Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
As an "ideological wanker" with no ideology to defend, I'd just like to say you don't understand the concept here.

The object is to give the landowners something more tangible than the paltry royalties given by the US developers.  Which this does, without losing any economy of scale, because construction, service and mainenance are performed by the same local crews who do the big projects.  when it's isolated by geographical area, there is no loss of efficiency.

"This local/distributed mantra. That's something that really bugs me. As if it had any great virtue."

Since we're talking about the production of electricity, one would think that even the non-parochial would be able to understand the globally accepted electrical engineering principle that diversified sources of generation spread throughout the grid are a vast benefit, proven over and over not only in northern Europe but in China and India, and even the spread out US midwest.

Economies of scale, including French state support, may well be perfect for high level operation of significant nuclear power (it certainly works better than in the US), but it is simply not replicable for windpower in the US.

And by the way, no one here is saying that locally owned windpower is the only way to go, far from it, but it is an absolute part of the mix.

Another reason that locally owned windpower has taken a small hold in the US is to right the wrongs perpetrated on the resource owners, the farmers and ranchers, who were taken to the cleaners by the majority of wind developers.  They were paid piddling royalties, and given false production stats, so that's where the impetus for local ownership comes from.  Right, Anglo Disease Windpower planted the seeds for other financing methods.

IN a just world, your public monopolies are benevolent.  In the US, they almost never were.  In actual fact, the federally granted utility monopolies were predatory to the nth degree.  In fact, the then largest US utility began by taking over small hydro projects in the Sierra Nevada at gunpoint.

I too believe energy is too important to be left to the free market, but what works in France for nuclear would not work in the US.  I would love to head the EDF windpower group in the US, and in fact i talk to them as they are one of the biggest forces in the US industry.

But the pablum here against local ownership, especially considering the absolutely small portion of the industry it represents, is way offbase.

"""That notion of localism only works in theory. It doesn't survive 5 minutes in the real world. It completely ignores the basic lesson of the industrial age - standardization, economy of scale, universality, general ownership. Those are the only principles that work and deliver the goods as soon there is a natural monopoly or oligopoly as there always is for any large scale infrastructure."""

Since it's already working in the upper Great Plains, and since the landowners like it, and since they don't get ripped off, and since it's great for the grid, and since the same economies of scale are provided by centralized financing, construction, O&M... what exactly are your problems?

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin

by Crazy Horse on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since it's already working in the upper Great Plains, and since the landowners like it, and since they don't get ripped off, and since it's great for the grid, and since the same economies of scale are provided by centralized financing, construction, O&M... what exactly are your problems?

It's not going to work for long. Wall Street will take care of it.

That's what you don't get. If you accept this kind of small scale, privately financed developments, you accept Wall Street. If it's private, Wall Street will clean its clock as soon the opportunity comes. At the slightest difficulty, they will come with their bridge loans, their convertible bonds and their PIPEs.

The point of a public monopoly is to tell the market and the finance guys to fuck off once for all, to tell them "not for you", not for short termer greedy assholes. Too important to let them fuck with it.

And every time the libertarian/autonomist wing on the left goes on those "small is beautiful" "local, yeah!" crusades, they end up validating free-market ideology, throwing good government in a vicious circle of decay and incompetence and giving sweet, juicy little targets for Wall Street to make a quick buck at everybody's expense.

There are certain things where the optimal solution is big gov and public ownership. It'd be nice if this battle was only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that.

In the meantime, US health care sucks, US energy sucks, US railways suck, US basic education sucks (arhh, local school boards! Please, someone abolish them ...), US telecoms suck, US cable sucks, US highways are full of potholes and US bridges are falling in the river. The US is turning in a 3rd world country and it's going to go that way as long it doesn't understand that capitalism and private ownership are perfect for manufacturing shoes but are a fucking disaster when it comes to running a country.

In a just world, your public monopolies are benevolent.  In the US, they almost never were.  In actual fact, the federally granted utility monopolies were predatory to the nth degree.  In fact, the then largest US utility began by taking over small hydro projects in the Sierra Nevada at gunpoint.

AFAIK, save for TVA, those were not public monopolies but state-sponsored private monopolies. A public monopoly has only one shareholder, the government, and in practice, none if it is setup as an independent agency.

by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 07:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that

Can I steal that line?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 07:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mig, steal everything you want.

I see you've just promoted PES's nuclear diary. You really want a food fight, do you :>

by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 07:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stolen.

It'd be nice if the battle were only against the right wingers, not half of the left on top of that — François in Paris
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 8th, 2008 at 07:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Francois in Paris:

It's not going to work for long. Wall Street will take care of it.

That's what you don't get. If you accept this kind of small scale, privately financed developments, you accept Wall Street. If it's private, Wall Street will clean its clock as soon the opportunity comes. At the slightest difficulty, they will come with their bridge loans, their convertible bonds and their PIPEs.

Hmmm...

I think what you maybe miss is that Wall Street is fucked.

Period. Peak Credit.

The only clock they'll be cleaning is the one in their kitchen.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 07:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't worry. They'll come back. They always do.

If you'd run a "where are they now" on all the Enron geniuses, there's a handful in jail but I don't think there are many burger flippers in the remaining cast.

How do you spell "hedge funds"?

E . N . R . O . N

Cheers !

by Francois in Paris on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course the bright people in need of an ethics transplant go where the money is, and that's hedge funds.

But hedge funds don't CREATE money like Banks do, they just punt it around, and the Bank prime brokerages cream them as they do.

That doesn't mean we haven't reached Peak Credit (and therefore Wall Street is fucked) - in fact it supports the thesis.

And anyway - how many Hedge Funds are on Wall Street ?!!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Mar 4th, 2008 at 06:21:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But hedge funds don't CREATE money like Banks do, they just punt it around, and the Bank prime brokerages cream them as they do.

Don't worry, everybody takes its cut. And if they don't, they walk away and start over. And when they loose, to quote the immortal words of George Parr, it's not them who will suffer, it's your pension fund.


by Francois in Paris on Tue Mar 4th, 2008 at 06:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
private ownership are perfect for manufacturing shoes but are a fucking disaster when it comes to running a country.

that is so true...

'economic growth' is great for getting peasants running water, schools, hospitals, good transport links, internet access, solar panels etc. at the 'bottom end' of the food chain.

the same system taken to its absurd level, we see bitter fruit now in the ponzi scheme enronisation of huge wodges of public trust finance, which should be in the hands of low-risk, honourable, sober treasurers, not rabid yuppie gamblers' anonymous predators who, when weighing human against economic costs, always come down in favour of the latter, chewing up finite planetary resources, homogenising and de-skilling ancient cultures and spitting out misery for the many, and a gilded cage of paranoia for the few.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Mar 3rd, 2008 at 08:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you accept this kind of small scale, privately financed developments, you accept Wall Street. If it's private, Wall Street will clean its clock as soon the opportunity comes. At the slightest difficulty, they will come with their bridge loans, their convertible bonds and their PIPEs.

None of this happened in the local ownership and small-scale-project dominated wind 'market' in Germany, Denmark and Netherlands, and the German PV 'market' even more so. What's more, outside of the USA, private finance can also work on a large scale, with large local regional monopolist private owners of both grid and generating capacity, e.g. Germany until 1998. If you want to paint with a single brush, we could say that nothing works under the Anglo Disease, be it state-funded projects or distributed power with distributed ownership.

But, as someone supporting distributed power with distributed ownership, yet opposes any rail privatisation, I am not one who sees the same solution everywhere.

In the power sector, I do support centralised state ownership of the grid, as well as centralised state ownership or at least coercive coordination of establishing reserve capacities. The state should also be in control of energy policy, and a feed-in law is a (strong) tool of energy policy.

Wind farms, and renewables in general, are not for short-term greedy assholes, unless the financing structure is very fucked up. Local farmers aren't in for it on the short term, either.

To supplement Crazy Horse, the suggestion of parochialism is off also because of the intermittency of most renewables including wind, thus linking up in a coordinated grid is essential. Against your economies of scale is the factor of redundancy and grid stability, while distributed power is not without economies of scale (it is in fields not connected to turbine ownership, manufacture and maintenance).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Mar 4th, 2008 at 05:01:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series