Skip to main content

Unintended consequences part II

Alternative energy

This week The Economist has a long spiel on Alternative energy and how it generate grid issues. While this is true to some extent the reason is not entirely what the Economist thinks is the problem. There is no doubt that someone has to pay for potential power.  But, and this is important, the nature of the competition is changing.  Rooftop solar is a problem because the houses are empty during the day and full at night.  Its a problem because rules are such that utilities have to buy the power when its available, not when its needed.

But again technology is at the rescue.  In countries where the obligation of the utility of buying rooftop solar is low (and that battery technology is now emerging as a cost effective solution) then there is the potential for true shift in production away from polluting technologies.  I am happy to pay for the nearby potential power from the gas powered station if, and only if, the utility is also happy to pay me for potential power -- eliminating market disruptions via subsidies and economies of scale (as the number of battery owners increases the risk of disruption falls.

More interestingly what has happened to solar cost over the past five year is absolutely dramatic.  In June 2016, Dubai signed agreements to buy power at 2.99c per w/hour -- this was already an amazing price, if you consider that only 5 years ago, the most competitive Spanish plant was pricing its power nearer 15.0c per w/hour.  More amazing, in the past month Dubai signed another agreement where the price of power was just 2.0c per w/hour.

Trump and is coal friends are trying to turn the clock back -- first by removing subsidies (and allowing coal producers to pollute to their heart's desire (black heart)), but the reality is that coal's time has past!  Within the next decade solar costs should fall below 1.0c per w/hour -- making solar the cheapest form of energy, with zero variable costs and a life span of 20/30 years.

The addition of batteries will regularise the grid far more effectively than what is available today, and the wide distribution of batteries across the network will dramatically reduce congestion within the networks.  The Trump push against green energy is perfectly timed -- without the distortion the market will allocate resources more effectively -- and in all cases solar (and wind) wins!

The unintended consequence -- the push for coal/gas and other polluting technology will actually encourage the installation of solar and wind, because in a perfectly competitive environment the green energy solutions ARE more economical.

NAFTA

It didn't take long, Mexico is already sniffing around to replace some American imports with imports from other countries; the first to be hit are the farmers (you know the middle state that voted for Trump) next will be Texas and Arizona -- and a bit of California.

It has finally dawned on Mexicans that food security is critical, and the games being played by the Federal (under new management) government and some state governments has given the idea that reducing its dependence on the US may be an excellent idea.  First, will be agricultural products, it just so happens that Argentina is looking for export markets for its grain production -- second is meat again Argentina and Paraguay are looking for new export markets -- they also have the added benefits of not using hormone in their beef production.

Mexico is America single largest grain export market...suddenly your sure bet has become a not so sure thing.  Travel restriction, border harassment and even the occasional cop playing the why are you hear card have made America a far less welcoming place for many Mexicans.

So it is more than possible that Trump will find itself with a far larger trade deficit -- remittance should be tailing off, the 2016 remittance bump was outside the norm and should resume its historical trend sometime in 2017.

For farmers in Iowa this is all terrible news, for Arizona, New Mexico and Texas its a warning shot that should not be dismissed out of hand.  Trump's America has increased the cost of business (harassment, uncertainty) its only natural that Mexico looks for new markets.  The most amazing thing here is not that its happening, but its an organic shift -- there are no political pressures, there is a "feeling" that the political landscape in the US could become more volatile, more anti foreigners, and the way to reduce that risk is to reduce exposure.  The US has always been Mexico's largest trading partner -- before NAFTA it was around 75% of all Mexican exports were destined for the US market, but now its nearly 90%.  maybe too much of a good thing.

When "salt of the earth" farmers start going bust maybe congress will pay attention, then again maybe not!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ok so I lied...a little (revised)

When we began looking at farming in 2013/14 as something we both wanted to do as a "second career" we invested time and money to understand what sector of farming was profitable.  A few things emerged, First, high-quality, source-proven, organic farm products consistently have much higher profit margins.  Secondly, transformation accounted for nearly 80% of total profits, and production and distribution accounted for 20% of profits: Farmers and retailers have low profit margins and the middle bits make all the money. A profitable farm operation needs to be involved in the transformation of its produce.  The low-hanging fruits: cheese and butter.  Milk, generates a profit margin of 5% to 8%, depending on milk quality.  Transformed into cheese and butter, and the profit margin rises to 40% (Taking into account all costs).  Second:  20% of a steer carcass is ground beef quality.  The price is low, because (a) a high percentage of the carcass, and (b) ground beef requires process

21st century milk parlour

When we first looked at building our farm in 2018, we made a few money-saving decisions, the most important is that we purchased our milk herd from a retiring farmer and we also purchased his milking parlour equipment.  It was the right decision at the time.  The equipment dates from around 2004/05 and was perfectly serviceable, our installers replaced some tubing but otherwise, the milking parlour was in good shape.  It is a mature technology. Now, we are building a brand new milk parlour because our milking cows are moving from the old farm to the new farm.  So we are looking at brand new equipment this time because, after 20 years of daily service, the old cattle parlour's systems need to be replaced.  Fear not it will not be destroyed instead good chunks will end up on Facebook's marketplace and be sold to other farmers for spare parts or expansion of their current systems. All our cattle are chipped, nothing unusual there, we have sensors throughout the farm, and our milki

So we sold surplus electricity one time last summer...(Update)

I guess that we will be buying an additional tank for our methane after all.   Over the past few months, we've had several electricity utilities/distributors which operate in our region come to the farm to "inspect our power plant facilities, to ensure they conform to their requirements".  This is entirely my fault.  Last summer we were accumulating too much methane for our tankage capacity, and so instead of selling the excess gas, that would have cost us some money, we (and I mean me) decided to produce excess electricity and sell it to the grid.  Because of all the rules and regulations, we had to specify our overall capacity and timing for the sale of electricity (our capacity is almost 200 Kw) which is a lot but more importantly, it's available 24/7, because it's gas powered.  It should be noted that the two generators are large because we burn methane and smaller generators are difficult to adapt to burn unconventional gas, plus they are advanced and can &qu