Economist's View: DeLong: How Much Do We Owe Our Distant Descendants?

リンク: Economist's View: DeLong: How Much Do We Owe Our Distant Descendants?.

Brad DeLong has posted a version of this on his blog, but in case you missed it:

Global warming tax: How much do we owe our distant descendants?, J Bradford DeLong, Project Syndicate: What do we owe to our great-great-great-grandchildren? What actions are we obligated to take now in order to diminish the risks to our descendants and our planet from the increasing likelihood of global warming and climate change?

Almost everyone except the likes of ExxonMobil, US Vice President Dick Cheney, and their paid servants and deluded acolytes understands that when humans burn hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere, where it acts like a giant blanket, absorbing infrared radiation coming up from below and warming the earth.

Likewise, almost everyone understands that while global warming might be a much smaller or larger problem than existing models suggest, this uncertainty is no excuse for inaction. ...

Finally, almost everyone agrees that governments, non-profit institutions and energy companies should be spending far more to develop technologies that generate non-carbon-emitting power, that remove it from the atmosphere to forests or oceans, and that cool the earth by reflecting more of the sunlight that lands on it.

Clearly, the world's rich countries should carry the burden of dealing with climate change. After all, they could take an easy, emissions-intensive path to industrialisation and wealth. Today, China, India and other developing countries cannot, and it would be unfair to penalise them for that. ...

Economists like to think of things in terms of prices. And when economists see behaviour that has destructive side effects, we like to tax it. Taxation makes individuals feel in their wallets the destruction they are causing. ...

But it has to be the right tax. An SUV going 10 miles in the city and burning a gallon of gasoline pumps about three kilograms of carbon into the atmosphere. Should the extra global warming tax be US$0.05 a gallon, US$0.50 a gallon, or US$1.50 a gallon? ...[T]he size of the tax hinges on a question of moral philosophy: How much do we believe we owe our distant descendants?

The Australian economist John Quiggin has an illuminating discussion on his website that comes down on the side of a US$0.50/gallon tax, because he projects that spending today to reduce carbon emissions is a good investment for the future. Assuming that annual per capita income grows at about two-per cent per year worldwide, a marginal expenditure of roughly US$70 today to cut carbon emissions would be worth it if ... the world of 2100 would be US$500 richer in year-2006 purchasing power.

On the other hand, critics point out that the world today is poor: average annual GDP per capita at purchasing power parity is roughly US$7,000. We expect improved technology and its spread to make the world of 2100, at a two-per cent annual growth rate, much richer: US$50,000 per capita of year-2006 purchasing power. So the critics argue that we need the marginal US$70 per capita today much more than the richer people of 2100 will need the US$500 that they would gain from being spared the effects of global climate change.

But what the critics often don't say is that the same logic applies to the world today. Average annual per capita incomes in the US, Japan and Western Europe are currently around US$40,000, and less than US$6,000 for the poorer half of the world's population. The same logic that says we need our US$70 more than the people of 2100 need an extra US$500 dictates that we should tax the world's rich more, as long as each extra US$500 in first-world taxes generates as little as an extra US$70 in poor countries' per capita incomes.

In short, if the world's rich are stingy today toward our much richer descendants, and if we want to leave our environmental mess to them to deal with, we should be lavish toward the world's poor. Likewise, if we are stingy today toward the world's poor, we should be lavish toward our descendants.

At least, that is what we should do, if our actions are based on some moral principle, rather than that of Leonid Brezhnev: What we have, we hold.

Posted by Mark Thoma on December 31, 2006 at 04:37 PM in Economics, Environment, Policy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7335619

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DeLong: How Much Do We Owe Our Distant Descendants?:

Comments

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=7044&exhibition=7&ee_lang=eng&u=84574,0

Gadwall
New York City--Central Park, Harlem Meer.

Posted by: anne | Dec 31, 2006 5:44:54 PM

Well, why stop with gasoline? How about a $10/kw tax on coal-fired power plants? How about a $50/head cattle tax? How about $30/kcf for natural gas? How about getting real?

If warmer winters that require less heating are bad, then we owe it to our distant descendents to do everything we can to keep the climate at near ice age conditions.

And after we collect all of those taxes and screw up our economy, what are China and India going to do? Not tax themselves, that's for sure. They'll just build more coal-fired power plants because they are cheap and coal is readily available.

If Brad is so concerned about CO2, he should be leading the charge for nuclear power plants to get rid of all of those CO2 spewing coal fired ones. Then we can generate all kinds of electricity for our electric cars without generating CO2 at all. The French are right, after all.

Come on, Brad. Use some logic.

Posted by: Bruce Hall | Dec 31, 2006 7:08:05 PM

see how banal delong can be
when he's cookin an apple pie

he's for
towering grand executioner sweeps
of the neo liberal hand axe
from safely inside his ivy and ivory suit of armour

not boy scout bally hoos like this

"eat your legumes and whole grains fellahs..and exercise "

Posted by: slink | Dec 31, 2006 7:22:10 PM

Brad DeLong succumbs to same folly as virtually all liberals when they attempt to discuss global warming. He and they mindlessly focus on US cars, as if American automobiles were responsible for most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. For better or worse this is far from the truth. The first point should be obvious. The US accounts for only 21.64% of global CO2 emissions, down from 54.4% in 1945. See Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions for the raw data.

However, the deeper point is that US cars do not even come close to accounting for US CO2 production. According to Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004 - Executive Summary gasoline accounts for only 20% of US CO2 emmisions. This number includes gasoline consumed by commercial vehicles other than cars. Conversely, it excludes CO2 emissions from diesel cars. Simple math shows that US cars account for around 4% of global CO2 emissions.

Why the obsession with cars? Clearly the private automobile is the transportation system liberals love to hate. Rather than focusing on the dominant sources of CO2 emissions in the US and worldwide, it is conveniently PC to attack cars.

What is the largest source of CO2 emmissions in the US? According to the same source, power generation accounts for 40% of all US CO2 output. Of course, it’s not PC to condemn power production.

The airlines (via jet fuel) are also a major contributors to US CO2 emissions, accounting for around 4% of the total. However, proposals to tax jet fuel are almost unheard of in the US (but not in Europe). Class bias anyone?

Another useful point is that the current industrial nations did not gain some kind of unfair advantage by burning fossil fuels before global warming became an issue. Half of all global CO2 output has been since 1978. 82% since WWII and 96% since 1900. In other words, all of man’s industrial activities up to 1900 produced only 4% of the current CO2 production total.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Jan 1, 2007 1:12:07 AM

"Brad DeLong succumbs to the same folly as virtually all liberals when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Brad DeLong succumbs to the same folly as virtually all people named Brad when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Brad DeLong succumbs to the same folly as virtually all people named DeLong when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Brad DeLong succumbs to the same folly as virtually all Californians when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Brad DeLong succumbs to the same folly as virtually all professors at the University of California when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Brad DeLong succumbs to the same folly as virtually all...."

Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 4:27:47 AM

Somehow I'm left with the impression that Peter doesn't have any answers and Bruce has one.

Posted by: ken melvin | Jan 1, 2007 6:59:16 AM

"Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 4:27:47 AM"

Tell me, how is the weather in Beijing, "Anne" ?

Posted by: Ninjaplease | Jan 1, 2007 8:04:55 AM

Ken Melvin,

I wasn’t trying to offer a solution to global warming. That should have been clear. My goal was to demonstrate that Brad DeLong doesn’t know the basics of the problem. Anyone who writes “They got to take an easy carbon emissions-intensive path to industrialization and riches” doesn’t know much energy history. The U.S. industrial revolution was over by 1900 (if not sooner). At that point the U.S. had produced 1% of the current total of CO2 output.

If you read BDL’s orginal article he is completely obsessed with cars and particularly SUVs. However, the reality of the situation doesn’t justify any such focus. Taxing gasoline in the U.S. isn’t materially relevant to global warming. But it would make liberals feel better…

Reducing total U.S. CO2 output by 50% would have a slight impact on global warming. However, that would require drastic changes in many (almost all) aspects of life in America. How many plane flights did BDL take last year? I don’t know the answer of course, but I would guess the number is larger than zero.

Note that even if U.S. CO2 output went to zero, the global warming problem would still be grave. A rough calculation shows that output growth elsewhere would offset the elimination of the U.S. (as a CO2 producer) in around 15 years.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Jan 1, 2007 9:30:28 AM

"Taxing gasoline in the U.S. isn’t materially relevant to global warming. But it would make liberals feel better…"

"Taxing gasoline in the U.S. isn’t materially relevant to global warming. But it would make Greg Manikw feel better…"

"Taxing gasoline in the U.S. isn’t materially relevant to global warming. But it would make Andrew Samwick feel better…"

The funny thing is that conservatives are all about taxing gasoline, but liberals in Congress will be making sure it ain't gonna happen. But, we must have a hate on for liberals, we must, we must, we must.

Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 9:40:50 AM

Wanna know why liberals ain't gonna allow conservatives to increase the tex on gasoline, children? well, there is, you remember, a certain Terminator who became governor or a certain state when a certain non-Terminating governor tried to raise the cost of driving, and people do like to drive ever so much and so they elected a certain Terminator and the Terminator has even found other ways to protect against global warming while people are all about buying Toyotas, remember Toyotas?

Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 9:46:28 AM

Watch me in my Prius, sneering at conservatives who ain't gonna raise my gasoline taxes because liberals ain't goona let 'em.

Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 9:48:35 AM

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. PERIOD.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 1, 2007 10:31:25 AM

While a gasoline tax may be largely irrelevant for curbing global warming, it would play a much more significant role in reducing the US dependence on foreign oil. Of course within the context of political discourse, the links between policy suggestions and desired outcomes often become muddled. The biggest source of CO2 emissions in the US is the coal we burn to generate 50% of our electricity. Aside from a lot of talk about "clean coal" technology there is relatively little being done to reduce the role of coal in electrical generation on a nationwide basis.

Posted by: yan | Jan 1, 2007 11:08:57 AM

Our host succumbs to same errors as most liberals when they attempt to discuss global warming. He and they focus on U.S. cars, as if American automobiles were responsible for most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. For better or worse this is far from the truth. The first point should be obvious. The U.S. accounts for only 21.64% of global CO2 emissions, down from 54.4% in 1945. See Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions for the raw data.

However, the deeper point is that U.S. cars do not even come close to accounting for U.S. CO2 production. According to Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004 - Executive Summary gasoline accounts for only 20% of U.S. CO2 emissions. This number includes gasoline consumed by commercial vehicles other than cars. Conversely, it excludes CO2 emissions from diesel cars. Simple math shows that US cars account for around 4% of global CO2 emissions.

Why the obsession with cars? Clearly the private automobile is the transportation system some people love to hate. Rather than focusing on the dominant sources of CO2 emissions in the US and worldwide, it is conveniently PC to attack cars.

What is the largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S.? According to the same source, power generation accounts for 40% of all U.S. CO2 output. Of course, it’s not PC to condemn power production.

The airlines (via jet fuel) are also a major contributors to U.S. CO2 emissions, accounting for around 4% of the total. There is some argument that a multiplier (2 – 4) is needed to adjust for the high altitude distribution of jet emissions. See The Sky’s the Limit. However, proposals to tax jet fuel are almost unheard of in the US (but not in Europe). Class bias anyone?

Another useful point is that the current industrial nations did not gain some kind of unfair advantage by burning fossil fuels before global warming became an issue. Half of all global CO2 output has been since 1978. 82% since WWII and 96% since 1900. In other words, all of man’s industrial activities up to 1900 produced only 4% of the current CO2 production total. The U.S. industrial revolution was over by 1900 (if not sooner). At that point the U.S. had produced 1% of the current total of CO2 output.

Reducing total U.S. CO2 output by 50% would have a slight impact on global warming. However, that would require drastic changes in many (almost all) aspects of life in America.

Note that even if U.S. CO2 output went to zero, the global warming problem would still be grave. A rough calculation shows that output growth elsewhere would offset the elimination of the U.S. (as a CO2 producer) in around 15 years.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Jan 1, 2007 11:09:51 AM

Mark Thoma,

Sorry. "Our host" was meant as a reference to Brad DeLong, not you.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Jan 1, 2007 11:14:02 AM

Thanks, but problem at all - I don't mind. Happens quite a bit.

Posted by: Mark Thoma | Jan 1, 2007 11:19:46 AM

"Our host succumbs to same errors as most liberals when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Our host succumbs to same errors as most snails when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Our host succumbs to same errors as most turtles when they attempt to discuss global warming."

"Our host succumbs to same errors as most turnips when they attempt to discuss global warming."

Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 11:24:34 AM

Van,

True enough. However, even if U.S. gasoline consumption went to zero, we would still import large quantities of oil (obviously much less than currently).

As for coal and electricity. What's the alternative? Oil? Natural Gas? The marginal barrel of oil is imported. Natural gas reserves are declining (and imports growing). Nuclear?

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Jan 1, 2007 11:40:41 AM

Whoever you are, anonymity doesn't keep others from knowing that you are ignorant.

Posted by: ken melvin | Jan 1, 2007 12:35:05 PM

"As for coal and electricity. What's the alternative? Oil? Natural Gas? The marginal barrel of oil is imported. Natural gas reserves are declining (and imports growing). Nuclear?"

The ultimate alternative is solar (and other derivations of what is basically solar energy such as wind, hydroelectric and geothermal. I don't include biofuel because it is not in the long term a good use of arable land). The political problem is whether to be reactive or proactive about dealing with the transition. The infrastructure to generate electricity from solar sources would take several decades to put in place. Should the government wait for the current situation to reach a crisis (whether due to resource depletion or emission concerns) or should they proactively seek to develop a viable energy infrastructure for the future? The market response is going to be reactive so only a distortion of market conditions would result in a proactive policy. Some governments are being more proactive than the US in this respect: Japan and Germany with solar, the Danes with wind energy, Sweden with a policy to be totally oil free by 2020. We are even seeing some areas of the US deploying alternative energy solutions (California for solar and Texas for wind) but given the rates of current capital investement, the amount of energy being produced from such sources will remain too low to deal with crisis in anything but a reactive way.

Posted by: yan | Jan 1, 2007 1:46:10 PM

"Anne" - stick to pictures of urban vermin - that is your level of debate

Posted by: | Jan 1, 2007 3:45:56 PM

"Anne" - seen any winged vermin lately?

Posted by: | Jan 1, 2007 3:47:14 PM

"Anne" - why not post some Vanguard mutual fund spam?

Very relevant debating tactic.

Posted by: | Jan 1, 2007 3:48:27 PM

"Anne" - stick to DeLongs blog - you kill every thread you get involved in with your multiple posts and closed mind.

Posted by: | Jan 1, 2007 3:50:29 PM

Well, it's certainly good to know that all of the important increases in the industrial wealth of the U.S. occurred before 1900, and that CO2 emissions since then are irrelevant. That implies that we could cease all of our current CO2 emissions without suffering any economic loss, and we should therefore do so immediately.

But actually, I've been following all of the talk about how wealthy our descendents are going to be with some bemusement. Really? We absolutely know for a fact that they are going to be wealthier than we are, even if the oceans rise, and climate shifts, and the Ogallala aqufer runs dry?

How convenient that nothing that we do to the environment can possibly affect that future wealth. I mean, it would be most unfortunate if current consumption were to somehow be an adverse factor. Guess I'll just make me up a tasty cornbread from some of that seed corn I've been saving for next year.

Posted by: James Killus | Jan 1, 2007 5:58:29 PM

Ah, by the way, I am reading now of the Ogallala aquifer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/business/16farm.html?ex=1316059200&en=0178e1484168ae06&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

September 16, 2006

For Kansas Farmers, Water Is a Vanishing Commodity
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

ULYSSES, Kansas — Out here the mercury touches 110 on summer days, the wind changes from whisper to bellow in an instant and the black flies bite hard and often. But Larry Kepley has learned to work patiently through the challenges of farming in western Kansas.

Like his father and grandfather before him, Mr. Kepley grows wheat. But energy costs that have quadrupled in three years, along with one of the worst droughts to grip the region in a century, have made it too expensive for him to irrigate. So today Mr. Kepley grows wheat under dry-land conditions, capturing rainfall for two years to make one year's crop.

"These are called semi-dwarfs," he said while surveying his burnt-looking wheat stalks one recent afternoon. "Our geneticist started developing this. Generally our wheat will be about knee-high when it is harvested. It doesn't use much energy in developing the stalks."

For Mr. Kepley, 67, and other farmers in the heart of the Wheat Belt, the cost of energy and water are obsessive topics. Decades of irrigating crops have drained the Ogallala aquifer to dangerously low levels in some areas. And recent high prices for natural gas and diesel, which farmers need to run pumps and sprinklers that water the crops, have made irrigation prohibitively expensive....

Posted by: anne | Jan 1, 2007 6:10:53 PM

Anne,

Not to worry. All of that will be outsourced to China, if necessary. We can simply increase the trade deficit.

Besides, if global warming really were really to blame for problems in Kansas, Canada will have longer growing seasons and will be glad to sell us the wheat. Actually, the misuse of water is totally unrelated to CO2 levels as the dust bowl days of the 1930s so aptly demonstrated... so I'm not sure what your point is.

Perhaps you need another mantra to fill the space.

Posted by: Bruce Hall | Jan 1, 2007 6:32:02 PM

Bruce,

I mentioned the Ogallala Aquifer as an example of a "temporary economy." Land in parts of the midwest has a certain present value as farmland, based on its current output, but that output is made possible only by an exhaustible (and dwindling) resource. That is because of the current climate in the mid-west, and climate is the topic of discussion.

As for whether or not Canada will be able to take up the slack if the American Mid-West ceases to be productive, I have to observe that, for someone who thinks that climate prediction is very uncertain, you seem very willing to make predictions about future climate. Yes, some models do predict such an effect, but I'm sure you'll agree that models may fail in the details. And in any event, Canada gets less integrated sunlight than the U.S. and sunlight is a limiting factor for primary productivity, so there are no guarantees.

Finally, I must emphasize, as I do every so often, that what we are talking about here is a large, human-induced change in the atmosphere of the Earth, and economic arguments aside, this is not soemthing that anyone or any group has the right to do. It is a violation of the human and property rights of every single person on the planet. It is irrelevant how many people think it's a fine idea (or how many people think it's a hoax, for that matter). Fundamental rights are fundamental rights, and cannot be abrogated by majority vote, much less the decisions by a small number of corporate executives, government officials, and think tank hired guns.

Posted by: James Killus | Jan 1, 2007 8:08:24 PM

Van,

Geothermal isn't solar and the resource base is limited. Hydro has very limited future development potential in the U.S. Wind is more promising. However, once wind reaches a significant fraction of total supply, its instability creates problems. See Incorporation of wind power in the east Danish power system and Danish Wind Turbines Take Unfortunate Turn for some information on the subject.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not opposed to wind power. Wind power is the most cost effective form of “solar” power developed in the 20th century. A government energy R&D manager (NASA Ames) once told me that wind energy was the only practical result of the R&D dollars invested after the 1973 oil embargo. I don’t know if his claim was/is correct. However, he was proud of his role in developing wind energy technology in the U.S.

James Killus,

Brad DeLong wrote “They got to take an easy carbon emissions-intensive path to industrialization and riches”. Yes, and we produced less than 1% of total global CO2 output to do so. Of course, the U.S. has produced far more CO2 since then. Note that China has already produced more than 7 times as much CO2 as the U.S. did up to and including 1900. If China/India could industrialize by producing only as much CO2 as the U.S. did, no one would be concerned about them.

Posted by: Peter Schaeffer | Jan 1, 2007 8:38:50 PM

I was thinking of geothermal as ultimately solar from the perspective that heat radiated from the earth is ultimately derived from heat absorbed due to sunlight. But from that perspective fossil fuels are ultimately solar in their origins as well. And you are right that the locations suitable for geothermal are rather limited.

Wind is not without its problems. The theoretical limit of overall electrical production from wind is around 20-25% due to intermittency issues, in the absence of large scale storage technologies. And turbines placed in offshore locations are subject to corrossion and thus the most likely to need repair. Still with a base cost of $.03-.06/Kwh, wind generated electricity is extremely competitive with coal, gas or nuclear, and far cleaner than any of those options. And although wind is the fastest growing renewable source in the US, we are still only producing around .5% of all electricity from it. The Danes are at 20% of electricity generation from wind already and the Germans passed 6% last time I checked. My main concern is that the infrastructure to ramp up capacity won't be there when we need it.

Posted by: yan | Jan 1, 2007 9:51:52 PM

"If warmer winters that require less heating are bad, then we owe it to our distant descendents to do everything we can to keep the climate at near ice age conditions."

Imagine the idiocy....

Posted by: anne | Jan 2, 2007 3:52:51 AM

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=7041&exhibition=7&ee_lang=eng&u=77725,4

Red-headed Woodpecker in Flight
New York City--Riverside Park.

Notice the intimidation, and notice how intimidated I am.

Posted by: anne | Jan 2, 2007 3:54:39 AM

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=7039&u=69292,2

Red-headed Woodpecker at Roost Hole
New York City--Riverside Park.

Notice the intimidation, and notice me being intimidated.

Posted by: anne | Jan 2, 2007 3:57:40 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/28wind.html?ex=1324962000&en=1d1895a92304150c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

December 28, 2006

It's Free, Plentiful and Fickle
By MATTHEW L. WALD

Wind, almost everybody's best hope for big supplies of clean, affordable electricity, is turning out to have complications.

Engineers have cut the price of electricity derived from wind by about 80 percent in the last 20 years, setting up this renewable technology for a major share of the electricity market. But for all its promise, wind also generates a big problem: because it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, wind is not reliable enough to assure supplies for an electric grid that must be prepared to deliver power to everybody who wants it — even when it is in greatest demand.

In Texas, as in many other parts of the country, power companies are scrambling to build generating stations to meet growing peak demands, generally driven by air-conditioning for new homes and businesses. But power plants that run on coal or gas must "be built along with every megawatt of wind capacity," said William Bojorquez, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

The reason is that in Texas, and most of the United States, the hottest days are the least windy. As a result, wind turns out to be a good way to save fuel, but not a good way to avoid building plants that burn coal. A wind machine is a bit like a bicycle that a commuter keeps in the garage for sunny days. It saves gasoline, but the commuter has to own a car anyway.

Xcel Energy, which serves eight states from North Dakota to Texas and says it is the nation's largest retailer of wind energy, is eager to have more. Wind is "abundant and popular," said Richard C. Kelly, the chairman, president and chief executive, speaking at a recent conference on renewable energy.

But Frank P. Prager, managing director of environmental policy at the company, said that the higher the reliance on wind, the more an electricity transmission grid would need to keep conventional generators on standby — generally low-efficiency plants that run on natural gas and can be started and stopped quickly.

He said that in one of the states the company serves, Colorado, planners calculate that if wind machines reach 20 percent of total generating capacity, the cost of standby generators will reach $8 a megawatt-hour of wind. That is on top of a generating cost of $50 or $60 a megawatt-hour, after including a federal tax credit of $18 a megawatt-hour.

By contrast, electricity from a new coal plant currently costs in the range of $33 to $41 a megawatt-hour, according to experts. That price, however, would rise if the carbon dioxide produced in burning coal were taxed, a distinct possibility over the life of a new coal plant. (A megawatt-hour is the amount of power that a large hospital or a Super Wal-Mart would use in an hour.)

Without major advances in ways to store large quantities of electricity or big changes in the way regional power grids are organized, wind may run up against its practical limits sooner than expected....

Posted by: anne | Jan 2, 2007 4:03:17 AM