Reply #37: If you are anti-Amory Lovins, then you are pro-coal [View All]

[bananas]

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/

<snip>

Q. Does the same critique apply to liquid coal?

A. Yes. I was delighted when both the Chinese State Council and the U.S. Senate about a week apart canceled programs.

Q. But I'm sure you're aware that the political push behind liquid coal is still very much pushing.

A. Of course, including some people who should know better. It has fundamental problems in economics, carbon, and water, and bearing in mind that we can get the country completely off oil at an average cost of $15 a barrel, something in the $50s to $70s range doesn't look viable. Those who invest in it, publicly or privately, will lose their shirts, and deservedly so.

I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. I can tell you who won't be in favor of it: the incumbent monopolists, monopsonists, and oligarchs who don't like competition and new market entrants. But whether they like it or not, competition happens. It's particularly keen on the demand side.

Q. Will Big Coal fall on its face?

A. It's already clearly happening in the global marketplace -- although the U.S. lags a bit, having rather outmoded energy institutions and rules. Worldwide, less than half of new electrical services are coming from new central power plants. Over half are coming from micropower and negawatts, and that gap is rapidly widening. The revolution already happened -- sorry if you missed it.

<snip>