"All of the above" wouldn't be a slogan, and not even on the table, were it not for lucrative government subsidies that distort the market. There is no Constitutional support for them, but we have them anyway -- along with most of the rest of the Federal government, which also has no Constitutional support. It's OK for the government to do or support research, but even development is questionable (except in support of areas for which the government has explicit Constitutional support), let alone the grotesque market distortions created by mandates and subsidies. In every area, not just energy, endless new varieties of subsidies and mandates are created by lobbyists bending the ears of compliant legislators, primarily to benefit the lobbying class, not the public.
An excellent analysis. I graduated from college with a BSME some years ago, not too long after the Chernobyl incident. My first real job as a (young) new engineer was with a small consulting firm specializing in demand side management - a concept to reduce electrical demand at large primary and general secondary firms using incentives to get customer to incorporate energy saving methods. I came to the realization that the concept is shady at best and has a very small impact on demand relative to the very large advertised reduction. The object was to curve demand through efficiency to stave off the building of new base load generating capacity. The used the cost of a new power plant to offset program costs. Demand side management programs hide behind calculations that can't take into account economic growth and actions that would have been taken regardless of the incentive payment, but I digress. The bottom line is that I learned very early in my career that the US was, and still is to this day, lacking a sound energy policy.
I was ignorant of the [evil] forces in play as a young engineer and since have come to terms with reality. Leaders in the US will never solve the problem until faced with crisis, a slap in the face with dire consequences, irrespective of the volumes of common sense and foresight advanced by people who have the know-how but are not compromised by a system that is corrupted by nefarious or stupid forces of influence. Unfortunately, mush like so many other pressing issues, those that know better will be forced to contend with the predictable reality that will beset on us all.
I appreciate and am happy that this and other mediums of communication are actively raising alarm bells. Bells that I fear will not be heard until they toll for thee.
JLo: TY for your support. Yes, regretfully, often times politicians don't act approprately until after-the-fact, when a dire outcome forces them to act sensibly.
Hi, John, while I agree with you on a policy basis, “all of the above” is a good political position in order to protect and project the truly beneficial aspects of energy production. Without all of the above, you get an even worse product or none at all from Congress. Constituencies matter in Congress, and science-based energy policies of the type you and I don’t have a very big one.
It is the environmental and renewable energy sectors with their political power OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON and their delusional dreams of exclusivity (no fossil fuels or nuclear energy) that mostly influences our policies. Politics is winning over science, yes, but not necessarily the DC lobbyists, who love to brag about their “influence” but have less than you think.
As a 23-year lobbying veteran of the food industry, I wrote a 5-part series on the true nature of lobbying. You give too much credence to lobbyists who have no vote or veto in Congress. Influence, of course, and yes, there are bad, ill-motivated ones. But you’d best be served by talking with actual staff or Congress-people on how they view lobbyists and their relationships with them, not near-fictional accounts such as “The Wolves of K Street,” hardly an objective look at the industry. Here is the first of my five parts, all brief reading for the genuinely interested. Of course, you’re free to cling to false notions of three-martini lunches with Cuban cigars.
Lobbyists should not exist. They are paid by corporations to financially influence legislators to vote and benefit their employers. This takes away the importance of the votes and desires of the voters. The people are supposed to be represented by elected representatives in Congress. How did this corrupt practice start?. Taxpayers pay the salaries of these representatives...who should be working in the best interests of the people.
By and large, lobbyists exist because the government is doing things it ought not to be doing, and those things are very profitable for parasites at the government teat. The last gasp of opposition to this self-reinforcing system came when Grover Cleveland vetoed a $40,000 subsidy to buy seed for Texas farmers devastated by a drought. Once the first subsidy came into existence, for anything at all, the subsidy-seeking subclass of lobbyists, as opposed to lobbyists advocating for their clients pleas for relief from bureaucracy and regulation, created what engineers call a "feedback loop:" Subsidies create lobbyists create more subsidies....
It's disgusting that these corporations are taking advantage of American voters...which are paying off Congress for its votes. Voters need to clamor for reform and get lobbyists out of Washington.
Congressmen are paid for their work by the taxpayers. They need to view their work as service. Our founders did not get supported, after they left their positions, either. Congress votes for their own pay increases...and benefits. They should not have more benefits than other Americans.
Barbara: In theory a lobbyist could be helpful in educating legislators about new products, etc. However, the whole system has become an influence peddling scheme — and essentially no one is trying to influence legislators for what is in the best interest of the public
I live in Michigan. Last year an energy bill was narrowly passed by the D dominated legislature. It mandates all renewable energy by 2040, with all carbon-based energy sources being turned off.
A study commissioned by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy projects at least a doubling of power rates along with blackout potential up to 60 hours (in the middle of winter!). Every legislator who voted for this bill should be voted out of office!
John,
You absolutely nailed it! Your article should and must “go viral”. I’ll do what I can in the northwest.
Rick
Rick: Much appreciated!
"All of the above" wouldn't be a slogan, and not even on the table, were it not for lucrative government subsidies that distort the market. There is no Constitutional support for them, but we have them anyway -- along with most of the rest of the Federal government, which also has no Constitutional support. It's OK for the government to do or support research, but even development is questionable (except in support of areas for which the government has explicit Constitutional support), let alone the grotesque market distortions created by mandates and subsidies. In every area, not just energy, endless new varieties of subsidies and mandates are created by lobbyists bending the ears of compliant legislators, primarily to benefit the lobbying class, not the public.
An excellent analysis. I graduated from college with a BSME some years ago, not too long after the Chernobyl incident. My first real job as a (young) new engineer was with a small consulting firm specializing in demand side management - a concept to reduce electrical demand at large primary and general secondary firms using incentives to get customer to incorporate energy saving methods. I came to the realization that the concept is shady at best and has a very small impact on demand relative to the very large advertised reduction. The object was to curve demand through efficiency to stave off the building of new base load generating capacity. The used the cost of a new power plant to offset program costs. Demand side management programs hide behind calculations that can't take into account economic growth and actions that would have been taken regardless of the incentive payment, but I digress. The bottom line is that I learned very early in my career that the US was, and still is to this day, lacking a sound energy policy.
I was ignorant of the [evil] forces in play as a young engineer and since have come to terms with reality. Leaders in the US will never solve the problem until faced with crisis, a slap in the face with dire consequences, irrespective of the volumes of common sense and foresight advanced by people who have the know-how but are not compromised by a system that is corrupted by nefarious or stupid forces of influence. Unfortunately, mush like so many other pressing issues, those that know better will be forced to contend with the predictable reality that will beset on us all.
I appreciate and am happy that this and other mediums of communication are actively raising alarm bells. Bells that I fear will not be heard until they toll for thee.
JLo: TY for your support. Yes, regretfully, often times politicians don't act approprately until after-the-fact, when a dire outcome forces them to act sensibly.
Hi, John, while I agree with you on a policy basis, “all of the above” is a good political position in order to protect and project the truly beneficial aspects of energy production. Without all of the above, you get an even worse product or none at all from Congress. Constituencies matter in Congress, and science-based energy policies of the type you and I don’t have a very big one.
It is the environmental and renewable energy sectors with their political power OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON and their delusional dreams of exclusivity (no fossil fuels or nuclear energy) that mostly influences our policies. Politics is winning over science, yes, but not necessarily the DC lobbyists, who love to brag about their “influence” but have less than you think.
As a 23-year lobbying veteran of the food industry, I wrote a 5-part series on the true nature of lobbying. You give too much credence to lobbyists who have no vote or veto in Congress. Influence, of course, and yes, there are bad, ill-motivated ones. But you’d best be served by talking with actual staff or Congress-people on how they view lobbyists and their relationships with them, not near-fictional accounts such as “The Wolves of K Street,” hardly an objective look at the industry. Here is the first of my five parts, all brief reading for the genuinely interested. Of course, you’re free to cling to false notions of three-martini lunches with Cuban cigars.
The bigger problem in congress is their ownership of individual stocks, not their relationships with lobbyists. https://kellyjohnston.substack.com/p/do-lobbyists-run-congress-part-i?utm_source=publication-search
Kelly: I agree with some of your comments. That said, there is zero net societal benefit from having any wind or solar facilities. None.
Lobbyists should not exist. They are paid by corporations to financially influence legislators to vote and benefit their employers. This takes away the importance of the votes and desires of the voters. The people are supposed to be represented by elected representatives in Congress. How did this corrupt practice start?. Taxpayers pay the salaries of these representatives...who should be working in the best interests of the people.
By and large, lobbyists exist because the government is doing things it ought not to be doing, and those things are very profitable for parasites at the government teat. The last gasp of opposition to this self-reinforcing system came when Grover Cleveland vetoed a $40,000 subsidy to buy seed for Texas farmers devastated by a drought. Once the first subsidy came into existence, for anything at all, the subsidy-seeking subclass of lobbyists, as opposed to lobbyists advocating for their clients pleas for relief from bureaucracy and regulation, created what engineers call a "feedback loop:" Subsidies create lobbyists create more subsidies....
It's disgusting that these corporations are taking advantage of American voters...which are paying off Congress for its votes. Voters need to clamor for reform and get lobbyists out of Washington.
Congressmen are paid for their work by the taxpayers. They need to view their work as service. Our founders did not get supported, after they left their positions, either. Congress votes for their own pay increases...and benefits. They should not have more benefits than other Americans.
Barbara: In theory a lobbyist could be helpful in educating legislators about new products, etc. However, the whole system has become an influence peddling scheme — and essentially no one is trying to influence legislators for what is in the best interest of the public
Thanks for injecting critical thinking into the energy discussion.
I have always been annoyed with the phrase, "All of the Above."
TY. It's more than annoying, it is undermining our society.
I live in Michigan. Last year an energy bill was narrowly passed by the D dominated legislature. It mandates all renewable energy by 2040, with all carbon-based energy sources being turned off.
A study commissioned by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy projects at least a doubling of power rates along with blackout potential up to 60 hours (in the middle of winter!). Every legislator who voted for this bill should be voted out of office!