Many Americans may be surprised to hear that former President George W. Bush addressed wind energy advocates at Big Wind’s annual conference in Dallas, Texas this week.  After all, throughout George W. Bush’s presidency, his ties to the oil and gas industry were a subject of scrutiny; he was widely derided for not funneling enough government money into supporting expensive, unreliable, intermittent forms of energy, such as that generated from the wind.

As a former oil executive, President Bush faced critics who accused him of favoring increased drilling over investment of other energy sources.  As a result, Bush is thought of as a pro-drilling, pro-oil and gas, anti-renewable President.  A closer look at the facts, however, demonstrates that nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, that the executives who rely on government subsidies and regulations to support the very profitable wind industry are celebrating the former president and Texas governor should come as no surprise at all.

Bush has a long history of supporting the massive subsidies and government regulations that make wind energy possible.  In 1999, as the governor of Texas, Bush championed and signed legislation to enforce a renewable electricity mandate in his home state.  As a result, Texas today leads the nation in wind generating capacity with 9,410 megawatts, over 25 percent of the total wind capacity in the U.S.[i] Texas generates almost five percent of its electricity from wind—and, despite the abundant natural resources available in the state—pays the 16^th highest electricity rates in the nation.

As President, he reinstated or extended the production tax credit for wind and other renewable energy sources several times[ii], and generally included over $50 million per year for wind energy research and development in his annual budget requests.[iii] In FY 2007, for example, $690 million was estimated to have been spent on the production tax credit, for which wind was the major beneficiary.[iv] In fact, from 2004 through 2008, over one-third of the electricity capacity added in the US was from wind power[v], largely due to federal subsidies and other government tax breaks.

As for his purported preferential treatment toward oil and gas production, an IER analysis found that the Bush Administration offered fewer federal lands for lease throughout his presidency than any other—until President Obama surpassed this illustrious achievement in 2009.

As it turns out, it isn’t Big Oil that has all the politicians in their pocket; it’s Big Wind.  And as a result?  They’ve got plenty of taxpayer money in there too.

[ii] The following laws signed by President George W. Bush had reinstatements or extensions of the production tax credit for wind: Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002, The Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004, Tax Relief and health Care Act of 2006, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. See Table 10 in http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap2.pdf

[iii] In FY 2007, the wind budget was $57.8 million, in FY 2008, the wind budget was $49.3 million, and in FY 2009, it was $52.5 million. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap3.pdf and http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/login/962579/

[iv] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap2.pdf

[v] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

Washington, D.C. – Acknowledging that some sources of energy just can’t cut it on their own, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure held a hearing today to consider making the manufacturing tax credit for renewable energy technologies permanent. This program was created last year as part of the $787 billion stimulus package. To date, the program has granted $2.3 billion worth of tax credits and is said to “generate” 17,000 jobs (that’s $135,295 per job for those inclined to crunch the numbers).

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the market-based Institute for Energy Research issued the following statement:

“It is not surprising that a program that gives away billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars is popular among rent-seeking corporations whose product would otherwise fail in the marketplace.  Who can say no to free money?  Of course, it is not free to the taxpayer, who pays not just once for the government give-away, but a second time in the form of increased energy prices.

“As hard as Congress tries to make renewable energy competitive, whether through hand outs like this, or by penalizing traditional sources of energy, these forms of energy simply aren’t ready for the major leagues.

“Make no mistake, a good farm system of diverse energy sources is very important, but they must be developed in the marketplace, not Washington.  Renewable energy companies and their partners on Wall Street should put up their own money instead of standing in line for taxpayer-funded handouts.

“Other nations, like Spain, have tried this and the results have been disastrous.  Our government should learn from these mistakes instead of trying to repeat them.”

Note: Spain had a robust renewable energy handout program that allowed them to claim first place in many renewable energy rankings. However, acknowledging that this was unsustainable, the Spanish government is currently in the process of slashing their “excessive subsidies.” Bloomberg recently reported on this “burst bubble.”

#####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 20, 2010
CONTACT:
Patrick Creighton: 202.621.2947
Laura Henderson: 202.621.2951

China Setting Records: China Oil Demand, Coal Production and Vehicle Sales Up in 2010

During January, February, and March of this year, China was again setting records with huge year-over-year increases in oil demand.  In February, China’s oil demand rose 19.4 percent over a year earlier, the second fastest rise on record. According to Reuters, China is the world’s second largest oil user (second to the United States) and consumed 8.65 million barrels of oil per day in February, an increase of 9.4 percent or 604,000 barrels per day over January’s consumption.[i] Oil imports were up 13.8 percent in March over February, reaching 4.95 million barrels per day, according to preliminary data from China’s General Administration of Customs.[ii] In part, these large oil increases are fueling China’s passenger car fleet. New passenger car sales rose 55 percent in February from a year earlier, following a 116 percent increase in January, most likely aided by the extension of government incentives to boost purchases of smaller vehicles and spur rural demand for cars.  [iii]

China has spent nearly $200 billion on oil deals during the past few years, joining with more than 19 countries —including Russia, Turkmenistan, Kuwait, Yemen, Libya, Angola, Venezuela and Brazil— and paying for exploration, production, infrastructure construction, as well as “loans for energy” deals.[iv] Recently, China’s Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Company agreed to buy, for $4.65 billion, the 9 percent interest that ConocoPhillips holds in Syncrude,[v] a Canadian business involved in the production of oil sands (an asphalt-like heavy oil).[vi] Approval from the Canadian and Chinese governments is expected in the third quarter of this year.

Along with China’s Canadian oil pursuits, long thought to be a safe and secure supply for U.S. oil demand, the state-owned China Development Bank has promised to lend $20 billion to Venezuela to build new power plants, highways, and other projects, which will be repaid with Venezuelan crude oil. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez has long complained about the United States’ standing as the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil, and so he is more than pleased to offer his country’s oil to China instead.[vii] Both the Canadian crude and the Venezuelan crude are heavy oils, and the United States owns most of the refineries that can process heavy crude oils. So, to prepare itself for future heavy oil supplies, China has approved plans for construction of such a refinery. As the United States loses neighboring oil supplies to China, one wonders how the U.S. will meet future oil demand, especially as the Obama Administration has been slow to open new offshore areas to oil development (claiming further study is needed) but speedy at advocating climate legislation and a low-carbon fuel standard, both policies aimed at reducing the demand for fossil fuels without providing comparable energy substitutes.

Oil resources are not the only target on China’s energy wish-list. It also plans to increase its consumption of natural gas; last year, its liquefied natural gas imports rose by two-thirds, to 5.53 million tons or 7.7 billion cubic meters.[viii] China also continues to consume large quantities of its primary fuel, coal, in its industrial and electric generation sectors. According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the country’s coal output grew more than 28 percent, to well over 751 million tons in the first quarter of 2010. A report by China’s National Coal Association estimates China’s total coal production capacity exceeds 3.6 billion tons.[ix] This is in sharp contrast to coal mining in the United States, where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a new policy aimed at curbing mountain top removal mining[x] and is scrutinizing surface coal mine permits.  EPA is revoking or blocking Clean Water Act permits for mountain top mining citing irreversible damage to the environment. Some of the permits were awarded years ago.[xi]

Seventy percent of China’s energy comes from coal,[xii] the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. China already consumes more than twice the coal as  the United States, and by 2030, China is expected to consume 3.7 times as much coal.[xiii] As a result, China emits more carbon dioxide than any other country in the world including the United States, and by 2030, it is expected to release 82 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than the United States.[xiv]

China’s Race to Electrification; U.S. Stagnation

Between 2004 and 2008, China added 346 gigawatts of generating capacity, of which 272 gigawatts were conventional thermal power (mostly coal) and 66 gigawatts were hydroelectric power. This compares to a total installed US hydroelectric capacity of 77 gigawatts.  China is estimated to have added an additional 85 gigawatts in 2009, reaching a total of 874 gigawatts,[xv] about 15 percent less than the total capacity in the United States. Of the 85 gigawatts added in 2009, 51 gigawatts were conventional thermal, again mostly coal, 25 gigawatts were hydroelectric, and 9 gigawatts were wind power.[xvi] Many of China’s wind turbines were funded by the U.N.’s Clean Development Mechanism,   under which wealthy countries fund projects in developing countries and receive carbon credits so long as those projects would not have been accomplished otherwise.[xvii]

In contrast, the United States added only 47 gigawatts of generating capacity from 2004 to 2008 (14 percent of the capacity China added), of which 26 gigawatts were natural gas-fired units and 18 gigawatts were wind turbines. New coal-fired capacity additions are practically non-existent in the United States primarily owing to objections regarding emissions of carbon dioxide. Coal-fired projects in the United States have either been cancelled or delayed because of permitting problems, reviews and re-reviews by EPA and resulting financing problems. While the United States has more coal than any other country in the world, with over 200 years of reserves at current usage rates, coal’s share of new U.S. generating markets has been replaced by natural gas and renewable units that are  more politically in vogue.

China’s Economic Growth and Export Market
China’s economy, the second-largest in the world in terms of purchasing power, is currently about half the size of the U.S. gross domestic product. According to China’s central bank, the country’s economy grew at an annual rate of 10.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009,[xviii] a rate almost twice the U.S. rate of 5.6 percent for the same time period.[xix] And in the first quarter of 2010, China’s economy grew by 11.9 percent. Forecasters predict that China’s economy will exceed that of the United States in 10 to 15 years.[xx]

China became the world’s largest exporter last year, edging out Germany and the United States. Despite a decline in total world trade, China’s exports fell less than those of other big powers. A report by the World Trade Organization calculates that the total value of merchandise exports fell by 23 percent in 2009. Among the top ten exporters, Japan’s shipments were the worst affected, falling by 26 percent. Because China’s exports fell by only 16 percent, it is now the single largest exporter. The World Trade Organization expects trade to rebound by nearly 10 percent this year.[xxi]

Lessons to Be Learned

Many environmentalists and politicians seem to believe that China is winning the green energy race, but nothing could be further from reality.[xxii] China is in a race for energy—all forms of energy—to fuel its growing economy. The size and scope of its investments in conventional forms of energy dwarf their commitment to “green energy.” It is providing loans around the world to invest in future oil projects, and it cares not that the oil is less than the lightest and sweetest. Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan heavy crude are perfectly fine. China is building a coal-fired generating plant each and every week on average, and increasing its coal mining capacity to fuel them. This belies any stated concerns about increasing their carbon dioxide emissions, already the highest of any country in the world. China is building wind turbines too, but if wealthy countries are willing to pay—why not? It matters not at all that the transmission capacity is not yet there to operate almost a third of these wind turbines. And China’s large-scale hydroelectric projects are engineering feats par excellence, built regardless of environmental concerns.

China is ensuring energy supplies will be available to fuel its growing economy. The United States should take note.

[ii] Reuters, Oil falls as demand, inventories weigh, April 12, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6142V820100412

[iii] Reuters, China oil demand rise second fastest, inventories drag, March 22, 2010, http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINTOE62L01Z20100322?sp=true

[iv] Politico, To compete with China, U.S. must tap natural gas, April 13, 2010, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35689.html#ixzz0kyYru8gb

[v] Reuters, China bags oil sands stake, not finished yet, April 13, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C17X20100413 and www.conocophillips.com

[vi] Syncrude, http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5753

[vii] The Wall Street Journal, China’s $20 Billion Bolsters Chavez, April 18, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703594404575191671972897694.html

[viii] Reuters, China bags oil sands stake, not finished yet, April 13, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C17X20100413

[ix] China Daily, China’s coal output up 28.1% in Q1, April 15, 2010, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010-04/15/content_9736151.htm

[x] Environmental protection Agency, New Releases, EPA issues comprehensive guidance to protect Appalachian communities from harmful environmental impacts of mountaintop mining, April 1, 2010, http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/4145c96189a17239852576f8005867bd!OpenDocument
[xi] Associated Press, Arch Coal sues EPA over veto of W.Va. mine permit, April 2, 2010, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_bi_ge/wv_epa_coal_lawsuit
[xii] Energy Information Administration, China, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html

[xiii] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xiv] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

[xvi] China’s power generation goes greener with total capacity up 10%, January 7, 2010, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/07/content_12771880.htm

[xvii] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/24/kyotos-clean-development-mechanism-is-it-producing-results-for-whom/

[xviii] Politico, To compete with China, U.S. must tap natural gas, April 13, 2010,  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35689.html#ixzz0kyYru8gb

[xix] http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

[xx] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xxi] China overtakes Germany to become the biggest exporter of all, March 31, 2010, http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15836406&fsrc=nwl

[xxii] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/15/the-u-s-in-the-world-race-for-clean-electric-generating-capacity/

The Rhetoric

On February 3^rd President Obama said:

I don’t want us to just say the easy way out is to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies. The market works best when it responds to price. And if they start seeing…that dirty energy is a little pricier, clean energy is a little cheaper, they’ll innovate and they’ll think things through in all kinds of ways.

Perhaps to disarm critics who complain about government intervention in the market, Obama also said, “[T]he concept of incentivizing clean energy so that it’s the cheaper, more effective kind of energy is one that is proven to work and is actually a market-based approach."

Senator Lindsey Graham made similar remarks to reporters (on January 27) when he said:

To jump-start nuclear power, wind and solar and the green economy, you’ve got to price carbon….How you do it is subject to discussion and open debate. But the idea of not pricing carbon, in my view, means you’re not serious about energy independence. The odd thing is you’ll never have energy independence until you clean up the air, and you’ll never clean up the air until you price carbon.

Passing the Market “Test”?

Proposals for massive new federal interventions into the energy sector referred to by policymakers as “market-based” simply fail the straight-face test. We have already explained that cap-and-trade is not a “market solution.” Academic economists use the term to distinguish cap-and-trade (or an explicit carbon tax) from command-and-control approaches, such as the EPA’s endangerment campaign, in which the government literally orders particular firms to stop using so much electricity or tells utility companies they can’t use coal anymore. By artificially driving up the price of fossil fuels, proponents say, private businesses are free to determine their own solution to the new reality. Presto, there is your market-based solution.

The problem, of course, is that we have no reason to believe that the U.S. government will actually offset alleged “market failures” due to the alleged negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we disregard the recent “climategate” scandals and take the IPCC’s reports at face value, does anyone really trust the government to ignore the political process and completely revamp the energy sector in accordance with pure science as its guiding light?

In fact, President Obama’s own remarks show that his agenda has nothing to do with augmenting the price system to allow the market to work. He said that even if the science of manmade global warming were in doubt, he would still want to push through subsidies for “clean” energy and penalties for fossil-based energy. So how is this about climate change again?

The fact is President Obama has things backwards. Any trained economist – even those who favor government action on climate change, such as Harvard’s Robert Stavins or even Paul Krugman – admit that heavy government penalties on fossil fuels will hurt GDP growth and other conventional economic measures. So contrary to the president’s views, the question is not whether or not these proposals will hurt our already struggling economy, but rather how much pain it would inflict.

Obama’s arguments to the contrary are simply nonsense. New taxes on efficient energy sources through a cap-and-trade scheme, while at the same time lavishing more taxpayer support on inefficient energy sources is no way to lead the world in economic progress.

Obama and Graham Admit Just How Inefficient “Green” Energy Is

Notice too that both President Obama and Senator Graham admit that to revolutionize the American energy sector to fit their bold vision, it wouldn’t be enough to throw billions more of taxpayer dollars at their preferred technologies. On top of that, they would need to “price carbon,” which is a euphemism for massively taxing oil, coal, and natural gas—the fuels that provide 85 percent of our energy.

In other words, the supporters of “green” energy admit that it is so inefficient, that simply giving it a headstart in the race isn’t enough. On top of that, the federal government needs to break the kneecaps of “green” energy’s competitors. We call this the Tonya Harding approach.

Conclusion

It’s no “market solution” when the federal government picks arbitrary emission quotas, especially when that “carbon pricing” is augmented with massive command-and-control regulations and subsidies. As the quotes from Obama and Graham reveal, the only way to make their pet energy sources pass the market test is to change the test.

One criticism was that we focused too heavily on EIA’s estimate that fossil energy will continue to be the dominant source of U.S. energy and economic growth for decades, accounting for nearly 80 percent of our energy needs in 2035, and neglected to mention that EIA also projects a significant increase in renewables.

In his tweet, one green journalist points out that the EIA report indicates renewables will increase by 20 percent. Actually, that’s an understatement. EIA predicts wind, solar, and some biomass (read: politically correct “renewable” sources) will increase by 88 percent[1]. That sounds impressive, but even with their dramatic increase EIA estimates that by 2035 these politically correct renewables will only produce about 8 percent of our total energy consumption. And that is despite billions of dollars in subsidies, set-asides, and preferential treatment.

In comparison, EIA estimates that our most efficient, proven, and prolific (albeit not as politically fashionable) sources of carbon-free and renewable energy – nuclear and hydroelectric power – together will provide for 10.8 percent of our energy needs in 2035 (2.6 percent from hydro and 8.2 percent from nuclear).

But how accurate are these forecasts? The EIA is taking a glimpse nearly 30 years into the future, after all.

The oldest Annual Energy Outlook on EIA’s website is from 1996. Their forecast for renewables’ slice of the energy pie in 2008 was 7.39%; the actual number last year was 7.36%. That’s very accurate, and of all the energy sources, their forecasts were the closest on renewable energy.

The question of whether their forecast will be that precise thirty years from now remains to be seen.  However, we’re confident it will be more accurate than many other projections we’ve seen over the years.

Although the EIA projects a large percentage increase in renewable energy by 2035, this will account for less than 10 percent of our total energy use. The American taxpayers have contributed billions of dollars to renewables for decades and yet EIA predicts they will continue to play a minor role in our energy supply thirty years from now.

China’s Investment in Oil and Gas

China has seized on the global recession to gain access to oil and gas resources and supplies. The atmosphere is ripe for Chinese firms to invest in these resources because:[i]

• Acquisitions are now more favorable than they were in early 2008, due to lower oil prices and, hence, lower asset prices.
• China is less constrained than many of its international counterparts in terms of where they can invest (e.g. Iran).
• Financing is not a problem, because Chinese banks are willing and able to provide needed funds.
• Competition for these assets in some areas has lessened.

Not only is China investing in places like Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Argentina, but it is in the U.S.’s backyard, looking towards usurping the U.S. supply of Canadian oil sands.  China is a good customer for Canada, as Canada fears that the U.S. may introduce a low carbon fuel standard[ii] or other legislation that would restrict our purchases of oil sands from Canada[iii].  China is also looking at a possible purchase of leases in the Gulf of Mexico where Devon Energy is looking to sell its U.S. leases.[iv] The sale of these offshore leases requires the approval of the Mineral Management Service in the U.S. Department of Interior. China is willing and able to be at the forefront of any misstep other countries make to gain a foothold and secure oil and gas supplies, and the U.S. seems to be giving it elbow room.

China is also investing in oil and natural gas pipelines to ensure access to its investments and to divert some of its oil imports from the Middle East away from the Straits of Malacca. Oil pipelines are being built from Russia, Kazakhstan, and the coast of Myanmar. [v] A natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan should be operating in the near future, and several liquefied natural gas terminals are either operating or are expected to be operating shortly.[vi]

While the total amount of “investment” loans made by China to oil and gas producing countries for guaranteed future supplies of oil and gas are unknown, China has clearly invested billions of dollars in their ‘loans for energy’ program. [vii] The main provider of the loans is the China Development Bank, and thus they are essentially Government loans. Just on Tuesday, December 8^th, for example, Nigeria’s presidential advisor for energy announced that Chinese companies have proposed investing $50 billion to buy 6 billion barrels of oil reserves in Nigeria.[viii]

China’s Oil and Gas Reserves

China is not endowed with many reserves of oil and natural gas.[ix] According to the Oil and Gas Journal, as of January 1, 2009, China had 16 billion barrels of oil reserves, 1.2 percent of the world total,[x] and its natural gas reserves totaled 80 trillion cubic feet, 1.3 percent of the world total.[xi] China gets 70 percent of its energy from coal, the hydrocarbon with the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions, and 20 percent from oil, the hydrocarbon with the second highest level of greenhouse gas emissions.[xii] China is third in rank to the U.S. and Russia in recoverable reserves of coal, with 13.6 percent of the world total.[xiii] Because of its massive use of hydrocarbons and its growing economy, China surpassed the U.S. in carbon dioxide emissions, the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006.[xiv]

The U.S. Oil and Gas Strategy

While the Bush Administration initiated steps to bring on new leases of oil and gas, both offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and on public lands that are endowed with billions of barrels of shale oil, the Obama Administration has slowed the progress by extending the comment periods and providing other obstacles.  Examples include:

• On February 4^th, shortly after his Senate confirmation, Interior Secretary Salazar rescinded 77 oil and gas leases in Utah that could cost American taxpayers millions in lost lease bids, production royalties, new jobs, and the energy needed to offset rising imports of oil and gas.[xv]
• On February 10th, Secretary Salazar delayed for 6 months the development of the new 5-year leasing program for offshore drilling that would have set the framework for accessing newly available areas.[xvi]
• On February 25^th, Secretary Salazar canceled a new round of commercial-scale oil shale research, demonstration, and development leases in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.[xvii]
• On February 26^th, President Obama introduced a budget that contains page after page of taxes on oil and gas totaling more than $31 billion that will reduce our domestic energy production.[xviii]
• On March 30^th, President Obama signed the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act into law, prohibiting energy production on over 3 million acres of federal land.[xix]
• On October 8^th, after rescinding 77 Utah oil and gas leases in February, Salazar announces he will lease 17 of them.[xx]
• On October 20^th, after canceling a new round of commercial-scale oil shale research, demonstration, and development leases last February, Salazar issued a new oil shale leasing program that decreases lease acreage by 87 percent, demands unrealistic timelines for investment into cutting edge research, and leaves royalty rates at the whim of the Secretary or in new regulations. [xxi]

Issues with the U.S. Renewable Strategy

The Obama Administration prefers that priority be given to offshore wind farms and wind and solar installations onshore.[xxii] They tout that these sources of “green energy” will provide needed jobs in the U.S. However, studies[xxiii] have shown that highly-subsidized renewable energy cost consumers and taxpayers more than the alternative fossil technologies[xxiv], that their component parts are largely made in foreign countries, that the jobs are mainly for the actual site construction and thus are temporary, and that the economy would be spurred more by investments made elsewhere.

Further, most green technologies are dependent on the wind blowing or the sun shining, and thus provide a lower amount of usable energy than their fossil or nuclear counterparts. Hence, many more wind farms or solar installations will be needed to provide the same amount of energy as their fossil and nuclear counterparts. And, they will also require more land area.[xxv]

What China Knows and the U.S. Doesn’t Know

All sources are needed to ensure energy will be available for future economic growth and to reduce dependence on foreign imports. Trading foreign imports of oil for component parts of wind and solar technologies does not reach any goals to which the U.S. is aspiring. To reach reductions of greenhouse gas emissions required by H.R. 2454, or other similar legislation, either nuclear power or biomass generating technologies will be needed[xxvi], which provide greater amounts of energy than wind or solar power.  That’s precisely the reason that China is investing in oil and gas resources abroad and in building power plants from hydrocarbon, nuclear, and renewable sources of energy without legal and government delays.[xxvii]

[ii] A Low Carbon Fuel Standard reduces the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by requiring that the mix of fuels sold reaches pre-specified targets of carbon reduction. Since oil sands yield heavier crude, more energy is required for producing and refining it, thus giving that crude a  higher carbon intensity than conventional crude.

[iii] China National Petroleum Corp. received a $30 billion low-interest loan from a state-run bank to finance overseas acquisitions, Beijing’s latest bid to secure mineral resources to fuel the country’s burgeoning economy. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/09/09/

[iv] David Pierson, “China’s push for oil in the Gulf of Mexico puts U.S. in awkward spot,” Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-oil22-2009oct22,0,2776603.story?track=rss.

[v] Centre for Global Energy Studies, China’s Search for Energy Security, December 3, 2009, www.cges.co.uk

[vi] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, www.eia.doe/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[vii] China National Petroleum Corp. received a $30 billion low-interest loan from a state-run bank to finance overseas acquisitions, Beijing’s latest bid to secure mineral resources to fuel the country’s burgeoning economy. http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2009/09/09/

[viii] The Wall Street Journal, Chinese Firms Propose $50 Billion Oil Buy in Nigeria, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574583901047538032.html

[ix] Proved reserves of crude oil are the estimated quantities that geological and engineering data indicate can be recovered from known reservoirs with existing technology and current economic and operating conditions.

[x] “Worldwide Look at Reserves and Production,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 106, No. 48 (December 22, 2008), pp. 23-24.

[xi] “Worldwide Look at Reserves and Production,” Oil and Gas Journal, Vol. 106, No. 48 (December 22, 2008), pp. 22-23.

[xii]Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Brief on China, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html

[xiii] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, Table 9, page 59, www.eia.doe/oiaf/ieo/index.html

[xiv] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 11.19, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec11_39.pdf

[xv] E&E News, Oil and Gas: Salazar scraps contested Utah leases, February 4, 2009, http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2009/02/04/archive/1?terms=Salazar

[xvi] The Washington Times, Obama Blocks Offshore Drilling, February 11, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/

[xvii] Climate Wire, Interior: Research needed before “headlong” oil shale rush, February 26, 2009, http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2009/02/26/archive/6?terms=Salazar

[xviii] The Hill, Oil, Gas Industry Aims to Nip Tax Hikes In the Bud, March 23, 2009, http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/3976-oil-gas-industry-aims-to-nip-tax-hikes-in-the-bud and Obama’s Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

[xix] E&E News, Public Lands: Obama signs natural resources omnibus into law, March 30, 2009, http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2009/03/30/archive/2?terms=Salazar

[xx] The Wall Street Journal, 2^nd UPDATE: US Govt Proposes Delay On Controversial Utah Leases, October 8, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091008-715463.html

[xxi] U.S. Department of Interior News Release, Salazar Reforms U.S. Oil Shale Program, October 20, 2009, http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/102009.html

[xxii] http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/08/06/interior-secretary-limits-domestic-energy-production-but-fast-tracks-solar-development/

[xxiii] Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark, http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf ,and Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, March 2009, http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf, and Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience, www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/germany/Germany_Study_-_FINAL.pdf

[xxiv] Germans miss out on cheaper electricity, www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B02YS20091201/

[xxv] www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/06/11/facts-on-energy-solar/ and www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/09/26/facts-on-energy-wind/

[xxvi] Energy information Administration, Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2454/index.html

[xxvii] www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/11/20/what-president-obama-should-have-learned-about-energy-policy-during-his-visit-to-china/

Washington, DC – According to a recent Oregonian investigative report, state government officials in Oregon intentionally misled the legislature by withholding critical costs estimates of an extremely expensive ‘green’ energy subsidy program, known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, which would ultimately cost taxpayers millions more than the disclosed amount.

The Oregonian’s Harry Esteve reports this:

According to documents obtained under Oregon’s public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the [green energy] tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11.

The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan market-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued the following statement:

“Green jobs and green energy are simply not feasible without massive government subsidies, mandates and sometimes – as it appears in the case of Oregon – outright deception and dishonest acts. What was uncovered this weekend in Oregon is only the tip of the iceberg. Many rent seeking, corporate-welfare searching ‘green energy’ businesses seem more concerned with securing taxpayer-funded government handouts than producing jobs, dividends, growth, and reliable energy.

“Like Spain’s experience with green jobs, Oregon’s wind energy and other green jobs are temporary and simply would not exist if it weren’t for massive government subsidies and huge corporate handouts, bankrolled by hardworking everyday taxpayers.”

NOTE: Since 2007, when the Oregon legislature approved the governor’s massive Business Energy Tax Credit increase, unemployment has more than doubled, rising from 5 percent in January 2007, to 11.5 percent today.

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Whatever the reason, we would like to apologize to AWEA. Apparently we compelled them to use ad hominem attacks like “anti-clean energy” to describe our organization and “bogus” to describe our research. We would have preferred that AWEA produce a substantive rebuttal to our recently released report, “Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience.”

In an October 21^st blog post, AWEA states “IER’s strategy clearly is to discredit wind energy in other countries.” We do not have a strategy to discredit wind energy in other countries. President Obama and top Administration officials are telling us that America must follow Germany’s example with respect to renewables or we will be left behind. Taking the President at his word, we sought to better understand Germany’s experience by commissioning a study by the think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI). The report found the following facts:

• Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000.

• In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4 percent increase in consumer’s electricity bills.

• Between 2000 and 2010, the net cost of the German government support for solar was $73.2 billion and an additional $28.1 billion for wind. Because the U.S. economy is five times larger that Germany’s, a comparable expenditure in the U.S. would amount to about half a trillion dollars.

• Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.

• Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

AWEA lobbies Congress for government handouts and subsidies for wind energy production, so we understand why they would like to these facts to remain hidden.  As the report shows, Germany’s experiment with promoting renewable energy has been expensive, and transplanting that experience to the United States will be expensive.

Apples to oranges, AWEA argues, because Germany is not a good model for the United States.  In their own words:

“The problem is that the United States is not considering a feed in tariff as a means to encourage wind development because it would not work. Instead, the US is considering a free-market based national Renewable Electricity Standard, and numerous studies have shown that an RES would decrease electricity prices.”

We hope AWEA informs President Obama and other top Administration officials that Germany’s feed-in tariff is not a good model for the United States.

We hope AWEA informs Representative Jay Inslee, who is promoting legislation to establish a federal feed-in tariff, that the United States is not considering a feed-in tariff, as it would probably come as a surprise to him.

In a Congressional hearing on September 24, 2009, Representative Inslee explained that Germany’s system of promoting renewables through a feed-in tariff is a better way to go than the Spanish experience.

We hope AWEA informs itself that Germany’s feed-in tariff “would not work” in the U.S., instead of describing it as “similar to a Renewable Electricity Standard” which AWEA strongly supports.  Here’s what AWEA’s website says:

“A distributed generation or “feed-in” tariff ensures that locally owned, small-scale renewable energy systems become significant contributors to the local power supply. A feed-in tariff is similar to a Renewable Electricity Standard (see “Wind energy policy issues” www.awea.org/faq/wwt_policy.html) except that instead of establishing a set quantity of renewable electricity a utility must generate, it establishes a set price at which a utility purchases excess electricity from a renewable generator, such as a small wind system.”

In AWEA’s blog post, they describe a national Renewable Electricity Standard as “a free-market” program. That is not accurate. In free markets, people are free to choose. A Renewable Electricity Standard forces people to buy wind, solar, and other government-approved energy sources. It is a mandate.  Forcing someone to buy your product is not a free-market program by any definition.

Contrary to AWEA’s assertion that a Renewable Electricity Standard would lower energy prices, common sense and real-world evidence suggest otherwise. Wind and other government-approved renewables are more expensive than other forms of energy. Common sense tells us that requiring people to buy expensive and inefficient renewable energy, through a renewable energy mandate, will only increase the cost of electricity. Currently, twenty-nine states have binding renewable electricity mandates and the electricity prices in those states are thirty-eight percent higher than in states that do not have binding renewable electricity mandates.

Lastly, AWEA states that they expect IER “to take on other countries that have successfully integrated wind into their energy mix.” That assumes, of course, that increased electricity prices and billions of dollars in subsidies is a sign of successful integration of wind into a country’s electricity mix. Some would beg to differ, especially those who are footing the bill.

The Administration tells us that U.S. energy policy should emulate countries like Spain, Denmark, and Germany. The facts show that the promotion of renewables in Spain, Denmark, and Germany has been very expensive and has resulted in lower employment overall as an opportunity cost of the lavish subsidies. Of course, it is up to policymakers to ultimately decide whether the United States should follow a similar path, but no one should mislead Americans into thinking that doing so will come without a cost.

Washington, DC – Though proponents of so-called government-funded ‘green jobs’ often reference the ‘success’ European countries have enjoyed in their experiments with such regulations and mandates, a study released today in the United States sheds new light on Germany’s experience with renewable energy and heavy taxpayer subsidies. Entitled ‘Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience,’ the study was published by German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (RWI).

According to the study, “Germany’s experience with renewable energy promotion is often cited as a model to be replicated elsewhere, being based on a combination of far-reaching energy and environmental laws that stretch back nearly two decades.” Researchers add this: “German renewable energy policy … has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.”

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) – a non-partisan market-oriented energy think tank – issued the following statement:

“Today, Vice President Biden will tout the economic benefits of ‘green jobs’ and ‘green energy.’ However, this new analysis from Germany only further emphasizes the fact that when renewable energy has been mandated and subsidized by taxpayers, economies have constricted and suffered. Germany, like Spain, is just another example of how billions of tax dollars forced to support wind and solar energy create not a hint of economic or environmental benefits.

“Some in Washington, who are working to restrict, mandate and subsidize certain energy forms that would otherwise be unaffordable, continue to offer Germany as a case-study for success. However, such a policy could increase electricity prices nearly 20 percent and require a subsidy of nearly $240,000 dollars per ‘green job.’

“This study should serve as a cautionary tale of what is likely to occur should the US continue down the road of mandating politically-favored, expensive power. We would be well served to learn from, and not repeat, the mistakes of Germany, Spain and Denmark.”

Key findings:

• Financial aid to Germany’s solar industry has now reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as $240,000 US.

• In 2008, the price mark-up attributable to the government’s support for “green” electricity was about 2.2 cents US per kWh. For perspective, a 2.2 cent per kWh increase here in the US would amount to an average 19.4% increase in consumer’s electricity bills.

• Government support for solar energy between 2000 and 2010 is estimated to have a total net cost of $73.2 billion US, and $28.1 billion US for wind. A similar expenditure in the US would amount to about half a trillion dollars US.

• Green jobs created by government actions disappear as soon as government support is terminated, a lesson the German government and the green companies it supports are beginning to learn.

• Government aid for wind power is now three times the cost of conventional electricity.

On Monday, report co-author Dr. Colin Vance will be in Washington, D.C., part of a three-day tour (Monday-Wednesday) aimed at explaining to a wider American audience the core conclusions of their report. Those interested in speaking with Dr. Vance or setting up an interview should contact Patrick Creighton (202.621.2947) or Laura Henderson (202.621.2951).

More on the RWI Study

• Fact Sheet: Strike Three:  First Spain, Then Denmark, and Now Germany…

• Notable Quotes: Should the U.S. Follow Germany’s Renewable Energy Experiment?

• In pictures: Impact on electricity rates by region and by state

• Study: Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German Experience

For additional information, please contact Patrick Creighton, 202-621-2947, or Laura Henderson, 202-621-2951.

#####

Before we discuss AWEA’s disagreements with IER and the Danish wind study, it is important to note a few things that AWEA did not disagree with. AWEA did not dispute that wind is heavily subsidized. AWEA did not dispute that wind power is an inefficient way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Danish wind study, for example, found that it costs on average $124 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced. And the AWEA did not dispute that subsidizing wind power is a very inefficient way to create jobs. The Danish wind study found that, optimistically, “the subsidy per job created is 600,000-900,000 DKK per year ($90,000 – $140,000 USD). This subsidy constitutes around 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing industry.” The AWEA, however, disagreed, with a few other issues which we discuss below.

Wind Energy: The Case of Denmark

President Obama, the AWEA, and other supporters of wind energy point to Denmark as a model the United States should emulate. For example, as the AWEA writes in a fact sheet, “In western Denmark, wind supplies more than 25% of the electricity that is used during windy winter nights. If wind energy in the U.S. were combined with serious efforts to increase energy efficiency, we could substantially reduce our national use of fossil fuels to generate electricity.” As the Danish wind study shows, Denmark’s situation is substantially different from the situation in the United States. As a result, Denmark wind’s production is not directly replicable by the United States.

To understand Denmark’s electricity situation, we must first understand electricity production in Norway and Sweden. When electricity from wind is produced but not consumed in Denmark, the electricity is exported to Norway and Sweden. This electricity directly replaces hydropower in Norway and Sweden, allowing Norwegian and Swedish lakes and reservoirs to retain more water than release the water to produce electricity. This is only possible because of Norway and Sweden’s vast hydropower resources. According to the International Energy Agency, in 2006, over 98 percent of electricity production in Norway was produced by hydropower[1] and 43 percent Sweden’s electricity was produced by hydropower.[2]

In America, it is harder to balance the electricity wind provides to the grid. Hydropower only supplies 6 percent of the electricity in the United States.[3] In some markets, such as the Pacific Northwest, hydroelectric power is plentiful. But the fickle nature of electricity from wind means that even in the Pacific Northwest it is difficult to balance the electrical load and the Bonneville Power Administration is increasing rates for wind operators by 90 percent (down from a proposed 300 percent increase).

Furthermore it is difficult for wind to replace much of the electricity generation from coal and natural gas. Coal-fired power plants are baseload electricity plants. They are not made to cycle as the wind ebbs and flows. Natural gas-fired turbines can cycle on and off to even out wind production, but natural gas-fired turbines are less energy efficient than combined cycle generation.

Electricity from wind only supplies an average of 9.7% of the electricity Denmark consumes, the rest of Denmark’s subsidized wind production is exported, bringing no direct benefit to Danish ratepayers

Wind produces the equivalent of 19 percent of the electricity consumed in Denmark. But, on average, over half of the electricity from wind in Denmark is exported. The AWEA does not understand why the Danish wind study is critical of exporting highly subsidized electricity. The AWEA writes that “it seems especially strange for a self-described “free-market” ground like IER to be so dismissive of interstate trade.”

The Institute for Energy Research and the study’s authors support free trade. The authors of the Danish wind study are concerned that Danish ratepayers subsidize wind power with few concomitant benefits to the Danes. As the study explains on page 22:

But for the Danish householder who is paying the subsidy in order to save imported fuel and CO2 emissions, the subsidy so exported brings no direct benefit at all. The total probable value of exported subsidies between 2000 and 2008, was DKK 6.8 billion (€ 916 million) during this period.

As the paper clearly states, the problem is not the trade, the problem is the export of subsidies. Because Denmark subsidies electricity from wind, it is logical to assume that Denmark should receive the perceived benefit of those subsidies. This is especially true when Danes have exported electricity for which they paid $1.3 billion in subsidies from 2000 through 2008.

AWEA argues that the Danish Wind Study has no bearing on the situation in the United States

AWEA argues that “even if the claim made by the study were true, this example would have no bearing on the situation in the U.S.” The Danish wind situation is very relevant to the situation in the United States. AWEA has cited Denmark as a model for the United States (in this fact sheet for example, and this article on integrating utility-scale wind energy onto the grid). When President Obama and the AWEA cite Denmark as a model, it makes Denmark relevant.

The AWEA fully supports a “strong” renewable electricity mandate to require electrical utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. Denmark may produce 19 percent of their electricity from wind but as explained above, that large percentage does not translate to the situation in the United States.

The AWEA seems to believe that the Danish wind study is critical of electricity exports and because the United States is only weakly tied to the Mexican and Canadian electrical grid, the Danish study is of no import. This misapprehends the point of the study. There problem is not with the export of the power. The study is concerned with exporting subsidies, the benefits of which should accrue to Danes, not the Swedes or Norwegians.

Wind power from Denmark does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Norway or Sweden

The AWEA claims that wind power flowing to Norway and Sweden reduces carbon dioxide emissions in Norway and Sweden. This is incorrect because only a very small portion on Norway and Sweden’s electricity is generated from coal, oil, or natural gas.

As noted above, according to the International Energy Agency, in 2006, over 98 percent of electricity production in Norway was produced by hydropower[4] and 43 percent Sweden’s electricity was produced by hydropower.[5] Another 47 percent of electricity production in Sweden came from nuclear power. Only 0.5 percent of Norway’s electricity comes from coal, oil, or natural gas in Norway and 3 percent of Sweden’s electricity. The graph below shows the electricity generation profiles of Norway and Sweden:[6]

Denmark’s geography is indeed better suited for wind generation than the United States

AWEA claims that the United States has better wind resources than Denmark. The mere fact that there are some good (or even fantastic) wind resources in the United States does not matter if those resources are off the electricity grid and far from electricity consumers because transmission lines necessary to transport the electricity are very expensive.

The whole of Denmark is 281 miles east to west and 229 miles long. The entire population of Denmark is not far from good wind resources (as this map shows). That is not true in the United States. As this map shows, the best onshore wind resources are in the Midwest from the Texas panhandle north to the Canadian border. There is not one large city in this area, making it expensive to get electricity from this wind to market.

Wind offshore is closer to major population centers in the United States, but offshore wind production is even more expensive than onshore wind electricity production. EIA estimates that by 2016, offshore wind will still be 62 more expensive that onshore wind and onshore wind will still be 49 percent more expensive than coal and 77 percent more expensive than advanced combined cycle natural gas electricity generation.[7]

IER’ has more on the levelized costs of electricity production here.

Wind energy (here, there and everywhere) is very expensive and highly subsidized

For decades the promoters of wind have argued that wind’s cost competitiveness is just around the corner. For example, in 1986, a representative of AWEA testified:

The U.S. wind industry has . . .demonstrated reliability and performance levels that make them very competitive. It has come to the point that the California Energy Commission has predicted windpower will be that State’s lowest cost source of energy in the 1990s, beating out even large-scale hydro.

…

We are not quite there. We have hopes.[8]

Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute has been predicting competitive viability since the 1980s. In 1984 he wrote:

Tax credits have been essential to the economic viability of wind farms so far, but will not be needed within a few years.[9]

In 1985, he wrote:

Although wind farms still depend on tax credits, they are likely to be economical without this support within a few years.[10]

In 1986, he wrote:

Early evidence indicates that wind power will soon take its place as a decentralized power source that is economical in many areas…. Utility-sponsored studies show that the better windfarms can produce power at a cost of about 7¢ per kilowatt-hour, which is competitive with conventional power sources in the United States.[11]

Even after more than two decades, wind still isn’t cost-competitive and EIA predicts wind will still be 49 to 77 percent more expensive than coal and natural gas in 2016.

The wind lobby has been very effective at securing subsidies, set-asides, and favorable tax treatment

There are a number of ways wind is subsidized and assured market share including the renewable electricity production tax credit, accelerated depreciation (Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System), the renewable energy production incentive, renewable energy manufacturing tax credit, state-level renewable electricity mandates, and a large number of other financial incentives at the federal and state level.

It is not surprising that electricity production from wind has expanded recently. Wind turbine designs have improved, but wind remains very expensive and as this list of subsidies, tax credits, and set-asides shows, the American taxpayer is footing the bill for the wind’s expansion. Even after decades of financial support, electricity from wind still only supplies 1.3% of all electricity generated in the US.

Conclusion

The promoters of wind point to Denmark as an example the United States should emulate. But as the Danish wind study shows, Denmark wind’s production is not directly replicable by the United States. The Danish wind experiment also shows that generating electricity from wind is an expensive way to create jobs or reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Which leads to a final thought: If wind power is everything that proponents say it is, then why can’t it exist in the marketplace without government subsidies, government mandates, government tax credits, guaranteed market share in the form of government enforced feed-in tariffs, and backup generation from more reliable energy sources such as hydropower or natural gas?

[2] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=SE.

[3] Institute for Energy Research, Hydroelectric, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/hydroelectric/.

[4] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Norway in 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NO.

[5] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006. http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=SE.

[6] Norway: International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Norway in 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NO.

[6] International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006. Sweden: International Energy Agency, Electricity/Heat in Sweden in 2006. http://www.iea.org/textbase/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=SE.

[7] See Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (revised). Cited at Institute for Energy Research, Levelized Costs of New Electricity Generating Technologies, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/.

[8] Statement of Michael L.S. Bergey, American Wind Energy Association in Renewable Energy Industries, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 99^th Cong., 2^nd sess. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986), p. 129.

[9] Christopher Flavin, “Electricity’s Future: The Shift to Efficiency and Small-Scale Power,” Worldwatch Paper 61, Worldwatch Institute, November 1984, p. 35.

[10] Christopher Flavin and Cynthia Pollock, “Harnessing Renewable Energy,” in Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1985 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1985), p. 197.

[11] Christopher Flavin, “Electricity for a Developing World: New Directions,” Worldwatch Paper 70, Worldwatch Institute, June 1986, p. 53.