheap energy goes away? It will have to be there.
It’s a technology and policy issue. Not a physics issue.
The velocity issue may be (not speaking for prk) is the turbulent flow in urban areas making inconsistent flow and velocity.
DS
Wind power is not totally green. It’s killing tens of thousands of migrating bats in Oregon. Physics and biology collide, quite literally.
Not particularly about urban issues.
http://apathetic-usa.com/
The ~6 minute video explains a lot about the impending destruction of the nation, by the leftists.
See also: http://frontpagemag.com/?s=cloward+piven
Then there is much more explanation & many links.
“part of a varied portfolio of power when cheap energy goes away”” is planner talk, translated by Goggle as:
Solar and wind electricity’s contribution to a grid is not outrageously expensive when:
1) it is heavily subsidized;
2) it has other reliable generators on standby;
3) it isn’t expected to generate more than 10-20% of the power for unreliable short periods of time.
Sorry, but these technologies have been heavily subsidized since the 1970s and they have not made much progress in 40 years. Forty years ago everyone had dial telephones, drove leaded gasoline vehicles, and engineers used slide rules.
Can’t find the study uncaffeinated, but wind per mW is much more efficient and green than fossil fuel. Not even close. Unfair comparison. And not fair to compare wind subsidies to oil and coal subsidies either, when using, say, deaths or environmental damage per mW. Or not a fair comparison to compare, say, bird deaths at wind farms to bird strikes on cars. Or bird deaths by housecats.
DS
Comparison of wind cost unfair?
How so? Because wind is inefficient?
If wind was great, it would be used a lot more.
Show evidence for gov budgets paying for oil & gas.
Scott,
Some links on oil and gas subsidies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?hpw
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/article_redirect.cfm?ID=13980
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
Good links, bbream. A couple more links to the utterly basic knowledge:
o Comparison of FF and renewable subsides:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2009/10/23/1332-fossil-fuels-subsidies-more-than-doubles-those-for-renewables.jpg
o G20 urges phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100627/ts_nm/us_g20_communique_energy
o Non-OECD subsidies:
http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/wp-content/uploads/fossil-fuel-subsidies.gif
o A comprehensive assessment of global fossil-fuel subsidies has found that governments are spending $500 billion annually on policies that undermine energy security and worsen the environment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100421133110.htm
“But the pervasive role of fossil fuels in countries’ economies makes them attractive for politicians to subsidize, which leads to over-consumption. Virtually every analysis of fossil-fuel subsidies has shown that most are a complete waste of money, or worse, because money spent on subsidies isn’t available for other purposes that yield much greater social benefits, such as education and rural agriculture.”
o Despite record, Titanic profits, The IEA analysis has revealed that fossil fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $557 bn in 2008. This represents a big increase from $342 bn in 2007.
http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies.pdf
DS
“Yes, the physics is there. The ability to completely replace cheap energy? Not there. The ability to be a part of a varied portfolio of power when cheap energy goes away? It will have to be there.”
-DS
Aside from the inability to prove something fluffy rhetoric like “cheap energy going away”, what exactly is it about wind power that is so compelling? We have no ability to store energy it produces for the 7/8th of the time little to no energy is being produced by it. When we have to build duplicative capacity, 85% by industry standards, just to have it in place to be able to utilize the few times it actually produces energy, how will it ever be able to compete with any other energy resource?
And what the heck does wind power have to do with oil? Wind as it is today is used to produce electricity. Oil is rarely used to produce electricity in this country.
“wind per mW is much more efficient and green than fossil fuel.” -DS
I’d love to see that study because given the physics at hand it smells of Enron-esque number crunching. Heck, not even that. Think about it at face value. How is something that fails to produce electricity more often than not “efficient”. How efficient is it to have invested a huge amount of resources not just into building turbines and wind towers and 40,000 miles of new transmission lines but also new, redundant natural gas burning turbines? What about, the 870 cubic meters of concrete and 460 tons of steel just to get a single megawatt of wind power capacity (times times what it takes for something like nuclear)? But really, please help me as I’m a bit baffled, how can wind be considered more green than something like natural gas when the majority of the time we have to burn natural gas because the wind isn’t blowing? Wind couldn’t be installed and used if it wasn’t for NG (and to a lesser extent Hydro); it couldn’t exist without it. So as to how can one seperate it from the other? It seems a bit like claiming Bonnie was an sweet angel when she wasn’t off running around robbing and killing with Clyde.
Even more baffling is how does wind reduce the use of fossil fuels when it increases the need for fossil fuel burning capacity?
How efficient is wind when the watts/square meter it produces 25-60, yes 25 to 60 times, less dense than that of other power source like oil, natural gas and nuclear?
Aside from the inability to prove something fluffy rhetoric like “cheap energy going awayâ€
Pfffft. Even the IEA says that. Harrumph your complaint to them in that way and see what happens.
“wind per mW is much more efficient and green than fossil fuel.†-DS
My bad – that is in the context of bird strikes and environmental damage, inadvertently omitted pre-caffeine.
But apparently some here think we can burn carbon forrrevah! Good thing that is such a small minority and many have worked on this problem for years. Now if we can only get the politicians moving…
DS
“Aside from the inability to prove something fluffy rhetoric like “cheap energy going awayâ€
Pfffft. Even the IEA says that. Harrumph your complaint to them in that way and see what happens.”
The IEA? So instead of relying on good science we’re to turn to what a political body declares as it be so, it is so? What studies did they use to arrive at that conclusion? I’m curious because the ones I know that actually take into account the total costs of the system, it’s no where close in cost. Why? Because if customers are to have constant power, if there are not to be rolling blackouts, if the grid isn’t going to be jacked by the fickle blowing of the wind, extra generation capacity is required that sits idle. And by extra we’re talking about for every 100 MW of wind another 100 MG of natural gas. Yes, it’s that insanely overbuilt and that infuriatingly inconsistent and unreliable. There’s the cost of all that gas storage for those natural gas plants so there’s NG at the source of production to deal with the ramping up and down of generation. Anyway, I have yet to see one that takes the cost of building, maintaining and running all that extra capacity into account for the cost of wind power. They haven’t taken into account the cost of all the times wind isn’t blowing. That is to say, the variability of wind is incredibly expensive and I have yet to see a study take it into account that’s used by those claiming it’s incredibly cheap.
That is, to say wind costs as little or even less than other electricity sources is only true if you count all the different investments and resources that MUST be made along with it. Power from wind generation is extremely variable. In reality, wind turbines are supernumerary, exceeding what is necessary by, well, 100%. I can think of nothing more expensive and totally devoid of efficiency than spending money and other resources on something that really doesn’t produce anything, and that needs a compete, total “backup” to it just to have it in the first place.
That said, you’re right, we can’t burn carbon forever. But that does nothing to get around the fundamental physics in play when it comes to wind and why it doesn’t work. That “revelation”, on par with “human don’t live forever”, doesn’t fundamentally change how wind power functions (or lack of functioning, really). If anything, it highlights why we need to stop trying to polish the proverbial turd that wind is and find things that actually work. If time is running out, we can’t afford to piss it away on something that does nothing and sucks up lots of resources?
…and by the way, what IEA study was that? Was the it the World Energy Outlook 2009 where onshore wind was 15-30% more expensive than NG, Coal and Nuclear?
“prk166,
I’ve heard the consistency criticism about wind energy, but I haven’t heard much about the velocity criticism. Could you provide some sources on this?” -bbream
I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking. Consistency and velocity are the same problem when it comes to wind. Just two different ways of describing how the wind blows which is the key component to wind working.
Just about every serious organization on the planet recognizes the imminent arrival of peak oil. Deny it if you wish. No one cares that you deny its arrival.
DS
prk166:
Nice points, all. Led to an appeal to the majority and a red herring from Dan as he consistently falls back on weak augmentation instead of responding to valid questions.
bbream & Dan,
Thanx for the links.
However, they did not show evidence of true subsidies–just claims & items that are not subsidies.
I expected those bogus claims. That’s why I phrased the question as such:
Show evidence for gov budgets paying for oil & gas.
The biggest mistake in claiming subsidy is for tax reduction.
A true subsidy is a direct payment.
Do you consider a consumer getting a subsidy from a retailer when the price is “discounted”?
Just about all forms of taxation have reductions.
For example, the Federal Personal Income Tax revenue would be roughly 1/2 more without, deductions, exemptions & such.
BTW, the lower incomes get much higher proportional deductions. In fact, the lower 47% of earners paid no Federal Income Tax. The top 5% of earners paid 60% of all Federal Income Tax revenue.
BTW, Dan you truly fail on your typing ~”utter basic knowledge of gov subsidy”. Any gov expense is far from basic. You are trying to demonize others’ supposed ignorance, when you are actually wrong. How can any knowledge of any accounting figures be basic? A good test, to check if certain info is basic, would be if it’s in primary education. Show us any grade school curriculum or text that shows subsidies.
Again, show any gov direct payment to an oil company.
Also, those sources had no documentation or sourced figure for their claims. There was a graph , with questionable numbers, that had direct gov spending for fossil fuels of $17 billion, over 7 years. That is an extremely small amount considering that oil alone is about $1 trillion/year. So that direct spending is about 1/500.
Regardless, suppose there are subsidies of 1% or 10%, for oil.
So what? Is that unfair?
It is unjust for spending to go for just certain groups. Much gov spending (over 2/3) needs to be cut. Just about any other gov spending goes towards a far smaller amount of people. All people benefit directly from oil; 92% of households own a car, meaning they buy gas. Think how few (<4%) regularly use public transit, & that's ~2/3 subsidized by taxpayers.
“Just about every serious organization on the planet recognizes the imminent arrival of peak oil. Deny it if you wish. No one cares that you deny its arrival.”
-DS
Wow. Have you been taking rhetoric lessons from Glen Beck? You do realize that taken literally, you are claiming that winds fundamental issues are fixed by…. what? Peak oil? Or what? That because of Peak Oil we have to suspended all rational thoughts and simply plunge a butt ton of resources into wind for a thimble full of inconsistent, mostly non-occurring power production? Because why? There are no other options available?
And I did not deny Peak Oil. I never mentioned Peak Oil You’re the one that brought it up. It’s impossible for me to have denied something that wasn’t even being discussed.
As for Peak Oil, I don’t deny it any more or less than I deny Peak Demand. But really, what does that have to do with wind power? Is it because installing wind on a massive scale diverts resources that could be put into real, plausible solutions? I don’t quite get what you’re getting at other than simply trying to distract from the issue at hand.
Again, how do we get around winds fundamental issue of not blowing? What is the solution for that?
Peak oil is completely different issue from wind’s deficiencies. And, obviously, Peak Oil doesn’t make the wind blow. It doesn’t make the wind blow with a velocity constant enough to produce the energy we need. It doesn’t help increase wind’s energy low by 20 or 30 times. It doesn’t get around the insane amount of concrete and steel wind uses per MW of power produced.
So again, how do we get around winds fundamental issue of not blowing? How do we work with the basic physics we’re faced with? What is the solution for that?
I thought that there was an unlimited supply of oil, but I had hope that the physics of wind would change to be consistently intense.
Prk,
My apologies–I think I was using a less rigorous definition of velocity and consistency. I thought consistency referred to how often the wind is present and velocity referred to whether or not the wind was fast enough to generate energy and I took those as separate issues. Sorry about that.
Scott,
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies.htm
This link uses a broader definition of subsidies than you do, but it looks like a meta-analysis of other studies, which may account for that. That being said, some of its categories, such as transportation infrastructure, can be argued as not benefiting only oil companies but rather all commuters, as you said, but it does mention direct fiscal and tax provisions. I recommend looking at Table 2.
But furthermore, I disagree with your argument that it doesn’t merit criticizing the oil companies for receiving subsidies just because they’re subsidized at 10% and “everyone” benefits. Remember when oil prices were going way way up in the summer of 2008 and many transit agencies saw their ridership increase? Oil companies were still posting colossal profits, so clearly they’re in a win-win scenario with regards to changes in price. I would call that a benefit that stacks itself towards the oil companies and not towards the general public,even if that general public can still benefit at other times. That transforms into trickle-down economics, which I have yet to see any evidence for (but feel free to prove me wrong).
And furthermore, while I know you were being rhetorical in saying that oil could be subsidized at 1% to 10% and it would not be unfair, I think that you’re leaving the argument open to a dangerous slippery slope. While 1% to 10% of the value of oil represents a (relatively) small numerical value, it nevertheless represents a wide range. I know that we all have extensively discussed the fact that it’s unfair of leftists to say that some road subsidies justify all transit subsidies, but how far can transit subsidies justify road subsidies? At what point would oil subsidies become “unfair?”
Also I would disagree that most government spending goes towards a smaller number of people than the oil subsidies. You’ve got military spending and you’ve got social security. But now I’m just being nitpicky.
I don’t doubt there is or will be a peak demand for oil. But, so what? There is or will be a peak demand for Cheerios and no one is considering that to be the end of civilization. There are substitutes for Cheerios, and there are substitutes for oil. Free markets deal with “peak demand” all the time without any problems.
Wind and solar energy might be cheaper than fossil fuels for a few minutes a day, under the exact right conditions, without counting a backup that has to cover anything less than ideal conditions.
So the lesson for all you planners is to do all your extrapolations from the most extreme time of year so that it makes your calculations make economic sense. For example, the DC Metro is extremely busy, with very long lines, at 1:00 am (on July 5th). Doesn’t that prove that the DC Metro should greatly increase its 1:00 am service year round?
Have you been taking rhetoric lessons from Glen Beck? You do realize that taken literally, you are claiming that winds fundamental issues are fixed by…. what? Peak oil?
Um, no. There was no such claim.
The text I typed into this thread is clear:
o I stated The ability [of wind] to be a part of a varied portfolio of power…
o I stated clearly fossil fuel supply is expected to peak soon by every credible organization on this planet. I implied that even the IEA has finally stopped lying about it and finally admits it too. This implies either alternatives are needed, major social and lifestyle changes are needed, or the I=PxAxT equation will have to have a major adjustment on one or more terms on the right-hand side of the equation. This is not hard to grasp at all. Very simple.
o I also stated clearly fossil fuel is heavily subsidized. This implies a market distortion and our ability to invest in alternatives is clouded by this distortion (not to mention the perverse subsidies leads to massive ecological damage).
There is no need to make sh– up about what I claimed (or other silly commenters to make sh– up about my rhetoric, unless that is all they have). You can scroll upthread and see that I wrote, made, implied, inferred or stated no such thing as the italicized.
HTH.
DS
In #40, prk asked:
1. The IEA? So instead of relying on good science we’re to turn to what a political body declares as it be so, it is so? What studies did they use to arrive at that conclusion?
2. …and by the way, what IEA study was that? Was the it the World Energy Outlook 2009 where onshore wind was 15-30% more expensive than NG, Coal and Nuclear?
And in #41, Dan replies:
“Just about every serious organization on the planet recognizes the imminent arrival of peak oil.”
Not making $hit up about your rhetoric, Dannyboy. Your comment on peak oil came right out of left field, a quantum diversion from prk’s points and questions.
bbream, From that long paper, I couldn’t find any payments form government to any companies.
The price of gas & the profit of oil companies is a separate issue form all people using oil products. Not sure what your point was.
Trickle-down (aka the multiplier) has nothing to do with all people using oil products. Since oil companies do make good profits–not really high; <10% industry avg–they don't "need" subsidies, in general. There still has not been evidence of government payment to these oil companies.
The slippery slope on amount, of 1% or 10%, is not the point. All people using oil & 92% of households owning a car is. As previously mentioned, this is not the typical program that targets small segments.
I'm not sure what your point was about selecting the 2 largest programs, that are not for a few. Defense benefits 100% of citizens, plus many other countries. SS is for all upon retirement, after paying in. However, the more you pay in, the less proportional that one gets back.
Dan, you seem to not be very aware of what your typing means, as well as not making much of a point. You seem to have that problem often. Perhaps you should proofread, try to be more concise & less vague. It’s almost funny how you thought you were being profound about dwindling supplies of oil. Why did you even mention peak oil?
You tried to make a point that a replacement for oil is needed & that wind & … blah … because … orgs says so.
The amount of oil is not dependent on wind or other, or vica versa, as you implied.
BTW, North American shale has more oil than the Middle East. When oil stays above $100/barrel & Congress allows, maybe that will be more recoverable. However, wind & solar still cannot compete at that price & without better battery technology.
Oil is not heavily subsidized. If you change the meaning of subsidized it can be
“lightly”, but no evidence of gov spending to oil companies has been shown.
If you are really interested, look at the DOE site.