Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Energy Manifesto - A Critique

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/rfk_manifesto200805?currentPage=1

In this recent op-ed in Vanity Fair, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has some interesting ideas, but his "manifesto" also has much that is dubious. In addition, the concluding paragraph is not supported by the balance of the article.

His opening analysis that England banning slavery launched the industrial revolution seems unlikely to me. It assumes that there would be no disruptive technological innovation while slavery existed in England. But in America, where slavery was entrenched more than anywhere in the world, the cotton gin was invented, negating much of the economic argument for slavery in the agrarian south. Would the steam engine, which was the driving force of the industrial revolution, not have been invented, or been significantly delayed? Doubtful.

His statement of causation that California’s status as the “most energy efficient state” has resulted in it having the largest economy is disingenuous. In truth, California only has enough electricity because it outsources the generation to other western states that produce it using coal. Their claim of being a green state is a sham. The Wall Street Journal called it energy colonialism.

California, a state with barely enough baseline electricity, shut down a 650 MW nuclear plant due to protests and replaced it with a 3 MW solar facility. Companies will not locate in California because the electricity is not reliable. California based and very environmentally attuned Google, which is building out vast data centers, has cited this a principle reason for not locating them in California. Green mandates that cannot be justified economically drive up California’s taxes, also causing business to leave or not locate there. There are lots of reasons that California has the largest economy, but energy efficiently is not one of them.

Cap and trade is a very bad idea when it comes to the economy. It would be less harmful to just put a straight carbon tax on everything to offset the real or imagined externalized cost (still a large tax on the economy, but perhaps not as catastrophic). Creating a cap and trade system where the government controls both the supply and demand can only end badly, and could very likely result in a deep and prolonged recession.

His assertion that the power grid system is hopelessly Balkanized is almost certainly true. I’m all for eliminating barriers to connect and transmit electricity, and empower new sources to connect to the grid. I wish the Democrats would do the same for health care, which is the most Balkanized industry in the country - through government mismanagement.

His example of Iceland is interesting, but not particularly relevant to the needs of the United States. Iceland is a small country with a small population that sits atop one of the most active volcanic regions on the planet. Heating the homes in this cold country with geothermal energy is a natural practice. But Iceland cannot be extrapolated to the United States, with it's diverse climate, and more diverse energy needs. Geothermal efforts in the U.S. have had mixed results.

A direct current backbone to move wind and solar generated power to where it is needed seems like a smart and necessary proposal. It is essential that we can bring this power on-line in a manner that can be broadly distributed.

The following idea is similar to proposals I’ve seen advocated on some of the liberal blogs like the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post:

“Businesses and homes will become power plants as individuals cash in by installing solar panels and wind turbines on their buildings, and by selling the stored energy in their plug-in hybrids back to the grid at peak hours.”

I hear about these types of "solutions" all the time. But the people advocating them are looking at the energy problem with rose colored glasses. Battery technology to make plug-in hybrids broadly viable is not within sight. If it takes 6 hours to charge my plug-in car, which gives it a range of 40 miles, then how am I going to have enough “juice” to sell back to the grid? Maybe these folks are big Keanu Reeves biggest fan and have watched “The Matrix” a few too many times.

Neither do I see anyone but the idle rich being able to afford to install solar panels on their home and sell surplus electricity to the grid. I recently researched what it would cost to install a home solar panel system. The cost was about $20,000, plus installation, for a 2,000 watt system. That is enough power to light 20 100 watt light bulbs at the same time. A vacuum cleaner uses almost that much power. No surplus here, and the capital investment makes no economic sense. $20,000 to light a couple of rooms? Forget air conditioning or an oven. But the greenies stubbornly cling to this as the answer.

It is telling that 10% of all venture capital dollars are already flowing into alternative energy. This is consistent with my belief that with oil over $100/barrel, and coal at a similarly priced on a relative basis , private capital will go “all in” to solve the problem – without government bungling.

The last paragraph is not supported by the rest of the article.

“We will cut annual trade and budget deficits by hundreds of billions, improve public health and farm production, diminish global warming, and create millions of good jobs. And for the first time in half a century we will live free from Middle Eastern wars and entanglements with petty tyrants who despise democracy and are hated by their own people.”

The entire article centers on the generation of electricity by non-fossil fuel means. That is a result that is achievable, probably only the addition of nuclear to his proposals, but achievable nevertheless. But for his conclusion to be true, electricity will have to become the primary fuel for transportation. This seems to be an underlying hopeful hypothesis with many on the left. But the facts say that it is not in the foreseeable future.

A recent Politics & Prosperity article separated the current and future uses of various sources of fuel. The discussion is usually a confusing mish-mash that does not differentiate between electricity generation and transportation. There is currently no technology to economically and practically eliminate oil distillates as the primary fuel for transportation. We need to aggressively pursue realistic solutions, like using the “Prius model”, verses the “pure plug-in model” for much higher MPG to make a real difference in the near term.