Remember when your dad said “If Bobby jumped off a bridge…” when you were being a follower?

Well, it seems like the big brains at The Brookings Institution are employing the same reasoning with green energy.

Via Michigan CapCon:

The Brookings Institution study is titled “National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment, Sizing the Green Economy.” It has been most noted for its claim that there are 2.7 million “clean economy” jobs in the United States. The 2.7 million jobs figure was tabulated in part because the report classified waste management jobs (such as garbage truck drivers) and mass transit jobs (such as city bus drivers) as “clean economy” jobs. This was the subject of yesterday’s analysis in Capitol Confidential: Media Loves ‘Green Jobs’ Report; Fine Print Shows ‘Green’ Means the Garbage Man

The report also develops the following theme: “China now leads the world in clean economy deployment. By the end of 2010 its 103 gigawatts of installed renewable energy generation capacity was more than double that of U.S. installations.”

“C’mon dad, China is doing it…” is not exactly a reason to sink billions of tax dollars we don’t have in a pipe dream that doesn’t work.

CapCon also points out:

China is also a totalitarian state when it comes to many forms of large capital spending on energy. Whereas private money in an open society may (and often does) shy away from risky and unproven investments such as large-scale power generation from windmills and solar panels, a government playing with somebody else’s money is less likely to be so careful — particularly when there is no voting electorate that talks back.

The report somewhat acknowledges this, but portrays absolute government control over a nation’s financial sector as an asset:

What is China’s secret in ensuring deployment finance? China has been inordinately successful in mobilizing large volumes of low-cost capital through its state-owned banks and other financial institutions. Clean energy projects have received preferential access to bank loans at interest rates far below what is available in other countries. Moreover, state-owned enterprises, especially the “Big Five” power companies, have been major investors …

However, as pointed out previously here at MCT, even in China they can’t make green energy work economically:

While Granholm is bullish on wind power, Energy companies in China are finding that even with their significantly lower cost structures, lax environmental regulations, free land and nearly perfect wind conditions, they can’t turn a profit:

The only opportunity to turn a profit is when electricity is sold to the grid. Even then, say industry insiders, the ability to make money depends on national tariff-setting policies and subsidies: “If there’s no subsidy, there’s no hope of a profit,” one says.

This creates conflict. The high costs of wind power have long held back growth of the sector. But the grid operators, for their own reasons, are also unwilling to buy wind power.

Electricity generated by wind in Jiuquan is currently sold to the grid for about 0.53 yuan (US$0.08) per kilowatt hour, higher than the 0.20 yuan (US$0.03) and 0.35 yuan (US$0.05) paid for coal and hydropower respectively. In Inner Mongolia, Hebei and the north east of China, the wind-power tariff has risen to about 0.60 yuan (US$0.08) per kilowatt hour and, in Jilin, to about 0.70 yuan (US$0.10), creating an even bigger gulf between the price of wind and that of coal and hydropower.

Green energy doesn’t work there and following their lead isn’t going to help us here.

An extra big tip O’ the hat to the Michigan View