Freakonomics' Latest Adds Little to the Energy Debate

Freakonomics was a highly popular book that appealed to both liberals and conservatives. Therefore, it carefully avoided polarizing topics, and instead uncovered the shocking truth about sumo wrestlers and other issues that are worthy of a standard 20/20 television show. Fun stuff, not what I would call economics (see the more esteemed economist Ariel Rubinstein for support).

So, this time the authors figured they would slay some fallacies in the Global Warming debate. They bend over backward to apply good faith to Global Warming proponents, and agree with many of it's propositions(it is not a singular hypothesis), yet try to have fun with some issues that appear ripe for debunking (eg, noting that horses generate more pollution than oil as an energy source).

Unfortunately, the Global Warming Community does not approve of their shenanigans. They have too start action, now, and these issues hurt the cause. Levitt seems to like being against conventional wisdom only on areas where there are very few opinions, so he and his coauthor weaken their case by protesting too much, trying to have it both ways (I love the Weitzman argument that since a catastrophe could happen, we should spend trillions of dollars on it--it can be applied to anything, and indeed, he has used it to explain the equity premium puzzle).

Unfortunately, alternative energy sources that are currently most viable, like cleaner coal, or nuclear, are not popular with the Global Warming crowd. Even windmills, and solar, are coming into opposition for their noise or eye pollution. The only thing they really like are pie-in-the-sky battery research, and conservation.

I think this highlights that most of this debate is not about Global Warming, but more power to regulate, because it adds another busybody to approve all sorts of things (like when I have to get permission from my city when I replace my old back patio with a new one).

The Global Warming debate is like many Big Issues. They are multifaceted, so debunking a point hardly makes a difference because most people's opinion has several several pillars. Given it will take my lifetime to provide any conclusive data one way or another, I don't expect this one to subside.

Comments

[pftittl:]

Excellent column. Global warming is complicated by issues far out of control of the species, such as solar weather. And the spurning of clean coal and nuclear, very promising sources that don't contribute to climate change, is very telling.

Oct 22 09:06 AM

[manya05:]

The reason why the global warming debate will never go away is because any theory and/or model proposed is not "testable" in a true scientific way (the system is too complex and not closed, and any experiment would extend beyond the attention span and memory of society). So, the debate will not go away, and whatever needs to happen will happen. Another good example of why having a big brain is not such an advantage when it comes to staying perched on the evolutionary ladder.

Oct 22 09:25 AM

[Aurelien:]

Regardless of whether or not Global Warming would happen if we keep spewing greater quantities of carbon into the air, what I don't understand is why people don't want to switch to Solar and Wind simply for the fact that they are renewable; we aren't going to run out of them.
If oil companies had invested even 10% of their CapEx into Solar, Wind and Battery technologies these last 15 yrs, I bet that by now the cost of energy would be lower and the world cleaner.

I don't understand why we would continue to use coal when we can concentrate on newer technologies. Coal was used centuries ago, lets move on. And nuclear sounds great in practice and has worked very well in my native France, but why use an energy source that could kill millions of people in the off chance of an accident when we have alternatives.

Oct 22 10:30 AM

[jerrydd:]

Whether GW is real or not is a red herring as far as cuuting way back on fossil fuels is concerned.

Their damage to national, economic security is huge. As oil has peaked in production as any unbiased person could see last yr when despite $140+/bbl oil, they could not keep up with demand.

Oil and coals socialized and direct subsidies are huge. Oil costs from pollution not including CO2, Persian Gulf military, the oil wars and trade deficit costs are over $500B/yr. If not for oil none of these costs would be there.

Then there is coal which cost $63B, 100k lives/yr according to various sources in various damages, not including CO2

And the cost of these are going up with a bullet, oil already in the $80/bbl braket in the middle of the worst recession in 70 yrs.

Now compare them to RE which is dropping in price about as fast and it's clear we must cut fossil fuel use greatly soon or be broke.

RE is a stable price energy source, most no more costly than them. Wind is under $1,5kkw, solar CSP is under $3k/kw with a huge heat bonus which happens when power is needed most and can be fired by wood pellets or any fuel for 24-7 availability, river/tidal power is under $2k/kw ands baseline power vs coal at $4k/kw plus fuel, Nuke at $8.5k/kw in recent US plant bids plus fuel. So it's clear RE is the low cost energy source of the future.

EV's using composite bodies, light, aero and old forklift EV drive tech can be built for under $12k for a 2 seat crash worthy 80mph, 100 mile range EV using lead batteries. These can do 80% of US trips according to the EPA, etc.

Personally I've built, used wind, tidal power and EV's at far lower cost than this so I know it can be done, we just need to do it.

RE is just simple machines. A Windgen is just a 2kw generator, 2 7' blades, a tail, tower which including an inverter can be mass produced for under $4k and available now and last 50 yrs. Google Axial Flux wind generators.

Solar CSP is just a 5hp steam/heat engine, a 200sq' collector and a 3kw alternator which can supply a home 9-20kwhrs/day for electric anf 20-60kwhrs/day for heat. Mass produced no reason this can't be done for under $5k for 50 yrs of energy.

The same engine can be used with biomass/wood pellets to produce both electric and heat eff at lower costs.

PV is now under $1/wt for solar farm panels which mean $2/wt ones for homes is soon coming makes even them cost effective.

It's only the massive subsidies of oil, coal that have kept these from the market. Let's put the true cost of fossil fuels in them so solutions can be done, making us competitive again with stable energy prices.

Waste biomass from yard, crop, forests can be made into vehicle fuels along with NG for semi's and peak power are the low cost, carbon solutions.

Or it's more war, pollution, health, land, air, water pollution and we'll go broke if we stay on oil, coal. Your choice.

Oct 22 10:49 AM

[vpratt51:]

To quote the final (almost the ONLY) words in the film "Koyaanisqatsi" (Hopi, for life out of balance), "To continue as we have is stark, raving, madness."

Let's do the things we can do, as soon as we can do them. If we move quickly enough, maybe we will never have to resort to more desperate measures like, ummm, sticking methane scrubbing devices up cows' butts. BTW, that's not fossil carbon anyway. So strictly speaking, I, and all my human and bovine friends, should be allowed to fart at will, in perpetuity.

Oct 22 01:00 PM

[Fred W:]

Author: "Even windmills, and solar, are coming into opposition for their noise or eye pollution. "
Eye and noise pollution? Are you serious? You forgot to mention bird kills?! --Another BS issue)
NIMBY is the real issue, NOT "pollution"...people in generally are resistant to change

Oct 22 03:22 PM

[cam addis:]

Even if horses pollute more than oil, they could get you to work faster than a car in many American cities.

Oct 22 04:54 PM

[ariesl:]

Great comment by most of you.

Most of you have made some excellent points. However,I'm surprised no one talked about CONSERVING ENERGY. By not not wasting so much of it in BUILDINGS. ALL of the energy produced by nuclear power plants (about 20%) and 1/4 of the coal fired plants wouldn't be needed IF SO MUCH WEREN'T WASTED. For example, homes, businesses, factories, schools, etc should be much better insulated and sealed, should have low-e glass and double or triple pane glass in windows. A national energy efficiency building code was proposed in the Carter years. Why was it never passed? (See final paragraph.)

Additionally, we should ban or tax incandescent light bulb sales and replace them with LEDs or at least CFLs. Also wasteful is using tank waterheaters instead of small on demand, point of use waterheaters. All buildings should have SOLAR water heaters or at least pre-heaters. They are cheap compared to photovoltaics (but I am a big supporter of PV.) No pools or spas should be heated any other way than solar (OK, also geothermal if available).

The biggest waste of electricity is the resistance generated heat in long power lines between the power plants and the end users. About 50% of what is generated is lost (according to National Geographic Mag). So locally generated energy is always more efficient, especially SOLAR, or in some localities, Wind.

In addition to TIDAL or RIVER currents as a source of non-polluting power. Florida Atlantic Univ. scientists estimate the Gulf Stream, right off shore of FL, GA, and SC, could supply most of the electric power needs of those states. Importantly, TIDAL power can be generated very close to the end users in the big coastal cities.

Finally, I believe the biggest reason the building insulation as well as solar and wind tax credits started in '70s were eleminated by the Repubican administrations that followed, is that once a citizen has an energy efficient home powered by solar or wind, he has been freed from big power and energy companies. Large scale adoption of alternative and locally generated energy would seriously cut profits for big companies (and save individual citizens lots of dollars). Of course, citizens don't make big campaign contibutions and big companies do. Politicians want to get re-elected. Now you see why very little has been done to solve the energy problems we all face.

Oct 22 07:09 PM

[User 459164:]

Eric

"its" is spelled without an apostrophe when you are using it as a possessive. Just remember, it's not "hi's, her's or it's"

Oct 23 04:08 AM