Does your disdain apply only to the energy sector? How about the defense sector? The government has heavily subsidized an almost endless list of defense-related projects, often picking “winners”, sometimes very narrowly, and nurturing untold “infant industries”. Was that inappropriate? Most of the medical and pharmacological advances in the last half century or so have come about via government funding of research and development. Was that inappropriate?

When you refer to those who disagree with you as “children”, or “members of the play-pen crowd”, how is that not “ad-hominem”?

I have no problem with the advance of alternatives to what we have now, if they are better. But I detest the crappy baggage that comes with it.

Better in what sense? Do you mean cleaner? More reliable? Cheaper? And what is the baggage of which you speak? And doesn't every alternative come with “baggage”?

I find your tone on these boards to be quite condescending. If you disagree, fine, but there's really no need to be insulting.

On top of that, you are clearly wrong about taxes and deadweight losses. Please follow the link to see your mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

???

I'm not opposed to this, and have not been opposed to wind farms — the first, best-known place they sprouted here in the States was in California where I grew up! The concept and application are imperfect (intermittence, transmission to where the people are is costly) but I have no problem where it works. Many find the wind turbines and towers (as with elevated railways, such as BART in the Bay Area in the East Bay, the “Viaduct”) unsightly; Chris WWW likes them, as well as wind power, and is the ideal person to be set loose within Save Our Sound. It would be entertaining…

Mirror talk, Rico. You, not I, have been wrong.

We shouldn't be in the process of trying to choose “winners” among alternatives and nurture “infant industries” and all the rest. As for what else I've said about the reality, that anything that succeeds will foster the Big Business and Industry that the Left so has hated (along with “inappropriate” technology, etc.) since the 1960s, it stands unblemished. They'll learn, eventually, but they ought to learn earlier and spare the rest of us the irritations.

I have no problem with the advance of alternatives to what we have now, if they are better. But I detest the crappy baggage that comes with it.

I have to say, I'm getting really tired of your ad-hominem arguments. I think it's time for you to put up or shut up.

What will the children do when a) new “green” miracles don't materialize immediately; b) years from now, to the extent new things to prove to make sense, big business and industry develop?

(a) I dunno… change diapers? Alternatively, what happens if new “green” miracles do materialize immediately (whatever “immediately” means) — or old “black” alternatives go up “immediately” go up in price? Remember, “immediately” in this context typically has a two-generation or more time line; (b) if things “make sense”, why would they be contentious? Are you arguing that “big business” is somehow in itself offensive? How childish is that notion?

And of course, there's the politically-and-mentally dirty NIMBY factor to consider as well, such as here:

In a sense, this I can agree with. Like I said, there's plenty for everyone to hate. But I would argue that the Cape Wind project is not the best place for someone of your POV to plant stakes, Chris WWW not withstanding.

What will the children do when a) new “green” miracles don't materialize immediately; b) years from now, to the extent new things to prove to make sense, big business and industry develop?

And of course, there's the politically-and-mentally dirty NIMBY factor to consider as well, such as here:

[Chris WWW needs to infiltrate these people and expose them for who and what they are.]

http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer

Anyway, in terms of ways to stimulate the penetration of renewable energy technologies I tend to prefer feed-in tariffs (FITs) over portfolio standards, investment credits, carbon taxes, or C&T, at least on the basis of what I've read (and I'm not an economist). Not all of the others are equally bad, mind you. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. For those not familiar with FITs, here's a short explanation (I used to have a better one, but apparently the link is dead — sorry about that).

In principle, a FIT is a very simple concept: it guarantees a supplier, for an extended period of time, the price paid for every unit of energy they supply to the grid. However, because FITs are designed to appreciate not only the current cost of production, but also to anticipate the progression of reductions in production costs over time, they can be tricky to implement, which is arguably their biggest drawback.

But this is what I like about them:

1. They're flexible. You can apply FITs to large, utility-scale suppliers all the way down to back-yard or roof-top suppliers. Most of the other alternatives are targeted primarily at large suppliers.

2. They're more of a carrot than a stick. The other alternatives (except for investment credits) are more punitive. They are designed to punish “dirty” suppliers and their customers alike, rather than rewarding “clean” suppliers. FITs reward “clean” suppliers without punishing “dirty” ones. The customers still pay, though. But that brings us to…

3. Their effect is gradual. Unlike most of the other alternatives (again, excepting investment credits), no one has to pay for anything that doesn't exist in anticipation that it eventually will. So to the extent that the penetration of the technology in question is gradual, so will be the impact on the customer. But surprisingly, this fact is often used as the primary criticism of FITs — if the cost of the technology drops too fast, they can sometimes be victims of their own success. Personally, I don't regard this as a big problem because the effect can be mitigated by periodically adjusting the guaranteed price over time, but others seem to have a problem with it. Besides, the same criticism can be applied to any other alternative.

4. They require very little in terms of regulatory oversight. The only oversight cost involved is the cost of the committee of experts required to assess the state of the technology, recommend the guaranteed price, and periodically review progress. After that it's every supplier for themselves. That makes FITs very hard to game. Things like C&Ts require constant supervision by multiple large groups — and consequently, easy to game.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the debate.

Another interesting thing is Obama's statements as far as this issue goes. The right was in a tizzy the other day about Obama saying he would “bankrupt” the coal industry. What he was actually talking about was instituting a C&T system that will incentivize renewables by attaching a cost to carbon. He also talked about how he feels that markets are better at picking winners and losers than government. Very similar in outlook to The Economist.