Waxman-Markey Flunks Math (Why it will be disastrous to the economy)

Forbes ^ | 6/30/2009 | Rich Karlgaard,

[SeekAndFind]

A couple we know got a rude interruption on Saturday night. The two had settled into their seats at the AMC Cupertino Square 16 theater and were enjoying The Taking of Pelham 123, a thriller remake starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington. But Pelham 123 never finished; the theater lost its electrical power. The cause was a rolling brownout, due to a California heat wave and excessive use of air conditioning.

Electricity is a good thing. It powers your computer, drives economic growth, transmits images from Tehran streets, keeps preemies alive in hospitals, prevents meat from rotting and enchants and cools you in movie theaters.

Yes, electricity is a good thing. Where does it come from?

In the U.S., electricity is produced from these sources. If you are reading this on a handheld and can't read Wikipedia's wonderful pie chart, here is the breakdown:

48.9% -- Coal 20% -- Natural Gas 19.3% -- Nuclear 1.6% -- Petroleum

Got that? A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources: coal, gas and nuclear. Petroleum brings the contribution of so-called "evil" energy--that is, energy that is carbon- or uranium-based--to almost 90%.

The remaining sources of U.S. electricity, the renewables, are, by comparison, tiny players:

7.1% -- Hydroelectric 2.4% -- Other Renewables 0.7% -- Other

Hydroelectric accounts for 70% of renewable energy in America. But, of course, hydro is mostly tapped out. Almost every dam that could be built has been built. Ironically enough, political opposition to building more dams comes from the same crowd of tree huggers who oppose coal, gas and uranium.

Do you see where I'm going?

[SeekAndFind]

TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT ....

The Waxman-Markey bill will punitively tax energy sources that contribute 90% of current U.S. electricity (or 71% if you want to leave out nuclear). The taxes will be used to subsidize the 10% renewable contributors (but really just 3% after you leave out hydro).

In other words, Waxman-Markey is betting the future of U.S. electricity production on sources that now contribute 3% or supply 10 million Americans with electricity. That's enough juice for the people in Waxman's Los Angeles County. Or, if you prefer, for Nancy Pelosi's metro San Francisco plus Markey's metro Boston.

Renewable dreamers believe this magical 3% is somehow different than the 97%. Meanwhile, traditional sources of electricity that are progressing in the direction of cleaner and more efficient are being ignored.

[mreerm]

a few minutes ago, Fox was dealing with the question “how much will Waxman-Markey cost each family?”

although that’s a good question to ask, i’m hoping people will ask an additional question...”if Waxman-Markey becomes reality, what will i get for the $$$ spent?”

for the tax $$$ paid now, i can point to goods/services that those tax $$$ paid for (roads, military, etc.)

what goods or services would Waxman-Markey produce? what could one point to and say “there’s the value the $$$ produced”?

nothing

[Need4Truth]

if Waxman-Markey becomes reality, what will i get for the $$$ spent?

excellent point. i believe you get less than a 1 degree drop in global temps by the end of the decade (which is probably a lie) and you get to empower democrats.

[junta]

Before rebates and current subsidies it costs about 10k per kilowatt for PV power. So we in effect are going to be subsidizing Biff and Buff eco egoists to PV their place like Ed Begley.

[vrwc1]

You get the satisfaction of knowing that you helped make Al Gore fatter.