News
Opinion
ENLARGE
Another Colorado icon disappeared last month, and its passing brings an important message to an environmental movement that often mistakes wishes for reality.
Sadly, the Ski Train is no more. This feature of the Rocky Mountains, which for decades hauled skiers between Denver and Winter Park, was finally rolled up and sold to a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railway. Phil Anschutz — who arguably knows a thing or two about making money — disposed of the train partly because it hadn’t made a profit in two decades. Thence the message.
It doesn’t matter if one looks to the future and sees George Jetson’s flying car, a “new energy economy” run by 100 percent renewables, landscapes crisscrossed by high-speed monorails or power stations in orbit. To have any of it, the economies have to work. That’s why we don’t have any of this stuff now, and probably won’t for awhile. Like the Ski Train, they’re simply too expensive to be profitable, given the alternatives.
Yes, I know — if I lived in a European city, I might not own a car, and I would probably commute by bicycle, tram or subway. In fact, I have, and I did. But in doing so, I profited from centuries of urban development and transportation patterns that don’t exist in the U.S., and which, when established by government fiat, have usually proven unpopular and unprofitable.
In most European countries, excise and other taxes keep the price of gasoline at about $8-10 a gallon. Taxes for licensing autos, parking and whatnot are very high. So people are pushed toward a highly evolved and long-existing system of public transport as a cheaper alternative. But given the popular reaction to $4-a-gallon gas last year, I suspect that if something similar was attempted here, Americans would be looking for torches and pitchforks, not a bus schedule.
The same reality stands in the way of the “green energy” utopia our governor and his environmentalist backers propose. An example: During President Obama’s last visit to Denver, he was shown the photovoltaic installation atop the Museum of Science and Technology. Figures were bandied about, including the claim that the cells could “power 30 homes.” What wasn’t noted was that at current electricity rates, the break-even point for the installation is about 100 years. Since solar cells last about 25 years, you’re picking up the difference.
There’s also the problem of scale. Tri-State Electrical is working on a photovoltaic solar farm outside Cimarron, New Mexico. Reputed to be the second-largest in the world, it will produce 30 megawatts of power on 250 acres of land. In comparison, the TSEC coal-fired plant that former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius torpedoed would have produced more than 40 times that. Basically, to power New York City with sunlight one would have to pave Connecticut with photovoltaic cells. And I think the residents of New Haven would object.
No, based on the response from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, I know they would. The good senator recently backed legislation to prevent the location of solar power facilities in Death Valley. Expect more of this as these facilities proliferate.
Then there’s wind generation. This is mostly available at places where people aren’t, necessitating large new transmission networks. Any bets on how long it will take someone to file a lawsuit about new high-tension power lines marching across their “view corridor?”
Also, electricity is like bread; it doesn’t keep well. So for high-demand baseload generation — if one is concerned about “global warming” — the obvious answer is nuclear. That the people braying about the former refuse to embrace the latter shows two things: First, they are hypnotized by emotional argument and second, they are uncaring of the damage the “green” changes they demand will wreak on our economy. Neither is particularly good.
Finally, there’s the canard of the economic boost “green jobs” will bring to Colorado and the nation. Adding to California’s example, which shows the “green revolution” is causing a net economic loss for the state, is recent information from Spain — about which environmentalists used to gush. Studies undertaken by Juan Carlos University in Madrid show that for every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years, 2.2 regular jobs were lost. And only one in 10 “green job” became permanent. Similar results are expected here.
None of which is to say that solar, wind, geothermal or other unconventional sources of power should be disregarded. Or that public transportation is useless. These things have their places, and should be exploited — where they make sense. But logic and economic analysis should guide us, not starry-eyed hope and ideology. Otherwise, we are likely to find ourselves poorer, less able to get around, and dangerously hobbled in a competitive world.
And in the dark.
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick@hotmail.com. Also, comment on this column at www.summitdaily.com.
Sadly, the Ski Train is no more. This feature of the Rocky Mountains, which for decades hauled skiers between Denver and Winter Park, was finally rolled up and sold to a subsidiary of the Canadian National Railway. Phil Anschutz — who arguably knows a thing or two about making money — disposed of the train partly because it hadn’t made a profit in two decades. Thence the message.
It doesn’t matter if one looks to the future and sees George Jetson’s flying car, a “new energy economy” run by 100 percent renewables, landscapes crisscrossed by high-speed monorails or power stations in orbit. To have any of it, the economies have to work. That’s why we don’t have any of this stuff now, and probably won’t for awhile. Like the Ski Train, they’re simply too expensive to be profitable, given the alternatives.
Yes, I know — if I lived in a European city, I might not own a car, and I would probably commute by bicycle, tram or subway. In fact, I have, and I did. But in doing so, I profited from centuries of urban development and transportation patterns that don’t exist in the U.S., and which, when established by government fiat, have usually proven unpopular and unprofitable.
In most European countries, excise and other taxes keep the price of gasoline at about $8-10 a gallon. Taxes for licensing autos, parking and whatnot are very high. So people are pushed toward a highly evolved and long-existing system of public transport as a cheaper alternative. But given the popular reaction to $4-a-gallon gas last year, I suspect that if something similar was attempted here, Americans would be looking for torches and pitchforks, not a bus schedule.
The same reality stands in the way of the “green energy” utopia our governor and his environmentalist backers propose. An example: During President Obama’s last visit to Denver, he was shown the photovoltaic installation atop the Museum of Science and Technology. Figures were bandied about, including the claim that the cells could “power 30 homes.” What wasn’t noted was that at current electricity rates, the break-even point for the installation is about 100 years. Since solar cells last about 25 years, you’re picking up the difference.
There’s also the problem of scale. Tri-State Electrical is working on a photovoltaic solar farm outside Cimarron, New Mexico. Reputed to be the second-largest in the world, it will produce 30 megawatts of power on 250 acres of land. In comparison, the TSEC coal-fired plant that former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius torpedoed would have produced more than 40 times that. Basically, to power New York City with sunlight one would have to pave Connecticut with photovoltaic cells. And I think the residents of New Haven would object.
No, based on the response from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, I know they would. The good senator recently backed legislation to prevent the location of solar power facilities in Death Valley. Expect more of this as these facilities proliferate.
Then there’s wind generation. This is mostly available at places where people aren’t, necessitating large new transmission networks. Any bets on how long it will take someone to file a lawsuit about new high-tension power lines marching across their “view corridor?”
Also, electricity is like bread; it doesn’t keep well. So for high-demand baseload generation — if one is concerned about “global warming” — the obvious answer is nuclear. That the people braying about the former refuse to embrace the latter shows two things: First, they are hypnotized by emotional argument and second, they are uncaring of the damage the “green” changes they demand will wreak on our economy. Neither is particularly good.
Finally, there’s the canard of the economic boost “green jobs” will bring to Colorado and the nation. Adding to California’s example, which shows the “green revolution” is causing a net economic loss for the state, is recent information from Spain — about which environmentalists used to gush. Studies undertaken by Juan Carlos University in Madrid show that for every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years, 2.2 regular jobs were lost. And only one in 10 “green job” became permanent. Similar results are expected here.
None of which is to say that solar, wind, geothermal or other unconventional sources of power should be disregarded. Or that public transportation is useless. These things have their places, and should be exploited — where they make sense. But logic and economic analysis should guide us, not starry-eyed hope and ideology. Otherwise, we are likely to find ourselves poorer, less able to get around, and dangerously hobbled in a competitive world.
And in the dark.
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick@hotmail.com. Also, comment on this column at www.summitdaily.com.
