Al Gore came back from Kyoto threatening to impose stringent policies that would reduce US greenhouse emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels. In April, ministers from the Group of Eight, the US, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia, promised to make "immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions." Liberal senators have advocated quick action to slow carbon dioxide emissions. Yet the administration has proposed little and done less.

Now I suppose we shouldn’t complain; after all, there is no justification for any measures. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions anywhere close to the Kyoto limits would put the economy through a ringer. Perhaps Clinton and Gore have seen the light. Maybe they have been reading WCR and have recognized the fallacy of their ways. Somehow I doubt it. It seems more likely that they are waiting until after the fall elections before proposing a major upheaval in the American life-style.

Nevertheless, Clinton and Gore have advanced a few initiatives as a "down-payment on greenhouse gas emissions reductions." The budget includes some minor subsidies for buyers of very fuel-efficient vehicles, homes that meet stringent efficiency standards, and research on renewable energy sources. Of the $6.3 billion the administration proposed spending over the next five years to meet Kyoto, nearly half was earmarked for research and development on renewable energy and carbon-reduction and energy-efficient technologies. Even if the Congress approves this plan, it will have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

In March the administration dropped the next shoe or rather sandal and proposed an Electricity Competition Plan, replete with efforts to subsidize or require the use of renewable energy sources. Next to abstinence, something not too common in the White House, conservation constitutes the great moral imperative. And if you cannot prescribe energy rationing, then "renewable sources" sounds virtuous.

The plan estimates that the increased use of renewable sources will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 million metric tons by the year 2010, 1 to 2 percent of projected emissions in that year. Assuming the maximum effectiveness, this reduction would move only 7 percent of the way towards meeting the carbon dioxide goal agreed to in Kyoto.

This scheme would include a sales tax on electricity to be used with matching state funds to subsidize low-income consumers, as well as for research on energy efficiency and renewable energy. It would require that all sellers of power employ renewable sources or purchase credits from those generating electricity from such sources. Excluded from renewable energy sources were such non-polluting but not-politically-correct generating modes as nuclear power or hydroelectric. Neither of those sources produces air-pollution or even carbon dioxide.

Favored energy sources were wind, solar, biomass, or geothermal. Clinton’s proposal would require that, by 2008, these sources generate 5.5 percent of all power in the United States, more than doubling their share of the market. All of those sources are significantly more expensive; in most cases they cost more than double electricity generated by burning fossil fuels. They also bring their own environmental problems. Forcing producers to generate power from one of the politically correct energy sources will push up the cost of electricity and make it more difficult for new producers to enter the market.

Wind Power

None of these sources are as benign as the administration would like us to believe. Wind power, so popular with many, troubles both economists and many environmentalists. The federal government and state governments have been subsidizing windmill technology for decades without making it viable. Currently it receives a 1.5 cent per kWh tax credit from the federal government. At times wind farms, sometimes dubbed "tax farms," have received tax credits as high as 50 percent. Although the Department of Energy forecast in 1976 that wind power could supply close to one-fifth of US electric power by 1995, it actually generates about one-tenth of one percent of all electricity.

Moreover, a wind farm requires 85 times the land of a conventional gas-fired power plant to generate the same power. Its power is available only when the wind is blowing and so needs backup facilities, such as fossil fuels, hydroelectric, or, heaven forbid, nuclear. Not only do wind farms need backup, they must be located in naturally windy areas, which are often far from consumers, requiring extensive transmission facilities that go unused much of the time.

But more damning than the space occupied by wind-turbines is their destruction of wildlife, especially birds. Existing wind farms reportedly kill 10,000 birds a year in the United States. The California Energy Commission has estimated that the wind farm at Altamont Pass, the largest in the nation, kills 39 golden eagles each year. The Sierra Club has labeled the towers, "Cuisinarts of the air." These sites are eyesores, noisy, inefficient, and deadly.

Solar Power

Solar power comes in two forms, large-scale centrally located generating facilities and micro solar installations of a few photovoltaic cells providing electricity to remote locations or thermal rooftop panels supplying heating and cooling, mainly to suburban households. Small-scale solar energy is only economical for mountain cabins and other buildings in remote locations. Rooftop heating and cooling has failed to win converts and has led to much dissatisfaction by consumers in spite of the subsidies it has received.

Although the DOE has spent $5.1 billion on solar energy, it supplies less than three-one hundredths of one percent of all electricity, a market share even smaller that that of wind power. As its share indicates, it is a more costly source of electricity even than wind. Facilities to generate solar power cost triple those using natural gas. Like wind power, solar can only be located in favorable natural locations, that is, in very sunny regions, such as the desert Southwest and certain areas of California. Given its restricted geographical location, it can supply only a small portion of the nation. Moreover, it too requires backup power, since it can provide electricity only when the sun is shinning. Like wind farms, it clutters huge tracks of land, this time with mirrors and solar panels. Large-scale solar plants need between 5 and 17 acres per MW, compared with natural gas plants, which take only 1/25 acre per MW.

Photovoltaic plants are becoming more economical. One company has proposed selling power at 5.5 cents per kWh from a plant in the southern Nevada desert. However, this relatively low cost reflects significant subsidies, the federal tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and tax-free industrial development funds for construction. Without those sources of funds, the cost would top 10 cents per kWh. Although environmentalists tend to favor solar power, they are concerned with potential toxic chemical pollution from the arsenic, gallium, and cadmium contained in photovoltaic cells.

Biomass

Electricity generated by burning wood, wood products, pitch, municipal wastes, tires, landfill gases, and other waste products is deemed biomass. Although it has the largest market of any "renewable" resource (1.7 percent), it is not quite economic; new coal and natural gas generating facilities are cheaper. From an environmentalist’s point of view, however, burning these substances produces carbon dioxide, even more than coal in some cases. Combustion of wood products and many of the others also creates nitrogen oxide and results in the formation of particulates. The former is also a greenhouse gas and the EPA has identified the latter as a killer. Although biomass may be a source of energy in the future, its environmental advantage over fossil fuels is questionable.

Geothermal

It is puzzling that the administration would list geothermal as a "renewable." Production of electricity from geothermal has actually been declining. This source of energy also requires specific geological conditions, such as Yellowstone National Park, where the natural heat of the earth’s interior comes close enough to the surface to tap. But, as the Yellowstone example shows, those conditions often occur in sensitive areas. Moreover, the process of pumping in water and capturing the resulting steam frequently produces emissions of hydrogen sulfide, toxic chemicals, and, irony of ironies, carbon dioxide.

A Carbon Cap

Apparently the administration considered including a cap on carbon dioxide emissions in their electricity plan but feared a negative reaction. Don’t be lulled by this tepid proposal; the administration has promised a "cap-and-trade authority [for carbon] to be in place by 2008." Although Clinton pledged significant cost savings for consumers under this plan, requiring that power generators employ renewables will boost costs. In fact, competition, if allowed to work, would drive down prices and ensure the use of the cheapest sources of energy, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. But the White House doesn’t want that. Let us give one cheer or at least clap with one hand, however, to applaud the Clinton and Gore realization that capping carbon dioxide would be costly to the American people and might do what a sex scandal couldn’t, reduce their popularity.

References:

Jay Hakes, Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy, Statement before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, "Hearings on the Kyoto Protocol," February 4, 1998.

Robert L. Bradley, Jr. Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green." Policy Analysis, Cato Institute, August 27, 1997.