Archive for May, 2011

h1

Economic understanding: “there’s a lot of confirmation bias out there”

May 18, 2011

Michael Giberson

Do liberals or conservatives of libertarians tend to have a better understanding of economics? It is a question that Daniel Klein and Zeljka Buturovic investigated in a pair of papers appearing in Econ Journal Watch (one and two). The first paper appeared to show that a college education didn’t lead to much improvement in economic understanding, but self-identified “very conservative” persons and libertarians seemed to have a better grasp of the issues than self-identified liberals and progressives.

As it turned out, however, the questions asked were ones in which the correct answer tended to be the answer a conservative or libertarian would favor on ideological grounds. When in the second study they asked more questions for which economic analysis tended to favor liberal rather than conservative views, the performance of liberals improved and the performance of conservatives dropped off.

As Matt Iglesias put it in commenting on the papers, ”there’s a lot of confirmation bias out there.”

HT to Marginal Revolution.

h1

“DC, it’s not just for crazy people”

May 18, 2011

Michael Giberson

greentechgrid on the current trend sweeping the nation, “Intel, Ford to Test DC Microgrids: Direct current. It’s so out it’s in“:

Intel and Ford Motor Company plan to retrofit select facilities to see if DC power can really curb their electricity consumption.

Intel will wrap the facility that houses the energy research group, part of Intel Labs, in Arizona in a DC microgrid, according to Brian Patterson, chairman of the Emerge Alliance, an organization dedicated to popularizing DC power. Ford, meanwhile, will retrofit a building that houses both manufacturing and offices to run on DC.

In both examples, DC power will be used to run computers, datacenters, lights and likely the heating and air conditioning systems. Ford may even go farther and add manufacturing equipment to the mix. The Ford facility will also include an energy storage system from Xtreme Power.

Okay, the “sweeping the nation” claim is probably premature, but it is a big step for the EMerge Alliance, which has beep promoting the switch to DC microgrids. The historically-minded among us may also see this as late vindication for Thomas Edison, typically seen as the loser in the Battle of the Currents to the AC power of Nicolai Tesla and George Westinghouse.

Okay, the “late vindication for Thomas Edison” claim is also probably premature, but at least this an interesting development currently on the fringes of the electric power industry and perhaps readying for a bigger break someday soon.

(The “DC, it’s not just for crazy people” line concludes the greentechgrid article.)

h1

Study finds no groundwater issues from gas well fracking

May 17, 2011

Michael Giberson

The study referred to in the above headline, “Study finds no groundwater issues from gas well fracking,” is the same PNAS study I mentioned last week under the headline, “Study finds methane in Pennsylvania, NY groundwater associated with gas well fracking.” I’m not now suggesting that methane in groundwater isn’t a problem, rather I’m saying it all depends upon what the meaning of the word “fracking” is.

The issue was raised by a Greenwire article on this point appearing on the New York Times website.

In most public discussion of gas well fracking, the word “fracking” refers to the entire shale gas well development and production process. In the industry usage is more precise: “Fracking” refers specifically to the hydraulic fracturing process. As in, first you drill the well, then you frack the well, then you produce the gas.

So if we are using the term fracking more carefully, what we would want to say about the study is that it found no evidence of groundwater contamination from the fracking process. The study did find elevated levels of methane in well water samples near active gas wells that was traceable to the fracked shale, but no fracking fluids were found. The likely candidate source of methane contamination is the drilling process, or more specifically the well completion process, and not the fracking process. (However, one possibility is that the high-pressured fracking process damages the well casing installed during well completion, allowing leaks.)

Shale gas development companies obviously face incentives to sort out these issues – methane that leaks into the adjacent soil and groundwater is methane released by the costly fracking process but not producing revenue  - though it isn’t clear from this study how much gas is being lost to leakage.

Property owners with claims to groundwater also have incentives to protect their claims. Property rights to water, and especially rights to a specific quality and quantity of groundwater, are typically quite murky, possibly making it hard to use liability claims as a mechanism to further incent gas developers to mitigate harms. However, to the extent the owner of the minerals also owns surface rights and groundwater rights, then the lease agreement with the gas development company may be the best place to “regulate” at least some of the environmental harms potentially arising with shale gas development.

h1

Things that caught my eye: subsidies, wine, LEDs, dismal economists

May 17, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

As a coda to Mike’s post yesterday regarding the CRS study of the effects of removing oil subsidies on gasoline prices, here’s Ron Bailey at Reason reminding us that ethanol subsidies are almost triple those to the oil companies, and with little to show either environmentally, economically, or energetically.

Courtesy of Dr. Vino, an Australian winery using a new German technology rather than a screw cap for its cellar-destined (at $500/bottle!) wines. Called Vino-Lok, the company touts its glass stopper/elastic ring technology’s wine-aging capabilities.

This week Philips is releasing a mass-market LED light bulb with a physical and lumens-delivering profile to mimic incandescents at a fraction of the energy use. But they’ll still be priced at $40-45, which is a bit steep for customers who are accustomed to cheap, short-lived bulbs, so their market success will require some education and adaptation of expectations. They will also have to overcome the hurdles of the failed expectations of compact fluorescent bulbs, which have not demonstrated the required longevity/price tradeoff to make them economical (in addition to their other shortcomings). I may buy one to test, but I don’t plan on fitting out my whole house in these LEDs any time soon, based on my CFL experience.

David Zetland reminds us of the provenance of the economist moniker “dismal scientist”, and claims that he likes to “take pride in calling attention to the unpleasant problems that impede human progress and happiness.” Me too, my friend, me too.

h1

The UK’s commitment to carbon reductions?

May 16, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I’ll be interested to see how the political, economic, and environmental consequences of this weekend’s new carbon approach in the UK unfolds; according to the Guardian (and the too-much BBC that I listen to):

Cabinet ministers have agreed a far-reaching, legally binding “green deal” that will commit the UK to two decades of drastic cuts in carbon emissions. The package will require sweeping changes to domestic life, transport and business and will place Britain at the forefront of the global battle against climate change.

The deal was hammered out after tense arguments between ministers who had disagreed over whether the ambitious plans to switch to more green energy were affordable. The row had pitted the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, who strongly backed the plans, against the chancellor, George Osborne, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, who were concerned about the cost and potential impact on the economy.

However, after the intervention of David Cameron, Huhne is now expected to tell parliament that agreement has been struck to back the plans in full up to 2027. He will tell MPs that the government will accept the recommendations of the independent Committee on Climate Change for a new carbon budget. The deal puts the UK ahead of any other state in terms of the legal commitments it is making in the battle to curb greenhouse gases.

Not surprisingly, reactions have been strong. Take the Telegraph’s outspoken James Delingpole, for example:

But if what it says is even half way true, then David Cameron has made the most unforgivably damaging decision of his entire political career. It will delay our economic recovery, lay waste the British countryside and cement Cameron’s reputation as a man driven not by principle (as, say, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill were) but by a grubby, son-of-Blair urge to keep clinging on to power at no matter what cost to the country at large.

While I agree that it’s unwise to base expensive policy changes on inconclusive science and on a false belief in our ability to control outcomes in complex systems, that statement does seem a bit hyperbolic.

I think this is happening in the context of some other political machinations, and it may not play out exactly as reported in the Guardian. But since in some ways the UK is a bellwether of carbon policy, this should be interesting to watch — are renewables sufficiently economically and technologically developed to meet demand at prices that customers are willing to pay? Will retailers and customers in the UK be willing to explore/interested in exploring the combination of transactive digital technology and dynamic pricing that may modulate that demand relative to forecasts based on old technologies? Will this lead to the perpetuation of government subsidies of the sort that are currently being debated in the US?

h1

Spring weekends in Chicago–athletics and music edition

May 16, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

One of the KP Spouse’s and my best friends has a great quote: “adventure is ordeal retold at a distance”. Today, on a gloriously sunny day, I think I’ve got enough distance from yesterday’s ordeal to think of it as an adventure! Actually, only the first part was an ordeal; the rest was delightful.

Sunday started at 5:15 AM when the alarm went off, and the KP Spouse, our friend Meg from LA, and I prepared for the Chicago Spring Half Marathon. When we opened the blinds and saw the damp pavement and the vigor of the treetops whipping around, we knew this one was going to be a doozy. The temperature was 46 degrees and due to fall during the day. The whitecaps and the layers of gray colors made Lake Michigan look like the Atlantic Ocean. Sadly for us, what creates whitecaps in Chicago is stiff winds out of the north barreling down the length of the lake — in this case, 20mph winds with frequent 40mph gusts. This was not good news for a race course run entirely on the lakefront path, out and back, with the first 6.5 miles heading south. The tailwind on the way out was pretty sweet, but I was still soaked through by mile 5, and the northbound return was the most brutal hour-plus of any of my sporty endeavors. Still, we (and a bunch of other crazy folks) finished, and I even managed a PR on the day. The real troopers on the day were the volunteers on the course and the spectators, voluntarily cheering their friends and family and the rest of us.

Recovery/transition involved homemade banana pancakes, a lovely bottle of prosecco, compression socks, and a Colin Firth-rich Pride and Prejudice marathon.

Then on to the next event! Elvis Costello, still the coolest guy in town even after 35 years of a rich musical career, brought his Impostors and a spinning wheel of songs to the Chicago Theater. With the help of some creative and enthusiastic wheel spinning and dancing from audience members, they charged through a variety of the Elvis Costello catalog. And we danced, and hopped, and sang. This is the third time I’ve seen these guys in the past three years, and they are a consistently creative and tight band of outstanding musicians. One example: the classic up-tempo Costello song “Pump It Up” played in 6/8 time instead of 4/4 — a sultry, jazzy version grounded in Pete’s (the drummer’s) outstanding triplets keeping the time. And some Smokey Robinson and Prince cover medleys for good measure.

Yep, life’s an adventure.

h1

Two views on gasoline prices

May 16, 2011

Michael Giberson

1. Economist Mike Moffat, in the Ottowa Citizen, writing in response to news that the Competition Bureau would again take a look at gasoline prices, reports “There is no gas price conspiracy.” He said, “There have been six Competition Bureau examinations of gasoline pricing in the last 20 years. All six found no evidence of collusion or anti-competitive behaviour in the Canadian petroleum market.”

Moffat explains that world crude oil prices drive most of the changes in retail gasoline prices and notes a few other factors that play a role (including an explanation of the “rockets and feathers” phenomena, a product of normal retailer and consumer behavior seen in gasoline and other product markets and which has nothing at all to do with financial fraud or oil and gas price fraud or market manipulation. So why this?).

2. The Congressional Research Service was asked by Sen. Harry Reid to assess how much proposed tax changes on the oil industry would affect domestic gasoline prices. The May 11 memo issued in response concluded the changes would have little immediate impact on gasoline prices:

The price of oil is determined on world markets and tends not to be sensitive to small cost variations experienced in regional production areas. In the recent market environment, with the price of oil averaging approximately $90 per barrel over the period December 2010 through February 2011, and the current price over $100 per barrel, prices are well in excess of costs and a small increase in taxes would be less likely to reduce oil output, and hence increase petroleum product (gasoline) prices.

Even in the longer term, little influence of gasoline prices is expected. Domestic production may be reduced a bit, but not to worry the report says, we can always import more.

Note that the effects on the oil market would be likely small at the present, given current relatively high oil prices and prices determined in a world oil market. But the tax changes would also affect natural gas producers and the natural gas market is a mostly domestic and regional affair (we import some gas from Canada, but little from elsewhere).

The report said, “Natural gas projects are more likely than oil projects to be affected by the tax changes because they are experiencing low market prices due to the volume of non-conventional gas production that has entered the market in the past several years.”

(HT to (1) Tim Haab at Environmental Economics and (2) Robert Rapier at R-squared Energy Blog, Rapier provides substantial additional analysis of the CRS report.)

h1

Saturday was World Fair Trade Day, help a coffee grower by ignoring “fair trade marketing” and buying quality coffee instead

May 16, 2011

Michael Giberson

The second Saturday in May has been anointed as “World Fair Trade Day.” If you’re interested in buying fair trade coffee, consider what Lawrence Solomon, owner of the Green Beanery in Toronto, has to say about the fair trade marketing system. (In brief: not a good way to help or even to express care for coffee growers.)

Want more? Try the report of the Institute for Economic Affairs: “New research finds Fair Trade movement is a distraction, not a solution.”

In my view, western consumers cultivating a taste for quality coffees will do more for coffee growers than buying into the fair trade system.

[HT to Mungowitz for the Solomon link, who remarks on the rent-seeking economics that inherently will trouble these kinds of programs, and he also notes Dalibor Rohac's column on the topic in the New York Post.]

h1

The Fracking Song: explainer with lyrics and links

May 13, 2011

Michael Giberson

NYU journalism students produced “My water’s on fire tonight (The Fracking Song)” as part of a collaboration with ProPublica, a non-profit investigative news program that has been examining natural gas drilling and the environment.

ProPublica says a bit about the music video here. Explainer.net, another part of the NYU journalism collaboration with ProPublica, explains more about the music video, including lyrics with links (reproduced below).

If you are looking for a pop culture treatment of fracking, “The Fracking Song” is more accurate (and has higher production values!) than the Oscar-nominated film Gasland. One could quibble with parts – it mentions the toxic chemicals in fracking fluids without relating how dangerous (or not) the chemicals typically are at usual levels of dilution; little mention of waste water treatment and disposal issues which are likely more of a problem than underground gas or fluid migration issues that get mentioned.  Still, it isn’t bad as a 2 1/2 minute introduction.

From Explainer.net:

“My Water’s On Fire Tonight (The Fracking Song)” is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.

Music by David Holmes and Andrew Bean
Vocals by David Holmes and Niel Bekker
Animation by Adam Sakellarides and Lisa Rucker

Lyrics:

Fracking is a form of natural gas drilling
An alternative to oil cause the oil kept spilling
Bringing jobs to small towns so everybody’s willing
People turn on their lights and the drillers make a killing

Water goes into the pipe, the pipe into the ground
The pressure creates fissures 7,000 feet down
The cracks release the gas that powers your town
That well is fracked….. Yeah totally fracked

But there’s more in the water than just H2O
Toxic chemicals help to make the fluid flow
With names like benzene and formaldehyde
You better keep ‘em far away from the water supply

The drillers say the fissures are a mile below
The groundwater pumped into American homes
But don’t tell it to the residents of Sublette Wy-O
That water’s fracked…. We’re talking Benzene…

What the frack is going on with all this fracking going on
I think we need some facts to come to light
I know we want our energy but nothing ever comes for free
I think my water’s on fire tonight

So it all goes back to 2005
Bush said gas drillers didn’t have to comply
with the Safe Drinking Water Act, before too long
It was “frack, baby, frack” until the break of dawn.

With the EPA out it was up to the states
But they didn’t have the money to investigate
Sick people couldn’t prove fracking was to blame
All the while water wells were going up in flames

Cause it’s hard to contain all the methane released
It can get into the air, it can get into the streams.
It’s a greenhouse gas, worse than CO2
Fracking done wrong could lead to climate change too

Now it’s not that drillers should never be fracking
But the current regulation is severely lacking
Reduce the toxins, contain the gas and wastewater
And the people won’t get sick and the planet won’t get hotter

What the frack is going on with all this fracking going on
I think we need some facts to come to light
I know we want our energy but nothing ever comes for free
I think my water’s on fire tonight

h1

Interesting links du jour

May 12, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

Here are some links that caught my eye recently:

At Cheap Talk, Sandeep Baliga recounts a tale of the emergence of legal institutions in an underground economy on the south side of Chicago. This post prompted me to think hard this morning about whether it’s a misnomer to do as he does and call this an example of “Leviathan”, because under Hobbes’ unjustifiably (IMO) contractarian model of social order the parties agree to a monopoly on coercion … but the violating party in this case “… is not from the neighborhood and does not acknowledge the pastor’s authority.” So there is a monopoly on coercion in this back alley in Chicago, and the violating party is from outside the community. It’s not often that an anecdote in a blog post makes me think so carefully through Hobbes!

Many KP readers probably value Mike’s excellent analyses of the use and abuse of the economic non-concept of “price gouging”. Yesterday in the Freeman Steve Horwitz wrote a column on price gouging inspired by recent tornado cleanup efforts. One of his eloquent points is that “Prices, as I’ve discussed before, play two intertwined roles: They are knowledge wrapped in an incentive.” Anti-price-gouging laws subvert both knowledge and incentives, and lead to inefficiency and distortions in the form of delayed reconstruction. But the real punch of the column is the asymmetry of the price gouging argument; why do politicians rail against oil and gasoline price increases driven by increases in demand and in relative scarcity, while they do not rail against carpenter, plumber, electrician etc. price increases in the wake of tornadoes (or any natural disaster)? There is no substantive difference between the two situations, but Steve contends that “prejudice against profits” leads to calls for legislation in the former case but not the latter. A must-read column.

My friend SarahS is a Renaissance literary scholar and poet who hangs out with a lot of economists … and it shows! Check out her top-10 lines for hitting on an economist. My favorite (channeling my inner Coase): “I have a feeling you really understand the “nature of the firm.”” That assumes, though, that one would want to hit on an economist …

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers