The Great Green Energy Crackup
Patrick Michaels has a great article today on “The Great Green Energy Crack-Up”. It outlines how so many of the promised green technologies are not panning out. To me this demonstrates how far too few people realize that the price system is an information system, and an incredibly complicated one at that. When a government comes in top down style and says X is preferable to Y, it misses untold reasons as to Y was choice #1 to begin with. Being addicted to oil is really just another way of saying addicted to a cheap and plentiful energy supply.
Why Tesla is Doomed to Extinction and Electric Cars are the real Dinosaurs
In the movie Jurassic Park “chaos expert” Ian Malcolm is immediately skeptical of John Hammond’s attempts to bring dinosaurs back from extinction. In his view dinosaurs have been tried and found wanting. Evolution consigned them to the scrap heap of history for a reason, he notes, and trying to bring them back is to demonstrate unforgivable arrogance in the face of nature’s judgement.
This thought occurred to me when I was reading about the recent introduction of the Tesla Model S Sedan. Unlike the models put out by the likes of GM and Nissan (with the Volt and LEAF respectively) Tesla has captured the public’s imagination. It’s an electric car that’s actually sexy. Not only will you be helping the environment (in theory) you’ll look good too. Who doesn’t want one?
Well, I don’t. Here’s why. Much like how nature and evolution have pronounced judgement on the viability of dinosaurs, so too has the market spoken on electric cars. The truth is that there is nothing new about electric cars at all. When cars were in their Jurassic stage electric cars roamed the Earth, along with their gas guzzling brethren. However, overtime they were out-competed by the gas powered variety and died a natural, evolutionary death. May they rest in peace.
However, just like how John Hammond refused to accept nature’s judgement, so to are there people who insist on ignoring the markets lessons. Hence, the Tesla (and the EV-1, LEAF, Volt, etc). I canvassed Ricochet readers (the place for intelligent right of center discussion on the web) for their opinions, and these are some of the responses I got:
First of all, electric cars are not that environmentally friendly. 44.9% of electricity in the United States comes from coal. Only 6.9% comes from Hydro (which most environmentalists don’t even like) and 3.6% from renewables. To generate the power needed for a country full of Tesla’s you’re going to have to build a lot more coal, nuclear, and hydro electric power plants. Is that really the best for the environment?
The real sticking point for the Tesla though, is that same as its always been, namely its reliance on batteries. Read this article for a story on the issues encountered with the battery life in a Tesla Roadster. It’s not pretty. What’s more, those same batteries will cost up to $30,000 dollars to replace after 5 ears. Fuel, not batteries, remain the best energy storage system we have by a country mile. The Tesla doesn’t change this.
Having said all of that I still have a ton of respect for Elon Musk. Making his money from Paypal, he has put most of his fortune into bankrolling Tesla (as well as SpaceX) in order to try and make something new. If we’re going to get the North American economy going again, we need more Elon Musk’s. Still, like John Hammond, I think he’s let the dream cloud his judgement. Let them rest in peace.
Related articles
- Tesla Model S Gets Sneak Preview (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
- My Dream Date With A $109,000 Electric Car, The Tesla Roadster (TSLA) (businessinsider.com)
Top Down vs Bottom Up Thinking – The EPA
An article on new EPA recently caught my eye, as I think it nicely demonstrates how the top down governing style operates vs the bottom up method.
The Washington Post article by Ezra Klein discusses how the EPA is about to pass a whole host of new regulations which may result in many coal powered power plants from being shut down. As you might imagine, industry groups say it is going to be a disaster, whereas the EPA says everything is going to be fine.
Ezra also points out that the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service is highly skeptical of any “train wreck” predictions.
Whose right?
The top down (or French style) style places its faith in experts such as the CRS in deciding questions like this. It sees no problem in imposing regulations nationwide in one swoop.
The bottom up (or English style) assumes it doesn’t have all of the information before it. Any guesses it makes as to the impact of such a decision are just that, guesses. The bottom up way to deal with this decision is to not make it at all at the national level. In the America this means individual states should be allowed to pass regulations such as this as they see fit. This is the way you test ideas and get a real sense as to the value of said regulations. If state A passes it and everything is great and real benefits can be seen, other states will follow. If it doesn’t work out, obviously, other states won’t.
The bottom up style, by assuming it doesn’t know everything, is much more willing to test things in the real world. The top down style relies on theories and guesstimates, and is not nearly so concerned with the results. Whatever happens, the top down bureaucrats are usually too busy planning their next big idea to be bothered with looking at the past results of their previous plans.
Related articles
- Oh goody! More EPA regulations (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
The Madness Of Al Gore
As global warming fades from the public conscious as an issue many of it adherents are just plain loosing it. First among these is that glorious gasbag, Al Gore. Recently, he gave a speech in which he claimed that climate skeptics are peddling “Bulls–t”.
As I’ve stated earlier (in my post comparing climate scientists to astrologers) I think the main reason climate change is falling apart as an issue is because it proponents simply haven’t proven that they know what they are talking about. Claiming that you can model something as amazingly complicated as the Earth’s climate is an act of profound arrogance, in my opinion. If you say you can do that, you need to prove it. Simply saying “I’m an expert” isn’t good enough. Until climate scientists do this, they are little better than astrologers. Go play with your constantly changing computer models and leave the rest of us alone.
What I find amusing though is how utterly unaware Al Gore seems to be in his own role in destroying global warming as an idea. When you live a luxurious lifestyle, flying on private planes, taking your yacht out for a cruise, etc, you give off the impression that your really not serious. Mr. and Mrs. middle class rightly conclude that if you’re not prepared to walk the walk, why should they? If Al Gore can have a carbon footprint larger than some countries, they shouldn’t feel too bad about having two cars and a three bedroom house.
Climate Science vs Astrology
I’ve recently been thinking about people who believe in Global Warming vs those who believe in Astrology. Why does one group maintain a level of respect while the other is considered to be a group of cranks at best?
In some respects the two belief systems are not as different as you might think.
Consider this.
Astrology promises to predict the future based on the relative positions of various celestial bodies. Modern practitioners of this art even use complicated computer models in an attempt to peer into the future.
Climate scientists promise to do much the same thing. Using data collected from various sources they construct elaborate computer models that promise to predict the future insofar as climate is concerned.
Why is one discipline regarded as legitimate whereas the other is considered the purview of cranks and charlatans?
The reason, I believe, is that most people use common sense with respect to astrology. They demand that Astrologers prove that they actually know what they’re talking about. Saying that you can predict the future based on the movement of the planets is an extraordinary claim. In order for people to believe, you have to back it up. This is why various skeptical organizations like CSICOP (The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) typically challenge astrologers to put up or shut up. They force them to make widely publicized predictions to see if they come true. Typically, they come up far short.
Why does no one demand the same of climate scientists? They are essentially saying that they understand an unbelievably complicated system and can make predictions based on it. Why should anyone trust them? How long has climate science been around as a science anyway? Why do so many people seem ready to accept the wisdom of these unproven prophets?
Isn’t it far past the point to ask the climate change community to make some predictions and stand by them? Shouldn’t they have to prove, like astrologers, that their models actually work in the real world?
It makes sense to me.
Below are links to two articles about climate change. The pro climate change article, entitled “Climate Change: Still Worse Than You Think” is from Mother Jones. Notice how the entire thrust of the article is based on computer models and how accurate or not they are.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/climate-change
The second article, which is skeptical of climate change theory, goes through examples of how those computer models have failed in the past.
