Reducing our Nations oil consumption by 30% via renewables.

[wacki]

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20050421-01

Media Contact: Ron Walli
Communications and External Relations
865.576.0226


Growth in biomass could put U.S. on road to energy independence

"OAK RIDGE, Tenn., April 21, 2005 — Relief from soaring prices at the gas pump could come in the form of corncobs, cornstalks, switchgrass and other types of biomass, according to a joint feasibility study for the departments of Agriculture and Energy.

The recently completed Oak Ridge National Laboratory report outlines a national strategy in which 1 billion dry tons of biomass – any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis – would displace 30 percent of the nation's petroleum consumption for transportation. Supplying more than 3 percent of the nation's energy, biomass already has surpassed hydropower as the largest domestic source of renewable energy, and researchers believe much potential remains.

"Our report answers several key questions," said Bob Perlack, a member of ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division and a co-author of the report. "We wanted to know how large a role biomass could play, whether the United States has the land resources and whether such a plan would be economically viable."

Looking at just forestland and agricultural land, the two largest potential biomass sources, the study found potential exceeding 1.3 billion dry tons per year. That amount is enough to produce biofuels to meet more than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels, according to the report.

Such an amount, which would represent a six-fold increase in production from the amount of biomass produced today, could be achieved with only relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

"One of the main points of the report is that the United States can produce nearly 1 billion dry tons of biomass annually from agricultural lands and still continue to meet food, feed and export demands," said Robin Graham, leader for Ecosystem and Plant Sciences in ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division.

The benefits of an increased focus on biomass include increased energy security as the U.S. would become less dependent on foreign oil, a potential 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and an improved rural economic picture.

Current production of ethanol is about 3.4 billion gallons per year, but that total could reach 80 billion gallons or more under the scenario outlined in this report. Such an increase in ethanol production would see transportation fuels from biomass increase from 0.5 percent of U.S. consumption in 2001 to 4 percent in 2010, 10 percent in 2020 and 20 percent in 2030. In fact, depending on several factors, biomass could supply 15 percent of the nation's energy by 2030.

Meanwhile, biomass consumption in the industrial sector would increase at an annual rate of 2 percent through 2030, while biomass consumption by electric utilities would double every 10 years through 2030. During the same time, production of chemicals and materials from bio-based products would increase from about 12.5 billion pounds, or 5 percent of the current production of target U.S. chemical commodities in 2001, to 12 percent in 2010, 18 percent in 2020 and 25 percent in 2030.

Nearly half of the 2,263 million acres that comprise the land base of the U.S. has potential for growing biomass. About 33 percent of the land area is classified as forest, 26 percent as grassland, 20 percent as cropland, 13 percent as urban areas, swamps and deserts, and 8 percent as special uses such as public facilities.

The report, titled "Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply," was sponsored by DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renwable Energy, Office of Biomass Program. Lynn Wright and Anthony Turhollow of ORNL, Bryce Stokes of the USDA Forest Service and Don Erbach of the USDA Agriculture Research Service are co-authors of the report. The complete report is available at: http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_vision.pdf.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle for the Department of Energy."

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Out of national interest I disagree. Keep sending your money here /images/graemlins/smile.gif:

Oil fund soars to new high
Norway's central bank said Tuesday that the value of the country's so-called "oil fund" jumped 20 percent last year. The fund is pumped full of oil revenues, saved for future generations.
Norges Bank said the Government Petroleum Fund reached NOK 1.02 trillion (nearly USD 164 billion) at the end of 2004.

High oil prices have resulted in a windfall for Norway's treasury, but politicians resist using all the money to fund existing welfare programs. Instead, they decided in the mid-1990s to set aside oil revenues and invest them, to prepare for the day when Norway's offshore oil and gas wells may run dry.

The fund surpassed the one-trillion mark after hitting NOK 988.1 billion at the end of September and NOK 845 billion at the end of 2003.

The fund earned an average return of 8.9 percent. Nearly NOK 140 billion in fresh capital was transferred to the fund from the treasury during 2004.

All told, the fund's assets now represent a savings account of about NOK 210,000 (USD 35,360) for every Norwegian.

[BCPVP]

Question, would this require government subsidies? I know in Wisconsin there's lots of talk about ethanol that the farm lobby is trying to push, but I've heard it's a bit of a boondoggle.

[andyfox]

Reducing oil consumption is a crucial issue, much more important than whether a few judges get appointed, or whether we end up using part of our social security for stock market investments. If we increased miles per gallon by 1 gallon, we could save more oil than each year than they expect to generate out Alaska when they start the new drilling there. If we increased it by 5 mpg, we could completely eliminate out dependence on foreign oil.

Add to that the political costs of depending on OPEC, and the environmental costs, and it seems to me it's the most crucial issue facing us today.

I'd be in favor of doubling the gas guzzler tax on new cars. And doubling the tax credit for buying a hybrid. And forcing the automobile companies to make different size gas tank openings for gas guzzler cars; the gas stations would also have to have special nozzles such that only those would fit into the gas guzzler tanks. You want a car that gets 12 mpg: fine, pay $4.00 a gallon.

We've been talking about this since 1973. Isn't it time to do something effective?

[Phat Mack]

I'd be in favor of doubling the gas guzzler tax on new cars.

As an aside, they'd have to close some loopholes, e.g. extend it to SUV's, pikups, etc.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
If we increased miles per gallon by 1 gallon, we could save more oil than each year than they expect to generate out Alaska when they start the new drilling there. If we increased it by 5 mpg, we could completely eliminate out dependence on foreign oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

You seem to be a well-informed guy so I guess I'm directing this question at you. Is it just an urban legend that, long ago, a more fuel efficient engine was invented, but oil companies bought the patents...or something along those lines, or is it rooted in truth?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be in favor of doubling the gas guzzler tax on new cars. And doubling the tax credit for buying a hybrid. And forcing the automobile companies to make different size gas tank openings for gas guzzler cars; the gas stations would also have to have special nozzles such that only those would fit into the gas guzzler tanks. You want a car that gets 12 mpg: fine, pay $4.00 a gallon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more. Price controls never ever ever work.

If I could bet, I would bet all my assets that any meddling by the govt will only prolong and enhance the problem. There's no real way to make this bet unfortunately, but I am quite positive that the less the govt gets involved, the sooner and more efficiently and effectively the market will produce transforming solutions.

The market already is in fact.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=818

Just wait for the govt to get more involved.

natedogg

[andyfox]

Don't know. There's a book out, though, that talks about how, in the early days, it was unclear whether or not cars would be electric of gasoline powered. Haven't read it nor do I remember the name just now, I'll try to find it.

[andyfox]

The "market," though isn't much of one. There are very few oil companies and very few car companies. With oligopoliles in control, we've gotten ourselves into the mess we're in.

Sometimes when the government gets involved, good things happen. The car companies were against seat belts, claimed they were useless, wouldn't save lives, would be too costly, yada, yada.

We're facing a situation where we're destroying the atmosphere that protects us from the sun's radiation. Where our economic well-being depends on the whims of the House of Saud and other such lowlives. Where the ramifications of such dependency have led to us having our servicemen in Iraq.

I fear this "market" more than I fear a concerted effort by our government to address these issues.

[[censored]]

Wait. Why is a gallon of gas used by a SUV worse than a gallon used by a Hybrid? SUV owners already pay the price of there choice in the form of worse gas mileage. Should a minority opinion really be able to effectively decide what types of cars people can and cannot drive? How about other things some people see as damaging, such as violent or sexually graphic materials? Seems like a very slippery slope.

[Zeno]

Urban Legend(s).

Here is some interesting automoblie history Stanley Steamer (http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/) And FAQ (http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/FAQ/Introduction.htm)

-Zeno

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes when the government gets involved, good things happen. The car companies were against seat belts, claimed they were useless, wouldn't save lives, would be too costly, yada, yada.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Can you document this?

I am pretty sure that it was the consumers who demanded seatbelts and so automatkers provided many models to choose from that had seatbelts, long before government decided to meddle.

It was the govt who demanded that those who didn't want to pay for the seatbelts be forced to buy a more expensive car with seatbelts. In other words, a third party with no interest in the transaction (other than self-satisfied paternalism) decided that they knew what the customer really should have and forced the customer to pay for it.

The cars with seatbelts cost more than cars without seatbelts. This is an unalterable fact. Material does not just appear out of thin air. If, in fact, everybody wanted to have a car with seatbelts they would have purchased such a car, because there were already plenty of choices on the market before the govt stepped in and mandated that every car have seatbelts.

The car manufacturers weren't involved in some nefarious conspiracy. Consumers were buying exactly what they wanted the manufacturers were giving it to them.

Of course, the govt smugly takes credit for saving lives when in fact most cars already had seatbelts and other safety innovations like airbags continues to be innovated without government mandates.

natedogg

[wacki]

Nate, I used to be exactly like you. I used to think the less government the better. I was an extreme libertarian. Then I got into research and realized how much is done with grant money. You can thank NASA for your home computer. Most vaccines are grant funded. I could go on and on. The holy grail for power is fusion, and waiting for the private sector to develope fusion would be a gigantic mistake. When it comes to novel research and widespread change, we need government. Free market is wonderful for getting the job done cheap, but when you need to make giant leaps or get a very difficult job done, nothing compares to government.


To be honest, this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
I am quite positive that the less the govt gets involved, the sooner and more efficiently and effectively the market will produce transforming solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

couldn't be more wrong. Not when we need Billions to do the research. Billions that could easily be raised via a 5 cent per gallon tax.

[Il_Mostro]

I don't think it's possible today to produce bio-fuel to a competitive price, I belive subsidies are needed as of now. And ethanol from corn is an energy loser, there are other sources that are a lot better.

[Il_Mostro]

This is fine and dandy, go for it. Problem is of course that exponential growth will get us in the end anyway. All this can do is (maybe, maybe) provide a short respite, if we use it well it'll be good, if we use to to keep buisness-as-usual for a while longer all we have done is to dig our hole deeper.

[natedogg]

Wacki, I don't doubt that your opinion on the importance of govt research funding changed "once you got into research". But note that I was discussing the notion of government meddling in markets, not funding science research.

I also don't doubt that many of the results you ascribe to govt would get done even if govt wasn't doing it. And no, I won't thank NASA for my computer. To say such a thing shows that you may be too deep already... Now, some elements of research that were eventually used for building computers may have been done by NASA, but so what? Do you honestly think that IBM et. al. would not have built a computer without NASA's widget? Today there'd be no desktop computers if not for NASA? That's absurd. Patently absurd.

It's a very common fallacy that most people fall into, namely that if the govt did something, they feel or believe that the thing (be it TANG, work safety laws, or safer cars) would not have happened without the govt. In most cases, if not all, they are wrong. That goes for tech inventions as well as policies. Child labor practices, civil rights changes of the 60s, vehicle safety, and more.

natedogg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
And no, I won't thank NASA for my computer. To say such a thing shows that you may be too deep already...

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say such a thing? Lots of money and lots of effort was put in by the best and the brightest minds on this planet to create a guidance computer. ENIAC was developed for the military. Do you really think that your computer would be anywhere near as far along as it is today without those government programs?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, some elements of research that were eventually used for building computers may have been done by NASA, but so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

So what??? Why don't you look up how many vaccines were created by University Professors using federal grants and then compare them to the number of vaccines created by industry. To think 1/2 of those vaccines would of been invented without government funding would simply display a fundamental lack of understanding of how the pharmaceutical companies behave.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think that IBM et. al. would not have built a computer without NASA's widget? Today there'd be no desktop computers if not for NASA? That's absurd. Patently absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering all of the milestones that were crossed by the Army Core of Engineers and NASA, and the incredible ignorance displayed by the CEO's of IBM and numerous other companies that allowed Bill Gates to become the richest man in the world off of a crappy product he didn't even make, no, I don't think it's absurd.

Might we be far enough along to have a very slow 50 Mhz desktop by now??? Sure, I can't argue against that, but only god knows not you or me. To say we would be where we are today without government funding would be simply prove a lack of historical knowledge.

I can't even debate this. Just pick 5 random vaccines and look up who invented them and who funded their research. Look who discovered Vitamin C, DNA, the double Helix, the Kreb Cycle, the Calvin Cycle, the laser. Hell open up a biology book and pick 5 mechanisms in that book at random and look up who discovered those. Do the same thing for nuclear technology, atomic clocks...

The best and brightest scientists don't work for money. They are poor and they want to share their inventions with the world. These scientists are driven by grants and many of them simply won't work in private industry.

This is dumb. Natedogg, do some research. You have a lot to learn on this subject.

[wacki]

The best scientists literally sacrifice their lives for the field and the good of mankind. They don't do that for money, and they don't do that for coorporations. They work much harder and for less money then jobs requiring half of the education. Take away grants and you take away that sense of nobility. That will kill the progress in the almost any research field.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
You can thank NASA for your home computer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I got my home computer from Dell. And my internet connection from Al Gore.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
This subjects involves two branches of economics, environmental economics and lets call it "R&D"-economics (I don't know the English word)

Environmental economists argue that pollution is necessary to keep a economy going. They therefore suggest quotas on pollution that can be traded (thus the quotas will be bought by those who generate most value from the pollution). I see that your main point is not pollution but energy independence, but the same logic can be applied. Let's say it that to improve it's strategical position in the world (less costs of war etc.), US should cap oil consume at 10 million barrels pr day. Functional markets already exist for oil so the government could issue production/import quotas 1 year in advance and sell to the highest bidder. It would push the domestic fuel price up and function as an incentive for alternative sources.

Following the laws of market this should be enough, but since one of the imperfections of the market is that many long-term research projects does not receive capital even if they have a value, government R&D-subsidies might have a positive effect (different debate).

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is a gallon of gas used by a SUV worse than a gallon used by a Hybrid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because with the same gallon, the Hybrid traveles X miles and the SUv traveles Y miles. X>Y. Thus the hybrid gets much better levarage from the investment of recources needed to produce that gallon.

Its not a subjective discrimination (like choices about sexualy graphic material,) just a tax that seeks to implement objectively better technology into the market/community by forcing consumers/individuals to adopt behaviours which are much more beneficial to the collective good.

[natedogg]

I"m only going to repeat this one more time.

You are falling for the fallacy that if something has occurred at the behest of govt funding/policy/whatever, then that thing would not have ever occurred otherwise.

To be more germane to the thread, which wasn't at all about govt's role as a research funder, it is folly to think that the government can achieve positive results by making value judgments on consumption and taxing accordingly. It's pure nonsense to suggest that adding a gas tax based on how you intend to use the gas would achieve anything other than a black market.

I would be astonished to see this suggestion come from teh otherwise highly intelligent Andy Fox if I didn't already know he was a democrat. Let's just say, I'm quite convinced every democrat, without exception, has a huge blindspot: economics.


natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is of course that exponential growth will get us in the end anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

As we have learned from Paul Erlich's gaffe, it is a mistake to assume exponential growth.

natedogg

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
it is folly to think that the government can achieve positive results by making value judgments on consumption and taxing accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market cannot compensate for externalities (of which there are many from gasoline use). It is a folly to think that the market always produces the most efficient result. There are many instances in which the market fails, which is when the government should step in.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You are falling for the fallacy that if something has occurred at the behest of govt funding/policy/whatever, then that thing would not have ever occurred otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, by induction, we would of walked on the moon by now even without NASA? Or devoped satellite technology? Because we all know the space race was no big deal.

Since you claim government policy/funding is so irrelevant to innovation, here are a few more things to chew on:

Inventions of War (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml%3Fid%3D43069%26browseCategoryId%3D2112 1%26location%3D%26parentcatid%3D%26subcatid%3D&e=7 47) -very cool video

Cold War inventions (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=8&q=http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/technology/inventions.timeline/frameset.html&e=747)

Thankyou for completely ignoring the fact that the majority of novel breakthroughs and concepts taught in college textbooks were discovered by University, grant funded, or federally funded researchers and organizations. Not to mention ignoring the behavior of pharmaceutical companies. If you are going to provide a counter argument it would be nice if you could actually provide at least some proof that nonprofit research is useless.

[ QUOTE ]
To be more germane to the thread, which wasn't at all about govt's role as a research funder, it is folly to think that the government can achieve positive results by making value judgments on consumption and taxing accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree for the most part (there are exceptions), however, it is not a folly to suggest that the government can't make judgements about nonprofit research and fund accordingly. Something you claimed as folly.

[ QUOTE ]
It's pure nonsense to suggest that adding a gas tax based on how you intend to use the gas would achieve anything other than a black market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I would agree, but I highly doubt a 5 cent tax will start a black market. Besides, the point of the 5 cent tax was to show how insignificant the research costs relative the giant size of the energy industry in general. I wasn't necessarily saying it is a course of action we must take.

[wacki]

One more thing, according to Smalley, it takes 20 years to properly train a physical scientist. If we wait till it gets bad enough for a coorporate giant to spend the billions required to do the research, there will be a multidecade delay before we see results. Fusion will probably take more than 25 years of hard core research. Do the numbers and then think about what society will go through while we wait.

[Il_Mostro]

I know, I know.
But do you see any evidence that the major population knows that, or even the so-called experts in economy and politics? Ever seen anyone report growth in a way that is not exponential? It's all percentages.
Exponential growth cannot happen forever. But what does that mean when most, if not all, of our systems are based on the idea of infinite exponential growth?

[ACPlayer]

I was an extreme libertarian. Then I got into research and realized how much is done with grant money

See what happens when you feed at the trough. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Thankyou for completely ignoring the fact that the majority of novel breakthroughs and concepts taught in college textbooks were discovered by University, grant funded, or federally funded researchers and organizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say that they weren't. I only pointed out that you seem to have fallen for the fallacy that these things would not have happened at all without the federal funding. I don't think you've shown that. You've only repeated that federal funding has achieved results.

I see you've dropped the vaccine example and gone right for the moon landings. I must agree that I don't see any other way to have achieved a moon landing. But don't fall for the fallacy that the technologies developed during that effort would somehow have never come about unless we had funded NASA. You can't say: "Without govt funding of the moon missions we'd never have [gizmo b]" because 1. you can't show that and 2. gizmo b fills needs other than landing on the moon so it's quite possible it would have come about.

Lastly:

[ QUOTE ]
Normally I would agree, but I highly doubt a 5 cent tax will start a black market. Besides, the point of the 5 cent tax was to show how insignificant the research costs relative the giant size of the energy industry in general. I wasn't necessarily saying it is a course of action we must take.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no revenue problem. There is a spending problem. Your 5 cent tax on gas could just as well be my elimination of cotton subsidies.

And yes, a 5 cent tax per gallon based on what car you are driving would be enough of an incentive to fill up with car A just to go home and transfer the gas to car B. It's a STUPID, stupid idea. In fact, if this proposal gains serious traction I plan on making my first million by selling attachments to SUV owners to allow them to pump gas from the cheap pump. SO actually, I hope this proposal goes through.

The market is already responding to energy needs. Government involvement will certainly hamper that. The obvious first problem will be that govt committees full of incompetent congressman will decide what avenues to fund instead of markets driving venture capital. Just sit back and watch the boondoggle that is about to unfold in California with the stem cell research funding for a good example of why the govt sucks at this.

But yeah, other than maybe you're right.

natedogg

[wacki]

I see you've dropped the vaccine example and gone right for the moon landings.

I haven't dropped it. Pharmaceuticals are notorious for not investing in vaccines. There simply isn't any money in vaccines. Coorporations don't invest unless there is a guarantee of 1 billion of sales. The government realizes that most vaccines won't be developed unless they fund it. They also realize americans won't get a vaccine unless it's cheap, and they do the cost (lost man hours/deaths) benefit analysis. Just think about it.

I only pointed out that you seem to have fallen for the fallacy that these things would not have happened at all without the federal funding. I don't think you've shown that. You've only repeated that federal funding has achieved results.

Fallen for the fallacy, ok I'm delusional and I'm the one posting facts/links. TheBruiser500 said you were a good poster, so make a good post!!!! I post facts/links/figures and you retort with a linkless post beating the drum of your own ideology. No room for ideology here... be pragmatic!!!

Also I can't prove that something wouldn't of been invented without a time machine and the ability to play political god. The fact is that grant funds get a tremendous bang for the buck and simply opening up any college textbook will prove that. Also, if I could rewind time and play political god, I would bet the bank that we wouldn't have commumications satellites right now if it wasn't for the space race. Something you seem to avoid. Also, you are also ignoring that government spending/research increases innovation and can help the economy avoid such pitfalls free markets can fall into. (energy and vaccines are a few examples)

And yes, a 5 cent tax per gallon based on what car you are driving would be enough of an incentive to fill up with car A just to go home and transfer the gas to car B. It's a STUPID, stupid idea. In fact, if this proposal gains serious traction I plan on making my first million by selling attachments to SUV owners to allow them to pump gas from the cheap pump. SO actually, I hope this proposal goes through.

Ok you are confusing Andyfox's plan and My/Richard Smalley's plan. Somehow you have jumbled everyone elses opinions into one giant mess.

The market is already responding to energy needs.

Yes, but their effort is going to be too little, too late. Also, what we need is not $$$ it's excitement large enough to get young people to enter physical sciences like they did during the Apollo days. I'd like to see what coorporation is willing to fund fusion research that will take twice as long as any patent will last. That's not going to happen without the government in any appreciable amount of time.

Government involvement will certainly hamper that.

Really???? So the space race hampered satellite technology??? Government funding hampered the development of every invention in the video I posted???? Not to mention just about every discovery in college science textbooks????

Natedogg, please cite historical examples, links, anything to compare or back your argument. Otherwise, this conversation has come to an end.

The obvious first problem will be that govt committees full of incompetent congressman will decide what avenues to fund instead of markets driving venture capital. Just sit back and watch the boondoggle that is about to unfold in California with the stem cell research funding for a good example of why the govt sucks at this.


Politics and science don't mix. The politicians need to give the scientists carte blanc. That is not the product of government funding, that is the product of bad politicians. And yes, you can seperate the two. It's been done in the past, it's currently being done in multiple organizations, and it will happen again.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
But yeah, other than maybe you're right.


[/ QUOTE ]

I must admit I was shocked to see this. You argue against everything I say yet you finish off with this?? I'm confused.

[natedogg]

The fact is that grant funds get a tremendous bang for the buck and simply opening up any college textbook will prove that. Also, if I could rewind time and play political god, I would bet the bank that we wouldn't have commumications satellites right now if it wasn't for the space race. Something you seem to avoid. Also, you are also ignoring that government spending/research increases innovation and can help the economy avoid such pitfalls free markets can fall into. (energy and vaccines are a few examples)

Wacki, you seem to be completely ignoring my point and attacking a position I do not hold.

I am not arguing that govt funding has achieved no results.

I am claiming that to assume those results would never have happened except by govt funding is a fallacy. There may even be SOME cases where that is true, but we have no way of knowing which cases. And govt is not the only source of pure research funding, so it gets even murkier.

You continue to list all the successes from govt funding as if I am claiming govt funding has achieved nothing.

natedogg: "many advances would still occur even without govt funding, and the funding for pure research will still exist, just not from the govt"

wacki: "But how can you say that!@? the govt invented satellites! You're crazy".

We're talking past each other.

Regardless, I am critical of the stupid gas tax as a social engineering tactic to keep people from buying too much gas. I was not being critical of the general notion of spending research money on energy alternatives, you inferred that from my original comments. You happen to be right that I generally don't believe govt funding is very advantageous. The overhead of waste and pork and bureaucracy is pretty high.

When I refer to the govt "hampering" energy developments, I refer to the market manipulations, like this absurd gas tax proposal, not the act of funding pure research. Even so, that funding, while it will be helpful, is wasteful. I trust you're not serious that you actually want documentation that govt spending is inefficient? That's pretty funny.

natedogg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I am claiming that to assume those results would never have happened except by govt funding is a fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

ughh... duh. We could go a 1,000 years into the future and say it would be invented by then. I'm saying would everyone have pentium 4's by now if NASA and Army Core of engineers didn't get involved. My answer? No way in hell. Possible, but not plausible. I thought I made this clear when I said:

[ QUOTE ]
Might we be far enough along to have a very slow 50 Mhz desktop by now??? Sure, I can't argue against that, but only god knows not you or me. To say we would be where we are today without government funding would be simply prove a lack of historical knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is a much more significant and practical statement. Your arguement is basically useless because it's talking about what may or may not happen a million years from now. Who gives a crap.

Also, if you are going to quote me, don't make up a quote.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I am critical of the stupid gas tax as a social engineering tactic to keep people from buying too much gas.

[/ QUOTE ]

So am I.

[ QUOTE ]
I was not being critical of the general notion of spending research money on energy alternatives, you inferred that from my original comments.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok....

[ QUOTE ]
You happen to be right that I generally don't believe govt funding is very advantageous.

[/ QUOTE ]

???? ok fine. All my links, facts, and figures meant nothing to you.....

[ QUOTE ]
When I refer to the govt "hampering" energy developments, I refer to the market manipulations, like this absurd gas tax proposal, not the act of funding pure research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop mixing up arguements.

[ QUOTE ]
Even so, that funding, while it will be helpful, is wasteful.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some areas, yes you are correct. In other areas, like NIH grants sent to NOAA, WHOI, MBL, GID, etc. You couldn't be more wrong. You can always find some government organization that is wastefull. But the work that goes on at NIH, MBL, WHOI, NOAA, etc can't be beat when it comes to bang for the buck.

[ QUOTE ]
I trust you're not serious that you actually want documentation that govt spending is inefficient? That's pretty funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find it funny. And if you want me to respond to your next post you better have some facts/links/figures showing that all the grant money that was used to discover the vast majority of mechanisms in college.....

Nate, this is stupid.

Make better posts if you actually want a conversation. Have the discipline to atleast do a [censored] google search.

I don't have time to argue against this bullshit. Your next post better have links/facts/figures backing up your claims or I'm going to stop responding to you.