Another Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Chimes In On Energy

This is a bit of a jaw-dropper - Andrew Revkin of the Times solicited ideas on energy from top scientists.  Today he prominently features a chap who might have been torn from the pages of Reason or The National review:

Last week, I sent a query to a variety of smart people who’ve spent a long time assessing the tangled interface of energy technology, climate science, politics and economics to collect their “pitches” — made as if they had 30 seconds or so to present their prime points to the president at a fantasy White House energy summit. (It sure would be nice to see the White House host a real one, with varied informed voices.) One who has weighed in is Burton Richter.

A recipient of the  1976 Nobel Prize in physics, Richter was a signatory on a letter from 34 Nobel laureates to Obama last year pushing for a big and sustained rise in the  federal investment in energy research. (He told me he is unaware of any response from the White House.) He also has written “ Beyond Smoke and Mirrors,” a cogent road map for facing the daunting long-term challenge of cutting emissions of greenhouse gases even as humanity’s growth spurt crests in the next few decades.

This is an excerpt of the reply from Dr. Richter:

I would start by saying slow down.

We do not have to run everything on solar cells and windmills tomorrow to make fast progress in reducing energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. The  Waxman-Markey energy bill in the House is a huge brick of paper and seeks to do everything at once. The  Kerry-Lieberman bill in the Senate is nearly as complicated.

I would start with those parts of the economy where the way to make progress is clear, the potential gains are large, and the required regulations are relatively simple. To me this says: Start by focusing on cars, electricity generation and efficiency. The industrial sector is complicated and we should stay away from most of it until we know better what we are doing. Also, tell the private sector what you want done, not how they must do it. There is a huge amount of brain power in our society directed toward making money and tilting the playing field so that more money could be made by doing the right things will unleash it.

No one knows what technology will be like in 50 years so we should start with things that will have the biggest impact at the lowest cost based on what we know now.

Huh?  What kind of a world are we living in that I can open my Times (online) and read something other than enviro-lib cheerleading for enhanced statism?  ("What do we want?"  "Big government!"  "When do we want it?"  "Right now!")

Just a bit more from the doctor:

Here is an example. In California legislation has set a goal of “ a million solar roofs” by 2020. At 3 kilowatts of solar cell capacity on each roof that will cost $15 to $20 billion at today’s prices including all the subsidies that the taxpayer has to pay even if the home owner does not. For a small fraction of the cost I could eliminate more greenhouse gas by converting the large  Four Corners, coal-fired electric power plant in New Mexico to natural gas. Yet there are no incentives to do so comparable to the tax credits for solar (and wind).

Reading this, libs are leaping off of rooftops all over California.

And I presume that Energy Secretary and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu has a different view.

Comments

[Ignatz]

Sounds to me like Richter is for slightly decentralized central planning as opposed to the actual Five Year Plans and Great Leaps Forward of Barry and the tree huggers.
Hows about letting the market figure out which way to go?

[Pofarmer]

He also has written “ Beyond Smoke and Mirrors,” a cogent road map for facing the daunting long-term challenge of cutting emissions of greenhouse gases even as humanity’s growth spurt crests in the next few decades.

When you start out with a false premise, the probability of reaching the correct conclusion is small.

I'm with Ignatz.

[Pofarmer]

Reading this, libs are leaping off of rooftops all over California.

Well, there's at least something positive.

Solar energy, 50 year payoff, 20 year lifespan.

[bgates]

a chap who might have been torn from the pages of Reason or The National Review, though I suspect he'd have a tighter grip on the lighter in his other hand.

I think moderates like TM, Richter, and Van Jones should be free to spend every penny of their own money keeping essential plant nutrients out of the atmosphere.

[Rob Crawford]

Hows about letting the market figure out which way to go?

That's just crazy talk. I mean, you can't slip sweetheart contracts to your campaign donors that way!

[Tom Bowler]

Dr. Richter prescribes:

I would start with those parts of the economy where the way to make progress is clear, the potential gains are large, and the required regulations are relatively simple.

It's fast becoming obvious that Obama won't make anything happen that doesn't involve funneling large amounts of government cash into liberal constituencies, like environmentalist groups and labor unions. Whatever it we do, it won't be simple and it won't be cheap.

[peter]

("What do we want?" "Big government!" "When do we want it?" "Right now!")
I love TM's sense of humor.

[matt]

maybe stop the Chinese from sending all their dirty air across the Pacific. Until they and India get their carbon emissions under control, it is almost pointless to discuss the issue.

[jimmyk]

"I would start by saying slow down."

Hey, only 6 more months of a big Democrat majority in both houses. There's no time to actually, you know, think seriously about costs and benefits and all that other complicated stuff.

[lynndh]

Of course converting the coal fired plant in the Four Corners to gas would mean:

1. Either drilling for the Natural Gas or importing it. Drilling bans do exist. Importing means pipelines. All would "create" environmental issues.
2. Coal is much cheaper than NG. Costs for electricity would go up.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Hows about letting the market figure out which way to go?

What do you think he meant by:

...tell the private sector what you want done, not how they must do it.

[jimmyk]

Patrick, that sounds more like fascism than the free market. In the free market the government doesn't tell the private sector what to do. It lets the private sector figure it out based on prices, costs, technology, that sort of thing.

[Stephanie]

"A body of toads, hopping up and down and over one another to please the imperious countenance of an all-powerful president."

Someone had this congress pegged right a long time ago.

LUN

[Threadkiller]

Tom">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-kSgNasm1I&feature=channel">Tom McClintock explained energy best.

I posted this link before and it had 750 views. It now has 790.

This is the type of video that needs to be seen by more people.

[Janet]

Threadkiller, That's a great video, thanks. I put it up on Facebook, but most of my FB friends are JOMers. Preachin to the choir!

[Porchlight]

Be careful reading this if you have high blood pressure:

CNN: Stealth ban on Gulf drilling

Yes, "stealth ban" is used in the actual headline. I was surprised too.

[lyle]

You know what we need today?

That's right, some more poignant (penetrating?) insights from a certain A. Sullivan.

[matt]

Porch;

I used the article for my latest. Thanks.... Once you start connecting the dots it gets pretty scary. LUN.

[Pofarmer]

I'll read the cnn link later. But, surely, they don't need an outright ban, all they have to do is deny permits.

[Porchlight]

You're welcome, matt. I'm surprised it didn't get more attention today, but there's a lot going on.

Nice job on your LUN. Only suggestion I would offer, if you have time, is adding some hot links to news stories that you reference. My lib friends always demand hot links when I send them stuff. "Prove it!" "They didn't refuse oil skimmers!" "He didn't say he would bankrupt the coal industry!" Etc.

Po, that's basically what they're doing - denying permits. Not a single one granted since April 20, but no specific policy statement (other than the failed moratorium) stating why.

[Pofarmer]

Not a single one granted since April 20, but no specific policy statement (other than the failed moratorium) stating why.

Would you want to be the one to sue them for a permit?

Easier to go elsewhere.

[Jack is Back!]

Interesting that he should refer to Four Corners. Four Corners is a "mine-mouth" coal fired power plant - over 2K megs - burning sub-bituminous coal. Even though it is sited in New Mexico - Arizona Public Service owns Units 1, 2 and 3. A coalition of the willing, like Public Service of New Mexico, SoCal Edison and Salt River Project own Unit No. 4. I believe 1/3 of its power (and emissions) go to the SoCal area. Aren't those the subject of the Arizona boycott?

Seriously, it would take a monumental, time wasting and cost wasting exercise to convert this plant to NG. But you could build a huge combine cycle campus for 2K megs and then tear down the coal units but all that will do is give the dispatchers nervous stomachs and shaky hands. It is much easier to base-load big coal fired or nuclear thermal units than CCGT units running those gas turbines over the top of the peak hours.

And if you do what the good doctor orders, I am going to consider you a "racists" since the units are located on Navajo lands.

[We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn't know.]

This guy has a lot of good ideas, but he still suffers from carbon obsession, and concern about the greenhouse effect.

BUT:
==

[Livingston and Penn, google them.]

Lubos Motl has a useful take on Burton Richter in the L!ink U!nder N!ame.
============

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

Thanks for the link to Lubos. He did an excellent succinct demolition of Richter's premise which ties in nicely with JiB's explanation of why credentialed morons should not be allowed to play near heavy machinery.

I second bgates suggestion that anyone proceeding from the assumption that the CO2 Monster actually exists should be encouraged to spend every dime in their possession making war against it. I don't have a problem with the pursuit of idiocy and ignorance as long as it's their dime and not a cent of my money.

[Go find me a left handed subpoena and don't come back 'til you find it.]

Not particularly germane, but funny anyway: Perhaps the finest criminal defense attorney around these parts worked construction during the summer as a college student. His co-workers had to protect him because he was so dangerous.
================