Al Gore's Mea Culpa

[bush_cheney2004]

Anything left after that? Or is the waste small enough and of low radiation so that it is not much of a concern anymore?

The waste has to be processed to separate the long half-life materials back into the fuel cycle for a potential 95%+ efficiency for all fissiles. The remaining waste fission products would then have half-lives three orders of magnitude shorter, i.e hundreds instead of hundreds of thousands of years.

The political driver for such designs was better control and utilization of potentially weapons grade materials more than power generation efficiencies from the uranium fuel cycle.

[GostHacked]

The waste has to be processed to separate the long half-life materials back into the fuel cycle for a potential 95%+ efficiency for all fissiles. The remaining waste fission products would then have half-lives three orders of magnitude shorter, i.e hundreds instead of hundreds of thousands of years.

The political driver for such designs was better control and utilization of potentially weapons grade materials more than power generation efficiencies from the uranium fuel cycle.

95% is very very good. Hundreds of years to me is still to long, but I guess with future tech that can be lessened even more.

[Shady]

Must I point out again that there are already places that get more than 10% of their power from renewables? (mostly wind) In Spain in 2009 14.3% of energy demand was from wind power. That's 36,188 GWh. Here's a little fun fact for ya.

And as I've already pointed out much earlier. Spain's green jobs program has been a complete disaster. They've lost 2 jobs for every 1 so-called green job created. And their unemployment rate is almost 20%.

[Shady]

March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

Link

[Michael Hardner]

By "destroying" jobs, one presumes they are saying jobs go offshore. The article doesn't provide details other than the example of higher energy costs from wind power.

Need more information.

[Shady]

By "destroying" jobs, one presumes they are saying jobs go offshore. The article doesn't provide details other than the example of higher energy costs from wind power.

Need more information.

Read the study it's reporting on.

[waldo]

Must I point out again that there are already places that get more than 10% of their power from renewables? (mostly wind) In Spain in 2009 14.3% of energy demand was from wind power. That's 36,188 GWh. Here's a little fun fact for ya.

My link

yes, Spain's wind deployments have proven results... of course, through various MLW threads, we've had a few of the usual suspects attempt to deride Spain's green initiatives - attempting to leverage a significantly debunked denier study... one fronted by the denier Competitive Enterprise Institute - Simple had a go at it back in May linking to his favoured National Post hack, Solomon. The following includes details of the study, the denier author (Gabriel Calzada), numerous debunking references, official Spanish government response, etc.; (note the referenced Spanish electricity/wind energy costs)

Bring on the debate:

Link:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=13ccea1b-4567-47d3-824c-f274809f8062

Simple, you truly are a pathetic loser... not only do we see another one of your links to your go-to denier extraordinaire, Lawrence Solomon... we see you simply linking and quoting, without offering any comment or interpretation of your own. What's the matter, Simple - are you getting a little anxious about actually making your own assessments/interpretations - wonder why?

Solomon outdoes himself this time, cleverly and deviously crafting his words for maximum vagueness, omission, distortion and effect. We read Solomon stating, "the EU had announced it was putting further carbon dioxide cuts on hold... following like decisions one day earlier by Germany and France". Of course, this simply reflects an unwillingness for the EU collectively, and Germany/France individually, to voluntarily increase the already committed 20% cut in emissions by 2020... to 30%. The emphasis here is on an unwillingness to pursue additional increases on a volunteer basis - Germany has been a strong advocate for moving to a 30% target... but only in the context of a global agreement and of retaining the option as a facet of negotiation within upcoming climate change meetings.

then, of course, Solomon shifts into high-gear with reference to Spain... and an, 'internal leaked Spanish cabinet document'. Certainly, this one is being played up big time across the denialsphere and, not surprisingly,

originates via Christopher Horner

of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -

sourcewatch for CEI

. What's missing here is perspective on the lead-up over the past year from the origination point... a 2009 Spanish study (from economics professor Gabriel Calzada of Spain’s King Juan Carlos University). Of course Solomon, and Horner, know of this study, of it's past complete and total debunking, but they don't care... this is simply another opportunity to throw out wild-ass claims while casting doubt and uncertainty - standard denier operation... standard Lawrence Solomon modus operandi!

this one is too easy, Simple... assorted debunking and refutations of that Spanish study - the study that forms the basis of Solomon's referenced 'leaked cabinet document':

- from

José María Roig Aldasoro

, Regional Minister of Innovation, Enterprise and Employment Government of Navarre region in Spain

- from

Teresa Ribera Rodriguez

, Spain's Secretary of State for Climate - letter to U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee)

- from the Spanish technical and scientific organization - ISTAS (Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud) =>

translation

of original

Spanish document

... indepth analysis and focused content debunking

- from

mediamatters.org

- responding to, "Fox News pushing questionable Spanish study on green jobs"

- from

Wall Street Journal

- ... Simple, when even the WSJ doesn't buy into it... who ya gonna call?

- from

Center for American Progress

- Tall Tales from Spain

- the

NRDC blog

gives a summary account of key points from the above referenced Spanish government and ISTAS references; specifically:

Calzada's analysis is based on seriously flawed logic. As the Spanish Government letter says, "The conclusions are based on two static and simplistic ratios, from which it is difficult to draw valid conclusions as they compare non-comparable elements."

* The first ratio compares the economic support given to renewable energies in Spain per job with the average capital per job in Spain. A more valid comparison would have compared support to renewables with support to other energy sources - something other studies have done and shown very different conclusions from Calzada's.

* The second ratio compares annual support for renewable energy per job with the average productivity per job in Spain. As the letter from the Spanish Government says, "This comparison has no value."

Calzada blames renewables for job losses by assuming renewables are Spain's only electricity source. This conclusion is insupportable, however, as:

* Electricity prices are influenced by several factors. In Spain, as ISTAS points out, prices are affected

o The impact and evolution of crude oil prices

o The Spanish importation of coal, which accounted for more than 60% of the total coal used in 2008.

o The costs of nuclear waste treatment, calculated to be around 2,700 million euros.

* Renewable energy is one of Spain's cheaper electricity sources and has actually been lowering prices in Spain.

o According to ISTAS, the production of wind energy in Spain brought market prices down by 7.08 euros/MWh in 2005, 12.44 euros/MWh in 2006 and 12.44 euros/MWh between January 1st and May 31st, 2007.

o In relative terms, this contributed to a drop in the average market price of between 11.7%, 8.6% and 25.1%, respectively.

* Spain's electricity prices are below the EU average.

o According to ISTAS, in Spain the prices per 100 kWh of domestic energy amounted to 12.25 euros in 2007, which is less than the average of 15.28 euros found in the other 27 countries that make up the European Union (UE-27) and the average of 16.05 euros found in the Euro Area; also the price for industrial energy use in Spain amounts to 9.87 euros, which is less than the 10.70 euros of the UE-27 and the 11.23 euros found in the Euro Area.

Calzada's renewable energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada claims 52,200 direct and indirect jobs (but as with other 'facts' provides no citation for this figure.) By comparison, Spain's Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade says the renewable energy sector in Spain employs 73,900 direct workers. Spain's Labor Union Institute of Work, Environment and Health estimates 89,000 direct jobs and 99,690 indirect jobs.

Calzada's wind energy employment figures are wrong. Calzada states there are 15,000 people employed in the wind energy sector in Spain. But the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade puts the figure at more than twice that, 37,730 people.

Calzada doesn't source his facts. As ISTAS details,

* No bibliographical reference is specified for much of the data. Under the "bibliography" at the end of the paper, there is only one word: "Pending."

* Calzada does not provide explanations of his calculations.

* The data has been obtained from secondary sources, without considering whether they are of a comparable nature or not.

The paper appears to be politically motivated. As ISTAS states: "We are not dealing with a study here but rather an essay providing opinions and written with editorial overtones based on secondary information that is poorly referenced and/or explained and which provides only partial statements of the facts. It is a document that is full of errors, a result of the haste incurred in getting it published in order to take advantage of the effect, and it fails at times to honor truth. These errors go anywhere from simple typos or omissions, to the "deliberate" misuse and confusion of terminology."

The Spanish Government letter concludes with an unequivocal affirmation of the Government's recognition of the value of renewable energy and its commitment to it, noting that Spanish renewable energy policy is widely supported, and that it "has established the pillars of the transformation of our energy model to face the future challenges; that has generated important benefits in environmental terms; that has created net jobs; that has created and improved a powerful industrial fabric, helping the rise of leading companies, not only at a national level but also at an international one, with great export and innovation capacity."

Rodriguez concludes, "In the renewable energy field, Spain is an example to be followed."

- of course, Simple... we need to comment on

Gabriel Calzada

, the lead author of that totally debunked Spanish study. Calzada is an avowed denier, a founding member of the

Prague Network

, a

Heritage Foundation

member of it's

Green Jobs Panel

... and, of course, a go-to guy for the

Heartland Institute

.

and he continues... Solomon struts forward claiming, "Australia last month abandoned its cap and trade plan". Whether cap™ is the right strategy or not, Solomon most certainly is not correct in his wording and implication. Rudd's majority Labor government couldn't secure support from the Australian Senate (significant in this case, was a lack of support from the Greens who alternately favour a levy on carbon polluters). Officially, the Labor government has stated an intent to, for now, delay cap™ till after the Kyoto protocol expires (2012)... meanwhile, assorted polls show Australians favouring the Greens levy approach. But don't let any of the internals within Australian politics get in the way of Lawrence Solomon fallaciously spinning the Australian situation around "resistance" predicated upon reaction to Hackergate. Just another Solomon fabrication!

debate Simple? What debate were you calling for... anyone can blindly throw up a link and quote from it... like you've just done. Was there something you actually wanted to discuss - to debate?

[TimG]

By "destroying" jobs, one presumes they are saying jobs go offshore.

No it does not. It means economic activity is reduced and the need for jobs goes down.

This is basic economics:

Lets say a private business owner has a business that can generate new 10 jobs but he needs capital to expand.

Lets say the government taxes that owner and leaves the owner with less capital.

The owner then decideds not to expand - costing the country 10 jobs.

The government uses that tax money to create 2 "green" jobs.

This leaves the country with 8 fewer jobs than there would have been without the green jobs.

Most environmentists cannot understand the above because they think tax money is an infinite resource that governments can use without any negative consequences (extremely ironic given their belief that natures resources are finite). They cannot understand that if the government tries to 'pick winners' it is taking money away from the private sector that is generally better at picking winners. This means capital is not efficiently allocated and economic activity declines.

That said, government spending can increase economic activity if it does something to increase the productivity of private business. For example, free roads reduce costs for businesses which allows them to create more jobs.

Green energy, OTOH, decreases business productivity by increasing energy costs. This means subsidized green energy will always destroy more jobs than it creates.

Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

yes, Spain's wind deployments have proven results.

Proven results like 20% unemployment? Spain is an economic basket case and it green energy programs are part of the disease.

[waldo]

Proven results like 20% unemployment? Spain is an economic basket case and it green energy programs are part of the disease.

don't hesitate to actually provide substantiation on the effects of green energy programs on the overall Spanish economy... perhaps you missed the linked WSJ commentary on that debunked denier Spanish study:

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It’s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: “The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to “green jobs”, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.”

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain’s support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues—there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it’s hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.

[TimG]

On paper, that makes sense. But Spains support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenuesthere were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

More lefty economic nonsense. Spain is running a huge deficit. Any money for its "green" programs came by borrowing more money - borrowing that is so out of control that Spain may need to be bailed out by the EU. If there were government programs that could be cut then the economy would have been much better off if the programs were cut and the deficit reduced because large deficits hurt businesses as much as taxes because large deficits mean large tax increases in the future. This reduces the ROI for investments made today. Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[Shady]

More lefty economic nonsense. Spain is running a huge deficit. Any money for its "green" programs came by borrowing more money - borrowing that is so out of control that Spain may need to be bailed out by the EU. If there were government programs that could be cut then the economy would have been much better off if the programs were cut and the deficit reduced because large deficits hurt businesses as much as taxes because large deficits mean large tax increases in the future. This reduces the ROI for investments made today.

Tim, you're attempt to have a reasonable discussion with where's waldo is honorable. But a complete waste of time. He's not only an alarmist but also a McCarthyist.

[waldo]

Proven results like 20% unemployment? Spain is an economic basket case and it green energy programs are part of the disease.

don't hesitate to actually provide substantiation on the effects of green energy programs on the overall Spanish economy... perhaps you missed the linked WSJ commentary on that debunked denier Spanish study:

So how does that translate into outright job destruction? It’s simply a question of opportunity cost, the paper says: “The money spent by the government cannot, once committed to “green jobs”, be consumed or invested by private parties and therefore the jobs that would depend on such consumption and investment will disappear or not be created.”

On paper, that makes sense. But Spain’s support for renewable energy came out of existing tax revenues—there were no special levies on corporate activity designed to underwrite clean energy.

The money the government has spent on clean energy may have edged out other government spending, but it’s hard to see how it could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.

More lefty economic nonsense. Spain is running a huge deficit. Any money for its "green" programs came by borrowing more money - borrowing that is so out of control that Spain may need to be bailed out by the EU. If there were government programs that could be cut then the economy would have been much better off if the programs were cut and the deficit reduced because large deficits hurt businesses as much as taxes because large deficits mean large tax increases in the future. This reduces the ROI for investments made today.

"lefty economic analysis"... from the Wall Street Journal no less! Like I said, don't hesitate to substantiate your claimed impact of green jobs to the overall state of the Spanish economy.

while I have your attention... should we just write off this other earlier claim of yours... as well?

In fact, wind can lead to MORE consumption of fossil fuels in areas that depend on coal/gas because the constantly changing the output of these plants to match the wind reduces efficiency.

say what? Are you speaking of "additional" measures that need to be taken to accommodate wind... as in additional measures above and beyond normal grid peak-balancing (before reserves are actually engaged)... as in additional measures above and beyond the typical engagement of spinning and non-spinning reserves... additional measures that aren't a part of the existing grid management? Is that the kind of "additional" you're speaking to? Do you have examples, taking into consideration the typical wind warm turbine numbers/geographical displacement... taking into account the typical time-aspects related to wind variance across those geographical displacements?

[Guest TrueMetis]

And as I've already pointed out much earlier. Spain's green jobs program has been a complete disaster. They've lost 2 jobs for every 1 so-called green job created. And their unemployment rate is almost 20%.

Yes and I'm sure that's all because of the wind farms and has nothing to do with the recession.

This is basic economics:

Lets say a private business owner has a business that can generate new 10 jobs but he needs capital to expand.

Lets say the government taxes that owner and leaves the owner with less capital.

The owner then decideds not to expand - costing the country 10 jobs.

The government uses that tax money to create 2 "green" jobs.

This leaves the country with 8 fewer jobs than there would have been without the green jobs.

Your understanding of economics sucks, The owner would not have used the extra money to hire more people he would have pocketed it like they always do. It's why tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

You and Shady have such a Narrow understanding of how things work it's amazing you can figure out how to use the bathroom in the morning.

Edited November 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

Yes and I'm sure that's all because of the wind farms and has nothing to do with the recession.

Their disaster of a green jobs program pre-dates the recession.

It's why tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

One could argue that 100% of tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Depending on the type of tax cut. But when there's more money available to the private sector to be spent, invested, etc, which also gets taxed, there is definitely revenue to be gained. It has nothing to do with so-called pocketing the money for themselves. You obviously have little to no experience owning or running a business. It really is pathetic.

[dre]

This is basic economics:

Lets say a private business owner has a business that can generate new 10 jobs but he needs capital to expand.

Lets say the government taxes that owner and leaves the owner with less capital.

The owner then decideds not to expand - costing the country 10 jobs.

The government uses that tax money to create 2 "green" jobs.

This leaves the country with 8 fewer jobs than there would have been without the green jobs.

You understanding "basic economics" is a little scary. Businesses expand really only for one reason.... because they think they can sell more widgets to more people than they are, or because they think they can add efficiency by building more facilities. If they believe this they will expand regardless of tax conditions, and in fact... business expansion is a good way to AVOID paying those taxes because youre buying assets that you write off against your balance sheet then depreciate over time.

If taxes are high then Im likely to take less profit out of my operation and allocate more money to purchasing assets (expansion).

In any case saying that either high taxes or low taxes are "bad for businesses and the economy" is a slogan too simplistic to be of any real use. Theres a balance you need to strike. Taxes that are EITHER too high or too low can damage the economy.

Edited November 25, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

Your understanding of economics sucks, The owner would not have used the extra money to hire more people he would have pocketed it like they always do. It's why tax cuts don't pay for themselves.

Such a clueless statement I don't know where to begin. Our economy depends on private investors putting their money into businesses that, in turn, hire people. If this did not happen there would be no businesses and no jobs. Government jobs only help the economy if they allow private companies to make more profits. Government spending which reduces the productivity of private industry hurts the economy.

Tax cuts paid for with deficit spending are as bad as spending when it comes to jobs since deficits are nothing but tax increases in the future.

Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[Shady]

You understanding "basic economics" is a little scary. Businesses expand really only for one reason.... because they think they can sell more widgets to more people than they are, or because they think they can add efficiency by building more facilities. If they believe this they will expand regardless of tax conditions, and in fact...

You're forgetting that in order to sell more widgets, your widgets need to be price at a level that's attractive for consumers. If you're taxes and expenses are high, then the price of your widgets has to be high as well. In which case, you won't sell as many widgets. You're competing with other widget makes from your neigbourhood, your country, as well as around the world.

business expansion is a good way to AVOID paying those taxes because youre buying assets that you write off against your balance sheet then depreciate over time.

If taxes are high then Im likely to take less profit out of my operation and allocate more money to purchasing assets (expansion).

You say this as if it's a bad thing. When business expands, even if it's able to write off some of the cost. The assets it buys has to built, which means somebody else has to build them. There services it buys needs to have somebody to provide them, which means somebody else needs to provide that service.

[TimG]

In any case saying that either high taxes or low taxes are "bad for businesses and the economy" is a slogan too simplistic to be of any real use. Theres a balance you need to strike. Taxes that are EITHER too high or too low can damage the economy.

And what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said there is a limit pool of capital that can be invested (a pool that will grow over time). If the government confiscate this capital and spends it on investments with a negative ROI then that will harm the economy and reduce employment. It does not make a difference whether this confiscation is done with taxes, deficits or any other mechanism the government can dream up.

The only time government spending makes sense is when it increases the productivity of the economy.

Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Such a clueless statement I don't know where to begin. Our economy depends on private investors putting their money into businesses that, in turn, hire people. If this did not happen there would be no businesses and no jobs. Government jobs only help the economy if they allow private companies to make more profits. Government spending which reduces the profit of private industry hurts the economy.

Tax cuts paid for with deficit spending are as bad as spending when it comes to jobs since deficits are nothing but tax increases in the future.

Businesses don't expand just because they have more money they expand when demand increases. So if they have extra capital they are just going to pocket it instead.

Shady.

Their disaster of a green jobs program pre-dates the recession.

And yet for some reason you keep using that 20% number something that only happened after the recession, enough of your simplistic one cause bull.

One could argue that 100% of tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Depending on the type of tax cut. But when there's more money available to the private sector to be spent, invested, etc, which also gets taxed, there is definitely revenue to be gained. It has nothing to do with so-called pocketing the money for themselves. You obviously have little to no experience owning or running a business. It really is pathetic.

Show me one tax cut that has ever paid for itself.

Edited November 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

And what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said there is a limit pool of capital that can be invested (a pool that will grow over time). If the government confiscate this capital and spends it on investments with a negative ROI then that will harm the economy and reduce employment. It does not make a difference whether this confiscation is done with taxes, deficits or any other mechanism the government can dream up.

The only time government spending makes sense is when it increases the productivity of the economy.

If the government confiscate this capital and spends it on investments with a negative ROI then that will harm the economy and reduce employment

Right. And how can a business stop the government from confiscating their money? Simple... move profit to the other side of the balance sheet by purchasing new assets and building new facilities (expanding).

[TimG]

Right. And how can a business stop the government from confiscating their money? Simple... move profit to the other side of the balance sheet by purchasing new assets and building new facilities (expanding).

Rediculous. They could do that faster by paying more out in executive salaries since salaries have no CCA. Businesses expand because they expect a positive ROI from the capital they invest. There is no other reason. This expectation is affected by many things including their perception of future tax rates. Edited November 25, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Rediculous. They could do that faster by paying more out in executive salaries since salaries have no CCA. Businesses expand because they expect a positive ROI from the capital they invest. There is no other reason. This expectation is affected by many things including their perception of future tax rates.

They could do that faster by paying more out in executive salaries

But if you purchase assets you HAVE stuff after and still dodge the taxes.

Rediculous.

Dunno what the means really.

[TimG]

But if you purchase assets you HAVE stuff after and still dodge the taxes.

Stuff that costs money to maintain and use. Based on your logic the best way to create jobs is to tax companies more so they will have an incentive to invest more. It makes no sense. Companies invest for one reason and one reason only: to increase their future profits. If taxes are high there is less incentive to invest because the future profits will be lower.

[Jack Weber]

Stuff that costs money to maintain and use. Based on your logic the best way to create jobs is to tax companies more so they will have an incentive to invest more. It makes no sense. Companies invest for one reason and one reason only: to increase their future profits. If taxes are high there is less incentive to invest because the future profits will be lower.

What if businesses have been given tax break upon tax break and incentive upon incentive and concession upon concession...

And they still leave for Mexico and the US(or China...Or Viet Nametc.),as was the case of John Deere in Welland,Ontario...

The problem with your neoliberal economic theory is that it only works in theory...These folks won't be happy until they pay almost no taxes and get almost no regulatory interference.To do that,they will play off one jurisdiction against another,until they get what they want...This is the spiraling race to the bottom unfettered Capitalism has us in.It's a nightmarish scenario as frightening as any Marxist nightmare I can think off...

What is the end game of this stuff if it's not a wealth redistribution excercise upwards into the hands of the few who can take advantage of it?