Gone with the Wind - The Daily Reckoning
The Daily Reckoning by Bill Bonner
On This Day - 27 December 2012
PRINTER FRIENDLY | ARCHIVES
Gone with the Wind A  A  A

Baltimore, Maryland

Zombies make us all poorer - even when they seem to be engaged in a worthy enterprise. Take wind power, for example. The wind is free. But turning the blowing air into electricity is not. If it costs more to generate a kilowatt of power than it is worth on the open market...the effort is a losing proposition. Like any other kind of loss, it will make us poorer, not richer. Not only that, when an energy company loses money, energy itself is gone with the wind; it never comes back.

Our Track Record Speaks for Itself... (80.9% accuracy rate!)

Imagine making returns like 114%, 218%, 302%, 421%, 189% and 251% in just 2-3 years...

And returns like 3,311%, 2,740% and 6,407% in 8-10 years... All from the bluest of blue-chips!

Yes, these are just some of the returns our StockSelect service has given... and now, it's available to you at a SPECIAL invitation price as a part of our "Once-in-a-decade" offer.

8 out of every 10 StockSelect recommendations have hit their target, so if you've ever wanted to give StockSelect a try, now would be the best occasion to do it.

Our "Once-in-a-decade" offer will close shortly, and NEVER be repeated again. Seriously!

So don't hesitate. Sign up right away. Click here for full details...

We'll come back to that in a minute. Zombies are becoming harder to carry. Why? When an economy is growing, it can afford more zombies. That's why government spending as a percent of GDP rose from 3% to 40% during the 20th century; we had more money to spend.

But now growth has slowed. A few months ago, your Rogue Economist was almost alone in the world when he suggested that this slowdown may not be caused by the current financial crisis. It may not be temporary, he said. Instead, the days of high growth may be behind us.

Now we've got company. Professor Robert J. Gordon, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

    Nothing has been more central to America's self-confidence than the faith that robust economic growth will continue forever. Between 1891 and 2007, the nation achieved a robust 2% annual growth rate of output per person. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests to me that future economic growth will achieve at best half that historic rate. The old rate allowed the American standard of living to double every 35 years; for most people in the future that doubling may take a century or more.
Professor Gordon points out that the innovations that permitted such high rates of growth in the 20th century happened a long time ago. He refers to running water, electricity, central heating, airline travel, the telephone and other technological advances. They were already in place when we were a child.

Since then, there have been substantial refinements, but the basic components of modern life are the same as they were 50 years ago.

We drive automobiles. We live in houses with thermostats. We talk on the telephone. We watch TV and listen to the radio. We now have computers in our houses, but the internet does not seem to have made much difference to the material side of our lives. It is more like a 2-way television, a rich source of entertainment and useful communication device, but not much more.

Nothing much really new has come along in the last 30 years. We eat the same food. We wear the same clothes. We drive the same cars (though they are much more likely to have been made overseas). We even listen to the same rock and roll groups that were performing in the '60s.

So, where will the next breakthrough come from? Fracking...biotech...
Google's driverless cars? Not likely, says Gordon.
    New inventions always introduce new modes of growth, and history provides many examples of doubters who questioned future benefits. But I am not forecasting an end to innovation, just a decline in the usefulness of future inventions in comparison with the great inventions of the past.

    Even if we assume that innovation produces a cornucopia of wonders beyond my expectations, the economy still faces formidable headwinds. The retirement of the baby boomers and the continuing exodus of prime-age males from the labor force, sometimes called the "missing fifth," are reducing hours worked per member of the population. American educational attainment continues to slide ever-downward in the international league tables, due to cost inflation at our universities, $1 trillion in student loans, abysmal test scores and large numbers of high-school dropouts.
For us, the analysis is simpler. What powered the high-growth rates of the 20th century? Fossil fuels...the energy from the sun, compressed, over millions of years. When mankind figured out how to use that energy in machines - planes, trains, factories and automobiles - it got a bit growth spurt.

But the machines were all in place by 1950. And the growth spurt began to slow down in the '70s. Since then, growth rates have declined, by fits and starts, to where they are now.

Is there a new breakthrough on the horizon? Will we figure out how to use even more energy to produce even higher standards of living? Who knows? But very low rates of GDP growth are the rule, not the exception. For tens of thousands of years mankind probably advanced little if at all.

That's why the move to wind power is a move 'back to the future.' We've had windmills for hundreds of years. But if it made sense to use wind turbines to generate electricity, there would be no need to subsidize the wind power industry. It could produce the juice and make a profit at it.

On the other hand, if it can't produce electricity at a competitive price, it is like an auto company that can't make cars at a profit...or a bank that needs federal bailouts to stay in business.

Imagine a company that makes widgets. It 'invests' $100 worth of labor, materials and overhead in order to make $90 worth of widgets. The world is $10 poorer. Ten dollars worth of resources has been lost.

Now, you can imagine what would happen next. The company should go broke. But the local politicians might announce a plan to 'save jobs' by giving the outfit a subsidy. Then, the zombie business could go right along losing money...making people poorer...almost indefinitely.

Wind powered electricity has been making people poorer ever since it was invented by Charles Brush 125 years ago. It has never been able to compete with electricity generated from fossil fuels. Still, that hasn't stopped people from trying. Especially after Congress voted to give the industry subsidies in 1992.

When entrepreneurs have their own money on the line, they learn quickly. But when it is other peoples' money that keeps them going, ignorance is bliss. They are happy zombies, generating power - at a real loss - from the fickle winds...and making the world poorer as a result.

Phil Gramm, former US senator from the Lone Star state, tells us that it costs $52.48 worth of government subsidies for every million watt hours of electricity the windmills put out. This is much more than nuclear power, which gets only $3.10. Natural gas gets only 63 cents.

And if the subsidies to the wind zombies continue for another year, we'll be out another $12 billion.

Bill Bonner is the President & Founder of Agora Inc, an international publisher of financial and special interest books and newsletters.

Disclaimer:
The views mentioned above are of the author only. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Equitymaster do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader. Please read the detailed Terms of Use of the web site.

Get The Daily Reckoning directly
in your mail box.
Just enter your e-mail address » 

Read our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Gone with the Wind". Click here!

3 Responses to "Gone with the Wind"

kalabairava

Dec 27, 2012

Bill, I dont agree that wind power is a zombie creation. It baffles me to think that even a profitable investment like wind power can be converted into a white elephant by the zombies.

Here in india, we find fossil fuel and nuclear power quite expensive and are instead investing in wind. After wind we are going solar.

Wind energy costs us only for initial set up, but running costs are less. Compare this with nuclear and thermal power plants which are costly to set up and maintain. Not to mention the running costs for fueling them. I think zombies are trying to fool people to believe that nuclear energy is cheap so that we dont agitate about the environmental impact that it causes.

The biggest cost for nuclear and thermal power is the environmental devastation that it causes and the risks of explosion etc.

Like 

V. D. Mansukhani

Dec 27, 2012

There are pros and cons of wind energy: clean green energy at a cost higher than fossil fuel energy. Off grid wind energy equipment supply power to rural villages (as well as many towns) where grid power is non existent or available for short periods; owners pay for wind mills and no subsidy is awailable.
Hopefully this article will put pressure on suppliers of wind mills to bring down capex so that generating costs reach grid parity with subsidies getting progressively reduced(as is happening in the case of solar PV power.)

Like 

Om Prakash Sharma

Dec 27, 2012

It is wrong to compare wind energy or for that matter alternative energy with energy generated by fossil fuels. The fossil fuels are not going to last for ever. Even Warren Buffet talks like this about Aviation Industry and wants us to travel by Bullock Cart. There are thing which should be thought beyond economy

Like 
  
Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Gone with the Wind". Click here!

Recent Articles:
Will They Haul Off Trump's Statue, Too?
August 16, 2017
All across the country, the old gods become devils. New, gluten-free gods take their places...
Farm Loan Waivers: Why Bad Economics Makes for Good Politics
August 14, 2017
It is because the negative effects of the waivers aren't clearly visible.
The Most Important Innovation in Finance Since Gold Coins
August 10, 2017
Bill connects the dots...between money and growth, real money and real resources, gold and cryptocurrencies...and between gold, cryptocurrencies, and time.
The Most Profitable Investment in the History of the World
August 8, 2017
'Yes, it looks like a bubble. And, yes, it's like buying a lottery ticket. But there's something happening that has never happened before. It's an evolutionary leap in money itself.'