Increasing Funding for Micropower (Alternative Energy)

Pro has selected a timely topic. In this debate we will try to sort out sense from nonsense as it relates to government subsidy of energy alternatives. Micropower has virtues in certain applications. The issue is whether government ought to pour in subsidies or let the technology advance according to its usefulness and economic viability. The main thing the government can do to support the technology is to get rid of the state and local laws that forbid it by zoning and siting controls. Government should not subsidize it, because the claims for non-economic benefits are false, and government should not attempt to pick winners in economic viability. The market sorts out what is economic far better than any bureaucrat. Note that Pro did not cite a single reference supporting his assertions about the technology or our need for it. As a starting point, the Industrial Technologies Program web site is http://www1.eere.energy.gov..., but none of their claims are supported either. Pro says the status quo is unacceptable. The status quo is s successfully providing electric power to consumers. That's acceptable. If we were not getting electricity, it would be unacceptable. As with virtually anything that exists, improvements are possible. The questions have to do with the expense of improvements versus the benefits. Subsidizing micropower makes no sense in that context. Insofar as it makes economic sense, it is getting plenty of private funding. 1.a We operate on a grid system. The virtue of the grid system is that power plants can go off line, usually for maintenance, while power is continues to flow to users. 1.b.i A terrorist might take out a major transmission line, but if the grid is properly designed it will only affect a limited number of customers. The reason large areas are taken out is antiquated design so that fails to isolate transmission failures, so that power is shut down in a domino effect, rather than routed around the failure. The reason the grid is antiquated is that the regulatory structure of utilities makes it difficult to profit from upgrades on either transmission lines or improvements in control systems. Texas, for example, operates a grid that is not connected to rest of the country. They can thereby manage improvements in grid technology without the Feds stopping them. Their electricity is cheaper and more reliable than the national average. http://www.slate.com... 1.b.ii Pro cites concerns over global warming. Global warming crisis theory is now proved to be false, because measured climate data is falling below the 95% probability bounds for the models that predict climate crisis. There is warming, but it presents to substantial problem. In any case, micropower is almost entirely implemented with gas turbines, so there is no appreciable effect on CO2 emission other than the efficiency of new power plants over old. 1.b.iii Economic competitiveness requires that we not waste money on non-competitive technologies. Insofar as micropower is economically competitive or even promises to be competitive, it doesn't need government subsidy. Saying that large industries are effective is irrelevant; it's like saying we ought to subsidize the construction of stone pyramids, because the construction industry is huge and vital. 1.b.iv Micropower is readily available on the market. If the U.S. wants to buy some and give them to developing countries, our government can do that now. North Korea wants nuclear for bombs, not power generation. 1.b.v Micropower is used exclusively to generate electricity, which in the US comes from, coal, nuclear, and natural gas. There is no dependence whatsoever on foreign oil to generate electricity. We do import a little natural gas, but horizontal drilling has opened up vast new reserves of domestic natural gas, so imports will be phased out anyway. 1.c Pro provided no reference or argument to support his assertion that subsidies of fossil fuels prevents micropower from being competitive. I don't believe the claim. Since micropower is almost entirely based upon fossil fuels, natural gas in particular, the claim makes no sense. The fossil fuel industry pays way more in taxes than it receives in subsidies, so there is no net loss to the taxpayer to be remedied. 2.a As alternatives to fossil fuels, solar power requires conventional backup at night and, in many places, in winter. The backup comes from the grid. If the grid is abolished then every user will need both a conventional power generator and wind or solar, with the conventional generator idle half the time. About two-thirds of the cost of conventional power is the capital cost of the generator of the generator, not the fuel to run it. The net effect is that costs to user will at the very least double. Pro cites geothermal and hydroelectric power. Very few individuals can implement their own dam or geothermal wells. Those are inherently centralized. Consequently, if the grid is abolished hydro and thermal will be replaced with fossil fuel generators. 2.b. Pro claims subsidies to fossil fuels of $120 billion, but even biased Greenpeace "thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers." In 2006, the oil companies paid $138 billion in Federal corporate tax alone. http://mjperry.blogspot.com... They pay three times their profits in taxes. Of course, coal and natural gas industries pay taxes as well, and all pay sate and local taxes in addition. Consequently, any subsidies are more than paid for. If micropower starts paying huge taxes, they might merit some subsidy, but that hasn't happened. Micropower is getting plenty of private money, so it doesn't need government subsidy. "...serious money has come to the micropower table. Nth Power, a venture capital firm devoted to innovative energy technologies, estimates that venture capital funding for micropower and related businesses climbed from less than $30 million in 1995 to over $1 billion in 2000. Major corporations including GE, Siemens Westinghouse and the European giant, ABB, have launched efforts to develop their micropower potential..." http://www.minneapolisfed.org... Micropower makes the most economic sense when there is a cheap source of natural gas locally. Also, semiconductor manufacturing cannot tolerate brownout or interruptions of power, so micropower makes economic sense for them. 2.c See 1.c, above. 2.d. The DOE claims that it's ITR program works. All government programs are claimed to work, no matter how much they waste. Eve so, ITR does not equate to micropower. Their projects are a hodge podge of small energy conservation projects. http://www1.eere.energy.gov... I can find no evidence of any innovation related to micropower that was sponsored by DOE. DOE is competing with venture capitalists, and VCs are going to find and push he good stuff, not DOE. 2.e. Pro claims that the subsidies could be paid by ending fossil fuel subsidies. He has provided no evidence as to what those subsidies are. Since micropower has nothing to do with oil imports, ending subsidies of domestic oil would simply increase prices and make domestic oil less competitive with foreign oil. t would result in increasing imports, something Pro agreed we do not want. Besides, any money raised could also be used to subsidize health care or reduce the federal deficit. That makes more sense than trying to compete with VCs by picking winners in micropower development. With selective subsidies by project, ITR is far more likely to screw up micropower than to help it. Pro's affirming claims are unsupported by evidence. It will have no effect on oil dependence or CO2. The resolution is negated.