Skip to main content

IEA wants more nuclear, renewable energy

From the Globeandmail.com:

The world is facing an energy future that's “dirty, insecure and expensive” unless governments take steps to promote alternatives such as nuclear and renewable energies, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday.

“The energy future we are facing today, based on projections of current trends, is dirty, insecure and expensive,” the global energy watchdog said in its 600-page outlook. However, “new government policies can create an alternative energy future which is clean, clever and competitive.”

I'm all for it, but just out of curiousity, why do these type of reports always have to be 600 or 1000 pages long? Is it to ensure that noone will read them?

Also, if you read the article you'll see that the emphasis is placed on government; government policies need to be created, government action needs to be taken, etc. I see this kind of language in every kind of news report, regardless of the topic. If there is a problem, government will, or should, solve it. I'm afraid people have become totally powerless and look to government to do everything.

Will government make alternative energies or nuclear power truly cost efficient? They can create subsidies to speed their adoption, which many will argue is a good thing. But over time, these artificial boosts can interfere with the natural role of the marketplace, leading participants to embrace products and solutions that are merely efficient enough to meet minimal standards.

As an example, some people could be moved to install a not-so-cutting edge solar panel on their roof simply because a state tax incentive makes it seem like an attractive option. Let's say you have the following options: you can wait for a more efficient, next-generation solar panel system to come on the market or you can choose in favor of the currently available product and grab that fat tax incentive while it's still on the table. What do you do?

For someone who wants to "go green" and nab the benefit of a tax subsidy, it seems the motivation is there to buy now rather than later. What's so wrong about that? The danger is that a reliance on incentives will create an artificially large market for a so-so product, one whose technological progress has been slowed by a dulling of market forces.

Instead of spurring the market to create a better solar product that creates electricity at say, 10 cents a kilowatt hour, it creates a more complacent marketplace that embraces the current generation 30 cents/kWh product.

The same principle can hold true for the construction of power plants. Some observers have pointed out that nuclear power has been unable to prove itself a cost-efficient energy source in the absence of government subsidies. As the Financial Times noted in their editorial comment on the IEA report:

Even though nuclear power is an issue that still divides its member governments, the agency makes its biggest pitch ever for the building of more reactors. Its argument for low-carbon and relatively indigenous and reliable nuclear power should carry political weight in a week that has seen a widespread black-out in Europe and resumed negotiations to extend the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Less convincing is its claim that the economics has moved in favour of nuclear power, particularly given the agency also calls on governments to help nuclear power overcome its inherent handicap in liberalised electricity markets.

For more info and opinions, please see the following on solar subsidies and energy subsidies.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dot-Com Bubble in 1 Chart: InfoSpace

With all the recent talk of a new bubble in the making, thanks in part to the Yellen Fed's continued easy money stance , I thought it'd be instructive to revisit our previous stock market bubble - in one quick chart. So here's what a real stock market bubble looks like.  Here's what a bubble *really* looks like. InfoSpace in 1999-2001. $QQQ $BCOR pic.twitter.com/xjsMk433H7 — David Shvartsman (@FinanceTrends) February 24, 2015   For those of you who are a little too young to recall it, this is a chart of InfoSpace at the height of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble in 1999-2001. This fallen angel soared to fantastic heights only to plummet back down to earth as the bubble, and InfoSpace's shady business plan , turned to rubble. As detailed in our post, " Round trip stocks: Momentum booms and busts ", InfoSpace rocketed from under $100 a share to over $1,300 a share in less than six months.  In a pattern common to many parabolic shooting stars, the s

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL!  Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner .   Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead! As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter . You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter).  Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter .

Jesse Livermore: How to Trade in Stocks (1940 Ed. E-book)

If you've been around markets for any length of time, you've probably heard of 20th century supertrader, Jesse Livermore . Today we're highlighting his rare 1940 work, How to Trade in Stocks (ebook, pdf). But first, a brief overview of Livermore's life and trading career (bio from Jesse Livermore's Wikipedia entry). "During his lifetime, Livermore gained and lost several multi-million dollar fortunes. Most notably, he was worth $3 million and $100 million after the 1907 and 1929 market crashes, respectively. He subsequently lost both fortunes. Apart from his success as a securities speculator, Livermore left traders a working philosophy for trading securities that emphasizes increasing the size of one's position as it goes in the right direction and cutting losses quickly. Ironically, Livermore sometimes did not follow his rules strictly. He claimed that lack of adherence to his own rules was the main reason for his losses after making his 1907 and