Sign up | Login with →

Comments by John Whitehead Subscribe

On Preliminary results from an offshore wind farm/recreation survey in North Carolina

Ed,

My prior was that respondents would overstate their opposition to wind farms.

March 28, 2010    View Comment    

On Preliminary results from an offshore wind farm/recreation survey in North Carolina

Margaret,

 Note sure about the production costs. Our study is to quantify a potential cost whose magnitude is not known.

March 27, 2010    View Comment    

On He said what?

Two comments:

"Handicapping conventional fossil fuel generation so that wind and solar can compete in price, even though they can't do the job of providing baseload power, will bring on economic disaster."

Define "economic disaster."

"Contrary to what we hear from cap-and-trade proponents, we do not in fact have 'all the technology we need.'"

Which proponents are saying that? The standard theory is that the higher energy price resulting from cap-and-trade would provide incentives to develop renewable energy technology.
February 4, 2010    View Comment    

On American Voters Prefer Carbon Tax over Cap-and-Trade, 2 to 1

Why would people care how complex it is? At the consumer level prices rise. Period.
February 4, 2010    View Comment    

On American Voters Prefer Carbon Tax over Cap-and-Trade, 2 to 1

However, the key questions are biased. Cap-and-trade and a carbon tax are explained fairly well but the carbon tax promises a tax refund and incentives for energy efficiency. Cap-and-trade could do the same thing but it is not mentioned.
February 4, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

Ed,

You are correct! Yet, I never said otherwise. Most everything has costs. Economists make a living pointing out benefits and costs (think of the "pro" and "con" list). It seems like the knee jerk reaction to any mention of the cost side makes a true believing think that you are the opposition when, in fact, you are neutral.

Note that the paper linked above also includes the transportation of waste on housing prices.

February 1, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

My obsession? From a single line in the above blog post (that was actually referring to results obtained from the econmics literature; e.g., this)? I consider that an exaggeration.

Even so, if everyone agreed that the risks were small there would still be some visual disamenities which would reduce the demand for local housing. All else equal, no one would want to live there. With the resulting drop in property values some would move in giving us a housing price difference estimate for the cost of the facility.


February 1, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

Gang: Did you miss the part where I said any serious stab at climate policy must include nuclear. Do all nuclear advocates "go nuclear" when someone mentions it is not all fun and games?

Charles: In economics, a cost is something you'd like to avoid. I'd like to avoid nuclear waste no matter how little objective danger it poses. That's rational.

Wilmot: Tol makes a <a href="http://fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/margcostmetawp.pdf">serious attempt</a> at answering the question here. The answer is that it is highly uncertain or what I said above.

February 1, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

Ed,

Answer: "the 'cost' of the environmental externalities, should they ever be accurately determined."

!!!

 

February 1, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

Dan,

There is a lot of science to get through before we get to nuclear technology.

January 31, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

"It is dangerous if it is not controlled through engineering and administrative measures."

Which suggests to me that there is a non-zero probability of human error and an accident. Hence, nasty. At least, potentially nasty.

I'd also quibble with this: "our schools must do a better job of teaching people the fundamentals of the technology and the complete nuclear fuel cycle." As a parent, I think there are better things for my kids to be learning than the complete nuclear fuel cycle.

January 31, 2010    View Comment    

On When a coal state goes nuclear

Dan,

Nuclear waste isn't nasty? I'd rather not live near a landfill, a nuclear waste facility, etc. The economics is all the same. There is no oversimplification. 

David, 

My pride about coal? It is a cheap energy source that powers the homes of millions. A bunch of my friends grew up and went to college on coal money, etc. There are benefits and costs to the stuff. Also, note that I did say "Now, of course, I'm not so sure about that" which might signal that I am aware of the costs. 

 

January 31, 2010    View Comment