Wind power is unreliable and requires back-up gas power stations to maintain a consistent electricity supply, a recent think-tank study found.
The study, written by economist Ruth Lea from the think-tank Civitas, uses UK government commissioned estimates of the cost of electricity generation to calculate the most cost-effective technologies.
Gas-fired power is the most cost-effective in the short term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium term, more than twice as cost-effective as wind.
The report concludes:
“Wind power is expensive and yet is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions."
"If it were not for the renewables targets, wind power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The renewables target should be renegotiated with the EU.”
The study attacks UK government claims that wind power is one of the more cost-effective means of generating power. In fact, it says, it is “unreliable and requires conventional back-up capacity”.
The report also says wind power, backed by conventional gas-fired generation, can emit more CO2 than the most effective gas turbines running alone.
No point in wasting my breath telling Julia Gillard and Bob Brown that Wind Power is useless, but Tony Abbott should announce that the coalition no longer supports the government’s insane 20% renewable energy target. Rescinding it and the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is the only way to ensure retail electricity prices cease their stratospheric rise.
With respect Andy, if we put you in front of a turbine, it would never stop.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | January 10, 2012 at 08:56 PM
Awwwwwww, yer just jealous because Andy's leading post is basically correct. Wind power will never replace base load energy, and the same goes for solar. At best they will serve as a bolt on accessory, and nothing more.
Posted by: bluebell | January 10, 2012 at 09:25 PM
Yes, I realise that, but oil and coal are finite resources last time I checked. (I have solar hot water-works a treat!)
Posted by: budgie smuggler | January 10, 2012 at 09:29 PM
Me too - I had to replace the old gas guzzler when she went kaput. You can no longer buy electric hot water heaters now. We now have a Solarhart on top of our roof and yes, I have to admit it works pretty well. We have only used the electric booster once in the middle of winter. When the sun is shining at 38 bloody degrees the water is scolding hot! I have to keep reminding myself to add cold water first!
Posted by: bluebell | January 10, 2012 at 09:36 PM
Where did you check?
How long will known coal reserves last, according to yuor research?
Posted by: Anton | January 10, 2012 at 10:15 PM
And yet we keep finding more oil and gas
Posted by: andy semple | January 10, 2012 at 10:18 PM
That's the problem with the leftards - they never check...they just want the cheque...
Posted by: andy semple | January 10, 2012 at 10:19 PM
To consider alternative power sources, even nuclear, on the basis of CO2 emmissions is to fall for the ecotard junk science. CO2 emissions, man made or natural, are not a problem.
The only energy resources we should consider are those that are cheapest - without subsidies or mandated targets. If the resources are finite the market will force the change automatically. No government required.
Posted by: Anton | January 10, 2012 at 10:25 PM
It's FINITE. Believe it or not.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | January 10, 2012 at 10:29 PM
I get nervous when I read about governments wanting to do seriously flaky stuff, like drilling underneath underwater volcanoes....and I saw a documentary about what they are doing in Siberia at minus 60%. The powers that be know our resources are finite and they are now talking about the unimaginable.....drilling in southern Antarctica. They are already doing this in Alaska. However, I get back to the main problem. Wind and solar will never replace base load power...it is a problem that global scientists are going to solve. If we keep dicking around with the earths mantle we are going to get more than we bargained for. In short, we are playing with matches.
Posted by: bluebell | January 10, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Being ignorant is a prerequisite for being a leftard, and shows in their comments here
Posted by: Anton | January 10, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Last I read , we have about 1000 years of coal left...so what's the problem?
Posted by: barry | January 10, 2012 at 11:25 PM
So is the sun's fuel supply, should we stop using solar as well then.
Go check again, how long will the known reserves of coal last?
Posted by: Anton | January 10, 2012 at 11:26 PM
We may have 1000 years of coal left, but we have to find ways of burning it more efficiently. Underground sequestration technology might be part of the answer. Certainly the third world will benefit from any new discoveries we might find in this regard....after all, it is coal that is the main source of their energy needs.
Posted by: bluebell | January 10, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Imagine you were sitting on a dolomite chair at a marble table. Rest your feet on a piece of limestone and start writing with a piece of chalk.
You would be surrounded by “sequestrated carbon”.
Burning oil releases carbon dioxide. That oil was originally marine algae. Just before that it was Carbon dioxide. Even today, algal blooms appear in warm shallow seas such as the Gulf of Mexico, consuming carbon dioxide. When these die, they sink to the bottom of the ocean, together with a whole lot of “carbon pollution”
Posted by: Anton | January 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM
I'm sure , with modern technology, and new ideas coming up every day , man can come up with something .
Perhaps Nuclear.
All you need is a government that doesn't think in the 6th century.
Posted by: barry | January 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Hey Andy, I'm not against nuclear or gas power, but you're treating wind technology as if it exists in a vacuum.
If you had of been around in the late 1800s when people were working on gas turbines no doubt you would have shouted them down for their foolishness and written them off, because it was only after 1900 that someone invented a turbine that was able to produce more power than it took to run its own components. Since then their efficiency has increased dramatically.
For better or for worse, part of the mentality behind encouraging a shift to wind energy is that it provides a commercial impetus for research and development, not that the technology as it exists today is adequate for doing what we ideally want it to. All that energy you put into researching your little rants only to prop up a straw men. What a waste.
Posted by: Graham | January 11, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Ever heard of Betz Law?
http://www.andysrant.com/2011/11/the-greens-23-trillion-dollar-renewable-fantasy.html
Posted by: Andy Semple | January 11, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Very good Anton, yes the limestone is 'sequestrated carbon', it just took a few years to go from gas to limestone. When you consume a resource at a rate which is several orders of magnitude of its formation you need to account for that little silly factor called "time". So how long before we can extract crude oil from the algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico? Any idea?
Posted by: dante | January 11, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Andy Andy, you need deodorant!! Teresina Gambaro may help you.
Seriously, let me start by saying that in October 2008, an energy conference in Bath found that the total amount of economically extractable power available from the wind is considerably more than present human power use from all sources. Another study in 2005 stated that the potential of wind power, on land or and near-shore, is equivalent to 54,000 million tons of oil per year, i.e. > 5times the world's current energy use in all forms.
I know that you are extremely capable in the flatulence sector but you’ll need a lot of flatulence to even get close to the potential power of the wind.
I continue to ask why you and your dinosauric friend (in the sense that you people belong to a different and prehistoric era) always discredit any attempts to reduce the consumption of precious little fossil fuels. Is it just a death wish to ensure future generations can’t survive, or you have a lot of money invested in crude oil, or is it just old, plain stupidity?
Wind, just like atomic, hydroelectric, thermal, solar etc. form part of the energy mix necessary to ensure dwindling oil reserves are retained for activities where other forms of power aren’t possible, e.g. the airline industry.
It isn’t too hard to recognise the truth in this very simple proposition, even if your flatulence may obfuscate your senses.
Posted by: dante | January 11, 2012 at 04:56 PM
Ummm.All points are valid to be sure but I keep wandering back to OZ with over 2000 years of brown coal.
CO2 is out of the equation by most science, it's renewable energy that's the problem. Oz has the worlds most 'gettable' brown coal by open cut [drag line]. The whole state of Victoria is one open cut coal source. parts of Yallorn/Morwell have been moved twice since the war; to get at the coal. Top quality too as china does not burn our stuff for power but uses it for top quality steel. They burn their own crap. Our generators produce the least amount of pollution than any coal fired station on earth.
Posted by: john neeting | January 11, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Andy, your link is to your site. Does ANYONE actually go there?
Wind power isn't going away. Get over it ok.
Posted by: budgie smuggler | January 11, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Maybe it's never going completely away, but neither did the sailing boat, but it's not really important in terms of water transport. Wind power is absolutely, positively, never, ever, ever going to be a major contributor to the worlds energy needs. Can you get over that ok?
Posted by: John Mc | January 11, 2012 at 05:40 PM
Over it.....now. Okay, so what is the answer to expensive electrickery? Build more coal fired power stations? Know of anyone interested in putting money into that idea?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | January 11, 2012 at 06:14 PM
The process of finding a replacement for coal fired energy will be a long one - it probably won't happen in the time I have got left on this earth. But I am hopeful that the next 50 years will bring new inventions, and new ways of dealing with nuclear waste. Wind & solar power are just a small part of the equation. We have yet to discover how to store solar energy on a massive scale. If we can crack that, it would be revolutionary.
Posted by: bluebell | January 11, 2012 at 06:36 PM
@Andy - No I haven't but it's an interesting read on Wikipedia. I'm still not sure it negates my point though. In the article you link to you say the best possible is 59 per cent, Betz law, then go on to explain why even that's not reachable by referring to current technological limitations.
The whole point is to OVERCOME those limitations through innovation and research. Whether or not 59 per cent is the maximum ideal, we can get a lot more efficient than 35 per cent, the figure you used to base your calculation on. You seem desperate to want to frame your arguments based on the technological and economic limitations of today, rather than the possibilities of the future. Not much of a forward thinker are you?
Posted by: Graham | January 11, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Google Betz Law dumbass
Now we all know Wind Turbines cannot be 100% efficient and there are several reasons why they can’t be. Back in 1919 a smart German physicist named Albert Betz figured out that the most you can possibly get out of Wind Turbine is around 59% of the power in the wind. This is an unassailable bit of physics. Stop whining about it. I'm not going to prove it here but it is not hard to at least understand why we can never convert 100% of the wind's power. In other words, a perfect best-possible Wind Turbine would be able to convert almost 59% of the power in the wind into mechanical rotating power. But we can't achieve perfection.
A given Wind Turbine has a "design point" that generally defines its peak efficiency at the wind speed for which the system is designed. At wind speeds above and below the design speed the efficiency is the same or less - maybe much less. If a turbine's best efficiency is 40% at a wind velocity of 10 meters per second it will be 40% only at that wind speed. At all other wind speeds it will be something worse. That wind turbine will generally operate at lower than its best efficiency, because wind speeds are never constant or average.
When there is no wind, a turbine’s efficiency is zero.
The electric power actually produced will be still lower because the generator efficiencies are also less than 100% (generally in the mid-or-low-90's at best), and there are further losses in the conversion electronics and lines. But this is true of all power technologies. When all these losses are figured in, you might, if you are lucky, be getting 35% or so of the wind's energy actually delivered as useful electrical energy to the end user in the very best conditions. The average might only be in the twenties.
And yes, a lot of people visit
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 11, 2012 at 07:41 PM
Re point 27 dumbass
The theoretical best efficiency is of wind power is 59% (Betz Law)
Reality..20-35%
on evey measure wind power fails
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 11, 2012 at 07:49 PM
May I ask what the efficiency of a coal fired power station is Andy?
Posted by: budgie smuggler | January 11, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Let me introduce a new concept to you - facts.
Volcanos and vents release more CO2 into the oceans and atmosphere than humans ever do. And have been doing so for at least 2 billion years. Yet the billion years trend (forget about 10 or 100 year trends) is definitely falling CO2 (the original atmosphere was mostly CO2).
So yes, limestone and oil production, together with other natural sequestration match or exceed CO2 emissions.
Posted by: Anton | January 11, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Um, how did that address my point? Did you even read it, let alone understand it? The "reality" you're referring to is a current reality due to CURRENT technological limitations. Even if Betz law stands, and there's no reason to believe it won't, we can do a lot better than the 20 - 35 per cent we get now by improving technology.
You're also missing the broader point, and that is that no one is suggesting wind power on its own is a solution for the world's energy needs. Most sane, rational people are suggesting a combination of a whole range of technologies, including fossil fuels and nuclear. But the idea is to REDUCE our reliance on non-renewable sources. How you can oppose such a project so vehemently is beyond me. The point is not whether it's currently cost efficient or technologically feasible, but whether by putting a measure of commercial focus on it now we can get to a point in the future where it is! Whether that's a project that serves us in the medium term, you cannot argue with the benefits of reducing reliance on non reliable sources in the long term, unless you're the type of person who cannot possibly think beyond their own limited and short life span.
Before you go labelling people dumbasses you should take some time to work on your comprehension skills.
Posted by: Graham | January 12, 2012 at 09:33 AM
Which is more likely:
>A government funded "green industry" inventing a wind turbine that defies the first law of thermodynamics
>The natural evolution of existing technologies in the private sector allowing deeper oil reserves to be accessed
or how about
>The subsidy dependant solar industry developing a solar panel that works at night
>Experienced mining companies developing new mines at proved coal deposits
Think about it. The only viable power source developed by government wisdom is the one leftards hate the most - nuclear.
Go capitalism!
Posted by: Anton | January 12, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Well that's a classic straw man. You're making out like those are the only options. Stacking the deck to make your own opinion look more attractive. The point is to provide commercial incentive for the private sector to fund research and development. The Government funding and subsidies are designed to make projects more attractive, but the incentive to increase efficiency and discover new technologies is a market based incentive - commercial incentive. It's no different from the market forces you're referring to in the second of your so called options.
Go capitalism indeed. That's entirely the point. To implement policies that encourage market forces to innovate and revolutionise an industry.
Posted by: Graham | January 13, 2012 at 07:21 AM
It's no different from the market forces you're referring to in the second of your so called options
Actually it is, I am referring to FREE market forces, you are referring to [government manipulated] market forces. I am referring to a market with a long history of producing wealth, technological development and improved standards of living. Your forces have a long history of producing economic and technical regression and increasing the cost of living. They are not the same, much as the ministry of truth would like us to think they are.
When the government provides a "commercial incentive" you no longer have a free market.
Go capitalism - I was referring to free market (real) capitalism, not your crony capitalism dominated by self appointed elites and trade unions.
Posted by: Anton | January 13, 2012 at 08:30 AM
Just a comment on this point: "Tony Abbott should announce that the coalition no longer supports the government’s insane 20% renewable energy target. Rescinding it and the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is the only way to ensure retail electricity prices cease their stratospheric rise"
The 20% RET was introduced by the Howard Government in 2001. It's a Liberal policy, not a Labor one. As such, therefore, Tony Abbott is committed to it and has said so, quite categorically, on a number of occasions.
This means that ANY Australian government, Liberal or Labor or hung, must find ways to meet that target. Wind power has been a part of that target since day one. As are hydro, solar, biomass, begasse, geothermal, wave, tidal, and other renewable resources that permit the generation of electricity (currently there are 17 sources certified to generate certificates under the Act).
Posted by: June | January 13, 2012 at 09:19 AM
Graham is just another plant by the left.
They are getting more cunning at getting their point across in a round-a-bout sort of way .
But it's all the same rubbish.
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 09:48 AM
And all designed to generate money for the grubby idiots chasing it .
Nothing to better the country.
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 09:50 AM
No, you're not referring to FREE market forces, you're referring to market forces that occur within the context of social governance that provides the framework and regulation for an economy. The miners you talk about are subject to regulations, tax incentives,subsidies etc, etc. They are, however, driven by the profit motive, and the policies surrounding regulation of their industry are designed to allow that profit motive to incentify in a way that is not damaging to society as a whole.
What we're talking about with a subsidised renewable energies industry is the same. The idea is to allow private interests, spurred by the profit motive, to innovate, the same way your miners do, by implementing appropriate policies and regulation that gives them the freedom to do so in a socially acceptable way.
You're getting market regulation confused with a command economy. Very different beasts mate. The former is always there, and no economy has ever existed in any large scale sense without it. The latter is when Government takes control of the investment and development itself, rather than leaving it to those who are incentified by the profit motive. That's when there is the danger for reduced efficiency and large scale error.
Posted by: Graham | January 13, 2012 at 09:51 AM
TA should rescind the RET.
The only renewable that works (in this country away) is Hydro
Posted by: Andy Semple | January 13, 2012 at 12:49 PM
So you categorically state that "limestone and oil production, together with other natural sequestration match or exceed CO2 emissions". Is this correct? Is "oil production" a sequestrating mechanism? I didn't know this fact, my information is that oil production is an emitter and not a sequestrator ... but who am I to argue with such erudite? And if "natural sequestration match or exceed CO2 emissions" then how do you explain the 100ppm raise over the past few hunder years? Are you supporting the view that the additional CO2 that natural sequestration hasn't been able to remove is human induced? Or do you have some other magic explanation? You know, I am surprised you spoke about "facts" and you had the temerity to "introduce" it to me. Unfortunately you wouldn't recognise facts if you triped over them. Take my advice, stop taking those pink pills, leave the fortified stuff alone, remove the black glasses and start reading about some scientific facts. I'm sure that with a bit of effort even you will start to understand. Ciao
Posted by: dante | January 13, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Extracting 20-35% of the potential energy from a free, plentiful and available everywhere energy source isn't too bad. Andy, are you really this thick or you do it in order to match your mates on your side of politic? I was told that they give you an IQ test if you want to join the Libs, and anyone with an IQ>100 is rejected. Here is a good Aussie joke for you: do you know why Aussie blokes wear thongs? Becasue it takes an IQ>40 to do shoe laces. Have a good day!
Posted by: dante | January 13, 2012 at 01:47 PM
People, just put this in your search engine and you would know why Andy is totally wrong. We need ALL form of energy sources to produce power for our industries and home. Wind is simply part of the mix ... do you get it Andy? Part of the mix!!!
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm
Posted by: dante | January 13, 2012 at 02:03 PM
part of the mix is it?
I don't recall any new hydro dams or nuclear power plants, seems it just another wind farm after another. Maybe the taxpayer subsidy has something to do with it…
When the wind doesn’t blow, the power doesn’t flow.
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 13, 2012 at 02:59 PM
The only people who are gone in the head are people like you who think a tax will control the climate
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 13, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Of course the subsidy has something to do with it, that's the point of it. There are also nowhere near as many opportunities for new dams because we have built most of them already! Nuclear power plants also require a large injection of capital up front - and remember the point is to rely less on non renewable sources, so obviously the emphasis is not going to be placed there.
That's why you see more wind farms springing up Andy, because it's a technology with more untapped opportunities than the others, coupled with relatively low overheads. No one is suggesting wind will provide all our energy, simply that it can provide a lot more than it already does, easing the pressure on our other sources.
Posted by: Graham | January 13, 2012 at 03:04 PM
Volcanos and vents release more CO2 into the oceans and atmosphere than humans ever do.
This is false, as I've pointed out many times on MH before. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Posted by: liberal elitist | January 13, 2012 at 08:11 PM
What a load of claptrap.
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 10:19 PM
As CO2 is beneficial to life on the planet , humans should be very pleased with that result.....no?
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 10:20 PM
China seems to doing quite well with coal fired plants.. so what's our problem?
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Once again I ask,, why do you live here?
Seems you dislike us so much,,, surely you are not here just to reap the benefits of a great country?????
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 10:23 PM
More claptrap,, the planet will decide when it's had enough of us , and nothing we do will make an iota of difference.
What is it with you guys that makes you think you are superior to nature???
Posted by: barry | January 13, 2012 at 10:25 PM
No, I am referring to a free market. Miners are not subsidised into a resouce or technology. And those "socially responsible" regulations and taxes are chasing new mining investments "anywhere but Australia". Existing projects are going ahead, but in the last few months about 80% of new projects I see are not in Australia.
When you justify subsidies to "spur private investors by the profit motive" you are implying that the government has the wisdom to correctly pick winners.
Subsidies and regulations are just variations of a command economy, resulting in the same outcome. A free market is characterised by private individuals taking on risks based on their own judgement, keeping their winnings and their own losses.
Look at the current parliament, especially the Labor party - how can you expect them to get technology decisions right?
Posted by: Anton | January 13, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Is "oil production" a sequestrating mechanism? I didn't know this fact, my information is that oil production is an emitter and not a sequestrator
Shows how crap your information is - clearly algae absorbing CO2 and becoming oil is removing CO2 from circulation. There is no need to prove you are a fool, we knew that already.
There has been a 900000 + ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 in the last 4 billion years. Natural sequestration is clearly beating emmision, even with human help.
Were you intending to bring any facts to the argument?
Posted by: Anton | January 13, 2012 at 11:32 PM
This is false, as I've pointed out many times on MH before
You have also pointed out unicorns and fairies.
Down the middle of the Atlantic, almost pole to pole is a ridge of volcanos and vents. The "Rim of Fire" is another one virtually circumscribing the Pacific. Have you actually seen how small a real coal mine is in comparison to this?
Please don't waste time posting shit from an alarmist source, look at real geological data instead
Posted by: Anton | January 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Looking for alternatives to coal is like an olympic athlete looking for an alternative to a gold medal.
Just not good enough
Posted by: Anton | January 13, 2012 at 11:52 PM
>>Subsidies and regulations are just variations of a command economy
Ah no, they're not. I think you have a tentative grasp of economic theory there Anton.
To equate a command economy with Government regulation of an economy completely misunderstands either one or the other. Now ideologically you may disagree with Government regulation of markets, but it's here and more than likely here to stay. So any comparison you make between industries is a comparison that exists within that context. That's not a "free" market in the absolute sense.
It's a free market in the sense that Government does not monopolise industry and is not involved in production itself. This allows private individuals to take on risks based on their own judgement subject to those regulations. There's not an economy in the world where that isn't the case, nor has there ever been. So you're somewhat confused about what a 'free' market is.
The problem of imperfect information that I think you're attempting to refer to is not a problem of Government regulation, it's a problem when Government controls production, because any decisions it makes are implemented on a wide scale and potentially for reasons that are not economically efficient. If they should be the wrong decisions, the results are more widespread and compounded. There are, of course, many other problems with a centralised command economy, but they are very different problems to Government regulation of an economy. Regulation merely sets the rules of the game.
The miners you're referring to receive tax incentives that make their particular industry more attractive. Yes there are also taxes and regulations that at times make it less attractive. But they do not exist in a 'free' market in the sense you're attempting to paint here. That's a fantasy.
Posted by: Graham | January 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM
>Subsidies and regulations are just variations of a command economy
Ah no, they're not
Subsidies are most definitely a variation of a command economy, as are regulations that set prices. I really can't see how this can be disputed.
It's a free market in the sense that Government does not monopolise industry and is not involved in production itself.
You're on the right track, but a free market means more than this. A free market is where government does not go beyond upholding property rights, enforcing contract and preventing fraud, while letting individual agents act according to their own will. There is also a case for government involvement in health and safety of workers (which is currently being done quite badly).
You're implying if government keeps out of production itself, it's a free market. No, it's not. Regulating working hours, retail shopping hours, wage levels and applying taxes and tariffs as a coercive instrument are all parts of a command economy.
Whie you are right most industries in the world have always been part command economy and part free market, that does not negate that the more free market an economy is the better the outcomes for the people, and the more top down command that is exercised the worse it is for the average person.
Posted by: John Mc | January 14, 2012 at 01:01 PM
Subsidies and regulations are a variation of a command economy, as they are clearly market distortions based on ideology.
There's not an economy in the world where that isn't the case, nor has there ever been
Actually (almost) free markets have existed, albeit for only a few short times, and always hugely successful. Go look it up.
Did you know it is mathematically provable that free markets will automatically achieve optimum welfare (in this context welfare implies benefit to market participants). This is supported by the fact that more free markets are more productive than less free markets.
Why would you want to spend money on subsidies and regulations just to move the economy away from its optimum point. Unless you were an idiot or self serving dictator (the only 2 valid reasons for being a leftard).
Overall miners are the most highly taxed industry in Australia - hardly supports your argument of subsidies.
Posted by: Anton | January 14, 2012 at 04:35 PM
>>Subsidies and regulations are a variation of a command economy...
No, they aren't.
Dictionary definition for command economy:
an economic system in which activity is controlled by a central authority and the means of production are publicly owned - Merriam Webster
Means of production are publicly owned. Not OR the means of production are publicly owned. That is a necessary condition. Regulating and policing a market is something entirely different from owning the means of production. You are confused.
>>Actually (almost) free markets have existed, albeit for only a few short times, and always hugely successful. Go look it up.
haha So we've gone from free markets currently existing, to 'almost' free markets at some point existing for brief periods of time (and, you failed to mention, on a much smaller scale.) If they were so successful why did they only exist for such a short time? It's the same argument anarchists use when they point to Catalonia in 1936 as evidence for the existence of an anarchist society. It didn't last in any meaningful sense, and neither have absolute free markets. You have no doubt been suckered in by some two bit anarcho-capitalist/libertarian propaganda.
>>Did you know it is mathematically provable that free markets will automatically achieve optimum welfare
No, it most assuredly is not, not the least of which because the very term "welfare" is vague and difficult to define, and has been the subject of debate for as long as society has existed. If you can't define the variable you can't include it in any mathematically precise way. But there are undoubtedly very real benefits to allowing market forces to operate and to reduce regulation to allow that to happen. But you're making a classic error of logic by assuming that more of something good automatically = better. I don't think you're fully across the issues here. You should read a little more widely and try and avoid only reading what you agree with.
>>Overall miners are the most highly taxed industry in Australia - hardly supports your argument of subsidies.
The fossil fuel production industry also gets a bunch of subsidies and tax breaks designed to make investment attractive.
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf
Again, the point is the comparison you're making isn't between "free" market forces and a "command economy." I've shown you to be incorrect in your understanding of both of these concepts.
Posted by: Graham | January 14, 2012 at 05:14 PM
>>Subsidies are most definitely a variation of a command economy, as are regulations that set prices. I really can't see how this can be disputed.
It can be disputed by looking at the official definitions of the words you're using. Show me such a definition that says regulations and subsidies are a variation of a command economy. The very meaning of the term command economy necessitates control over the means of production. That's the point of the term. To conflate it with 'regulations and subsidies' is simply mistaken. But you can prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.
>>You're implying if government keeps out of production itself, it's a free market.
Where did I imply that? Read my posts carefully. In fact what I'm implying is that there is no such thing as a free market in the absolute sense, as Anton was suggesting. Nothing more.
>>that does not negate that the more free market an economy is the better the outcomes for the people, and the more top down command that is exercised the worse it is for the average person.
No, the mistake you're making here is similar to Anton. You're assuming that just because open markets are generally a good thing, then MORE open markets are ALWAYS a good thing. That's not the case, and you yourself gave an example why not. The regulations in work hours arose because people were NOT better off without the regulation. So too the regulations that seek to provide a safer working environment. You need to understand the context within which those regulations arose. They didn't arise arbitrarily, they arose because they were needed and the only way the people could get them was through Government regulation.
So already I've shown that as a blanket principle the "more free markets = better for individuals" is incorrect. It is not quite as simple as that.
Posted by: Graham | January 14, 2012 at 06:30 PM
You're assuming that just because open markets are generally a good thing, then MORE open markets are ALWAYS a good thing
It is mathematically provable that free markets produce an optimum allocation of resources. Economics students (mathematically challenged usually) are only required to be familiar with a 2x2 simplification, which can be solved graphically (called Edgeworth box diagram I think), but the analysis can be solved algebraically for the general case.
So yes, more free markets are a good thing.
Posted by: Anton | January 14, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Here's a definition of 'free market'. I sure you can find plenty more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
A free market is where people voluntarily exchange value for value to mutual benefit. If someone says I want to work 10 hours a day for 6 days a week, and someone else says that's great I want to employ you to do that, and we agree on pay rate, then it's a free market. All the agents involved are acting voluntarily according to their own will. If the government or some unions or some other third party steps in uninvited and says "no, you will not work 60 hours a week at that rate and if you do I'm going to fine you and throw you in jail" are the agents involved still acting freely?
If they're not acting freely how is it a free market?
Posted by: John Mc | January 14, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Free markets, free choice, free association, free thought and free speech are of no interest to leftards.
Those on the left are only interested in free stuff.
Posted by: Anton | January 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM
And all the honest hard working people are handing it to them on a plate!!!
Makes one wonder who big business is backing in all this farce!!!!
Posted by: barry | January 15, 2012 at 01:11 AM
Sometimes Atlas just needs to shrug of his burden and let someone else carry the load for a while!
Posted by: annomer | January 15, 2012 at 05:18 AM
Haha Anton, you didn't say the allocation of resources, you said WELFARE. The two are not synonymous, and it's where things get a little less black and white and less quantifiable.
Posted by: Graham | January 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Hi John,
Thanks for that, but I asked for a definition of 'command economy.' And I never said Government regulation was a free market. In fact I said the opposite. So I'm not sure what your point is?
Posted by: Graham | January 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Interesting and excellent article on why wind power will not work:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-big-wind-power-wont-work.html
Posted by: bluebell | January 15, 2012 at 01:43 PM
Thanks for that, but I asked for a definition of 'command economy.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_economy
How about this statement, which we might all be able to agree upon:
Any economy exists on a theoretical sliding scale with a command economy on one end and a free market economy on the other. As you are moving toward the command economy end you are entering the realm of the 'planned economy' whereby coercion through taxes, subsidies and regulation of labour and prices are increased. When that coercion becomes absolute compulsion then you have a planned economy. Now, as you decrease that coercion you move toward a market economy. When you have conditions such the only coercion in the market place is the protection of property rights, policing of fraud and enforcement of contract then you have a free market.
How's that?
So I'm not sure what your point is?
Well, I've raised a few points so far. Anton was fundamentally right earlier. The term 'command economy' means any government direction of the economy to most people, but I appreciate if you'd like to keep the more accurate definition of 'planned economy'. There are very few instances whereby 'planning' the economy' beyond upholding property rights, preventing fraud, enforcing contract and maintaining health and safety actually delivers net beneficial outcomes. Almost all instances of the 'planned economy' are about violating the rights of a smaller group to get the votes of a larger group. Hence, if you want high standards of living you should be aiming for a free market economy.
Posted by: John Mc | January 15, 2012 at 01:43 PM
LOL - I bet a bridge that looks like a coat hanger that Bob Brown won't pull the pin on her grubby government - let's see just how good he is when it comes to standing up for his convictions. Nah, stuff the trees, naked POWER is much more intoxicating!
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/julia-gillard-defends-new-forestry-agreement/story-e6frfku0-1226245402541
Posted by: bluebell | January 16, 2012 at 03:31 PM