Posts Tagged ‘energy’

h1

Innovation in incandescents

July 7, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Want some evidence for why technology mandate legislation is fraught with difficulties? This New York Times article on innovation in incandescent light bulb technology is a datum:

When Congress passed a new energy law two years ago, obituaries were written for the incandescent light bulb. The law set tough efficiency standards, due to take effect in 2012, that no traditional incandescent bulb on the market could meet, and a century-old technology that helped create the modern world seemed to be doomed.

But as it turns out, the obituaries were premature.

The article goes on to describe the energy efficiency improvements in newly-designed incandescents, with the implication that the 2007 legislation mandating efficiency standards induced the innovation. Incandescent innovation is occurring in a very dynamic context, with simultaneous developments in compact fluorescents and LED lighting. As the NYT article notes,

Despite a decade of campaigns by the government and utilities to persuade people to switch to energy-saving compact fluorescents, incandescent bulbs still occupy an estimated 90 percent of household sockets in the United States. Aside from the aesthetic and practical objections to fluorescents, old-style incandescents have the advantage of being remarkably cheap.

But the cheapest such bulbs are likely to disappear from store shelves between 2012 and 2014, driven off the market by the government’s new standard. Compact fluorescents, which can cost as little as $1 apiece, may become the bargain option, with consumers having to spend two or three times as much to get the latest energy-efficient incandescents.

The reality is that we have this efficiency legislation, and by focusing on performance it’s better than an outright ban on incandescents, which would be incredibly distortionary, given the consumer welfare attached to the different light qualities and low price associated with incandescents (dimmable compacts anyone? Not so much.).

But I have to ask: isn’t this yet another situation in which we implement government regulation as a counterweight to the distortionary consequences of existing government regulation? If our individual electricity consumption were more transparent to us, and we had better and more timely information about the electricity consumption of the various appliances and systems in our buildings, AND if we had more accurately timely electricity pricing that wasn’t infused with state legislative social policy, would incandescent light bulbs have stayed this inefficient for this long? If we had those changes in the retail electricity industry, would we need Congressional energy efficiency legislation? How much energy efficiency improvement could we get through organic market processes, without the economic distortions and the restriction of individual autonomy that accompanies such government intervention?

h1

Blog: The Next 100

June 26, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

The Next 100 is an interesting blog from some folks at PG&E; check it out and see what you think. They cover a range of energy, technology, and environment topics that will resonate with readers of Knowledge Problem, Environmental Economics, and the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital. Although they do seem, at least in the current posts, to be staying assiduously away from policy analysis …

In particular, I am grateful for their post on the life cycle emissions profiles of different ways of transporting people. This study cited in their posts suggests “Rail buffs, gird your loins: travel by train can actually produce more greenhouse gas emissions than flying.” I’d like to see this analysis repeated for freight, to see if my thought that rail generates fewer emissions than trucks carrying equivalent tonnage an equivalent distance is correct.

h1

KP convergence in Chicago

June 2, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

For once, both erstwhile KP authors are in the same place! I’ve organized a research roundtable at the Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth at Northwestern University, and Mike’s in town to attend. The event’s called Energy, Technology, and Institutions, and you can read the working papers to be discussed if you are interested:

Combined Issues of Climate Policy and Energy Policy: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions while Meeting Increasing Global Energy Demand
Daniel H. Cole, Indiana University School of Law

The Political Economy of Energy and Its Implications for Climate Change Legislation
Jim Rossi, Florida State University School of Law

Beneficial Complexity: A Field Experiment in Technology, Institutions, and Institutional Change in the Electric Power Industry
Lynne Kiesling, Department of Economics, Northwestern University
David Chassin, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The Challenges of Valuing Carbon
Rick Mattoon, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Margrethe Kearney, Latham & Watkins LLP

h1

New energy blog: Master Resource

January 7, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Welcome Master Resource to the party! It’s a free-market energy blog with a decidedly Julian Simon-esque flavor, so I think these will be welcome online voices in our upcoming energy policy discussions. And thanks to Steve Horwitz for the pointer, and his kinds words about Knowledge Problem.

h1

“10 big energy myths”

December 24, 2008

Lynne Kiesling

Here’s an interesting list of “energy myths” from Chris Goodall at The Guardian. What I find useful about his discussion is not the “myth debunking” per se, but rather his comments on why he considers them myths. The “wind is unreliable” myth, for example:

Actually, during some periods earlier this year the wind provided almost 40% of Spanish power. Parts of northern Germany generate more electricity from wind than they actually need. Northern Scotland, blessed with some of the best wind speeds in Europe, could easily generate 10% or even 15% of the UK’s electricity needs at a cost that would comfortably match today’s fossil fuel prices.

The intermittency of wind power does mean that we would need to run our electricity grids in a very different way. To provide the most reliable electricity, Europe needs to build better connections between regions and countries; those generating a surplus of wind energy should be able to export it easily to places where the air is still. The UK must invest in transmission cables, probably offshore, that bring Scottish wind-generated electricity to the power-hungry south-east and then continue on to Holland and France. The electricity distribution system must be Europe-wide if we are to get the maximum security of supply.

We will also need to invest in energy storage. At the moment we do this by pumping water uphill at times of surplus and letting it flow back down the mountain when power is scarce. Other countries are talking of developing “smart grids” that provide users with incentives to consume less electricity when wind speeds are low. Wind power is financially viable today in many countries, and it will become cheaper as turbines continue to grow in size, and manufacturers drive down costs. Some projections see more than 30% of the world’s electricity eventually coming from the wind. Turbine manufacture and installation are also set to become major sources of employment, with one trade body predicting that the sector will generate 2m jobs worldwide by 2020.

This is a more thoughtful discussion of these issues than one usually sees in non-industry-specific media.

h1

Biofuels: where’s our bailout?

December 18, 2008

Lynne Kiesling

Via Ron Bailey at Reason: the biofuels industry asks where their bailout is. I had to chuckle when Ron pointed out that the Renewable Fuels Association says that they, unlike other lobbying organizations, are offering ideas instead of just asking for a handout. OK, I did more than chuckle …

Ron quotes a couple of critics of a biofuels bailout, including this choice one from Andrew Moylan from the National Taxpayers Union:

“Since corn ethanol boosters have never known a day when they weren’t benefiting from government largesse, it’s sadly predictable that their response to times of economic distress is to push for more handouts rather than consider reality-based business models. Ethanol lobbyists won’t call their latest loan and mandate schemes ‘bailouts,’ but after seeing so many other interests line up for federal cash recently, taxpayers know when they’re being shaken down. Americans should be outraged that yet another industry, especially one that is already dependent on the government, has the gall to ask them for even more of their hard-earned money.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers