Showing posts with label Stanford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanford. Show all posts

Friday, 11 September 2015

Study Shows How the US Could Achieve 100% Renewable Energy by 2050



 Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics



A study points the way to a renewable energy reliant United States in just 35 years
A study points the way to a renewable energy reliant United States in just 35 years (Credit: Shutterstock)

By Chris Wood
Gizmag
A team of researchers led by Stanford University's professor Mark Z. Jacobson has produced an ambitious roadmap for converting the energy infrastructure of the US to run entirely on renewable energy in just 35 years. The study focuses on the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal solutions, claiming that the transition is both economically and technically possible within the given timeframe.
As a starting point, the researchers looked at current energy demands on a state-by-state basis, before calculating how those demands are likely to evolve over the next three and a half decades. Splitting the energy use into residential, commercial, industrial and transportation categories, the team then calculated fuel demands if current generation methods – oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables – were replaced with electricity.
That already sounds like a mammoth task, but its true complexity comes to light when you consider that for the purposes of the study, absolutely everything has to run on electricity. That means everything from homes and factories to every vehicle on the road.
As it turns out, while the calculations might be complex, the results are extremely promising.
"When we did this across all 50 states, we saw a 39 percent reduction in total end-use power demand by the year 2050," said Jacobson. "About 6 percentage points of that is gained through efficiency improvements to infrastructure, but the bulk is the result of replacing current sources and uses of combustion energy with electricity."
In order for each state to make the transition, it would focus on the use of the most easily available renewable sources. For example, some states get a lot more sunlight than others, some have a greater number of south-facing rooftops, while coastal states can make use of offshore wind farms, and for others geothermal energy is a good option.













Interestingly, the plan doesn't involve the construction of new hydroelectric dams, but does call for improved efficiency of existing facilities. It would also only require a maximum of 0.5 percent of any one state's land to be covered in wind turbines or solar panels.

The team looked at all of the above before laying out a roadmap for each state to become 80 percent reliant on clean, renewable energy by 2030, with a full transition achieved by 2050.
Some states are more prepared to make the change than others. For example, Washington state already draws some 70 percent of its current electricity from hydroelectric sources, and both Iowa and South Dakota use wind power for around 30 percent of their electricity needs.
So what would all of this cost? Well, according to the research, the initial bill would be fairly hefty, but thanks to the sunlight and wind being free, things would level out in the long run, roughly equaling the cost of the current infrastructure.
"When you account for the health and climate costs – as well as the rising price of fossil fuels – wind, water and solar are half the cost of conventional systems," said Jacobson. "A conversion of this scale would also create jobs, stabilize fuel prices, reduce pollution-related health problems and eliminate emissions from the United States. There is very little downside to a conversion, at least based on this science."
Not only would it be economically viable to make the switch, but it would also have some significant knock-on health benefits, as approximately 63,000 people currently die from air pollution-related cases in the US every year.
The researchers published the results of their study in the journal Energy and Environmental Sciences. There's also an interactive map available, detailing how each state would make use of available renewables.
Source: Stanford University

Thursday, 9 January 2014

Financial Repression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Financial repression is any of the measures that governments employ to channel funds to themselves, that, in a deregulated market, would go elsewhere. Financial repression can be particularly effective at liquidating debt. The term was introduced in 1973 by Stanford economists Edward S. Shaw and Ronald I. McKinnon.[1][2]


Techniques[edit]

In a 2011 NBER working paper, Carmen Reinhart and Belen Sbrancia speculate on a possible return by governments to this form of debt reduction in order to deal with high debt levels following the 2008 economic crisis.[3] Reinhart and Sbrancia characterise financial repression as consisting of the following key elements:
  1. Explicit or indirect capping of interest rates, such as on government debt and deposit rates (e.g., Regulation Q).
  2. Government ownership or control of domestic banks and financial institutions with barriers that limit other institutions seeking to enter the market.
  3. High reserve requirements
  4. Creation or maintenance of a captive domestic market for government debt, achieved by requiring banks to hold government debt via capital requirements, or by prohibiting or disincentivising alternatives.
  5. Government restrictions on the transfer of assets abroad through the imposition of capital controls.
These measures allow governments to issue debt at lower interest rates. A low nominal interest rate can reduce debt servicing costs, while negative real interest rates erodes the real value of government debt.[3] Thus, financial repression is most successful in liquidating debts when accompanied by inflation and can be considered a form of taxation,[4] or alternatively a form of debasement.[5]
"Unlike income, consumption, or sales taxes, the "repression" tax rate (or rates) are determined by financial regulations and inflation performance that are opaque to the highly politicized realm of fiscal measures. Given that deficit reduction usually involves highly unpopular expenditure reductions and (or) tax increases...the relatively 'stealthier' financial repression tax may be a more politically palatable alternative to authorities faced with the need to reduce outstanding debts."[3]
Giovannini and de Melo calculated the size of the financial repression tax for a 24 emerging market country sample from 1974-1987. Their results showed that financial repression exceeded 2% of GDP for seven countries, and greater than 3% for five countries. For five countries (India, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe) it represented approximately 20% of tax revenue. In the case of Mexico financial repression was 6% of GDP, or 40% of tax revenue.[6]
As noted by Reinhart and others in a June 2011 IMF publication, "financial repression issues come under the broad umbrella of 'macroprudential regulation' (or macroprudential policy), which refers to government efforts to ensure the health of an entire financial system".[7]

Criticism[edit]

Critics argue that if this view was true, investors (i.e. capital seeking parties) would be inclined to demand capital in large quantities and would be buying capital goods from this capital. This high demand for capital goods would certainly lead to inflation and thus the central banks would be forced to raise interest-rates again. As a boom pepped by low interest rates fails to appear these days in industrialized countries, this is a sign that the low interest rates seem to be necessary to ensure an equilibrium on the capital market, thus to balance capital-supply (savers) on one side and capital-demand (investors and government) on the other side. This view argues rather, that interest rates would be even lower, if it wasn't for the high governmental debt ratio (=capital demand from the governmental side).

See also[edit]

Reform:
General:

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up ^ Shaw, Edward S. Financial Deepening in Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973
  2. Jump up ^ McKinnon, Ronald I. Money and Capital in Economic Development. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1973
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b c The Liquidation of Government Debt, Reinhart, Carmen M. & Sbrancia, M. Belen
  4. Jump up ^ Reinhart, Carmen M. and Rogoff, Kenneth S., This Time is Different. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 143
  5. Jump up ^ Bill Gross, "The Caine Mutiny (Part 2)"
  6. Jump up ^ Government Revenue from Financial Repression Giovannini, Alberto and de Melo, Martha, The American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 Sep. 1993 (pp. 953-963)
  7. Jump up ^ Financial Repression Redux (Reinhart, Kirkegaard, Sbrancia June 2011) IMF Finance and Development, June 2011, p. 22-26