The best energy policy ever

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
if prices hit 20$ a gallon for gas tomorrow people would still have other options- biking, telecommuting, mass transit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If oil hits $20 a gallon every single person in my town will either lose their job or have to abandon their home.

[ QUOTE ]
In the last 5 years we have seen a rise, and surprise surprise new technology has hit the market with better feul economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The civic hybrid fuel savings do not offset the extra energy required to produce the car. Regular civic > civic hybrid.


[ QUOTE ]
Relying on the Government to do the research for us is using an ill suited cruch.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you mean 100% i agree. If you mean at all, then you are out of touch with reality. Have non of you guys taken a science class in college?

[ QUOTE ]
They have no real incentive to work efficiently, and they generally lack the true expertise.

[/ QUOTE ]

again my textbook challenge is still stands. Again it is ignored.

[lastchance]

Gas Tax increase for income tax decrease. Pure EV for everyone involved except oil companies.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]


Ya, it's a clear no. Because all of the really promising technologies and important technologies like solid state batteries, ITER, FIRE, offshore windpower rigs, zeolite crystals that are crucial for storing hydrogen, ocees thermal power conversion, carbon nanotubes, etc etc etc are being funded by those record high oil prices and profit margins. And those technologies that are here and ready to use are being quickly grabbed up by the oil companies and rushed to the market. God bless to selfless oil companies that are spending their record profits to fund all these revolutionary technologies. *sarcasm*


Ya, it's so obvious. Why do you make me repeat myself? You know all of this [censored]. People tell me I will like you if I meet you in person beyond a shadow of a doubt. I hope are aren't as thick headed and incapable of admitting the most obvious facts in real life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I haven't been clear. While I do tangentially disagree with your argument, and I believe it relies on a logical fallacy, pure scientific research is not what I"m talking about, and I'm not particularly opposed to it. (no more than most govt spending).

I'm talking about the oft-cited "Apollo program" for energy. An "Apollo program" implies a massive undertaking coordinated by a select few, with a specific goal and a specific plan for success. This is obviously a recipe for disaster as a means of solving our energy problems.

This ill-conceived "Apollo program" would necessarily entail massive restructuring of our economy, top-down command and control decisions with far-reaching unintended consequences, as well as god-only-knows how much corruption and waste.

While I do mildly oppose the govt funding of research (mostly due to the subsequent politicization of science), I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of coordinated economic overhaul of our energy use/practices, especially if directed IN CONJUNCTION with govt funded research projects. That kind of command and control approach is almost certain to be more harmful than good.

To hope that such a program could succeed is on par with hoping that price caps will help consumers or believing the earth is flat. One would have to be, as you say, "incapable of admitting the most obvious facts in real life." The evidence is there. Just read a history book. Hell, just read about the FDR administration. Massive coordinated centrally-planned overhauls of the economy DO NOT WORK.

Our energy solution will most certainly entail using technologies developed at universities with govt funds. But it will be the free market that applies those things, and the clamor for massive govt intervention into the energy *market* is what I oppose. It is a well-intentioned, but foolish dream promoted by those who either are unwilling to accept the facts or don't know the facts.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We have the best possible energy policy going RIGHT NOW! It's called high oil prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the high oil prices are coming from the workings of the free market, not the government. If you mean that a good energy policy for the government is to allow the free market to work unfettered, I see your point -- and I'm not too far from agreeing either!

But the other shoe needs to drop. The government, like any government, must decide on a level of taxation on the product. Is the current tax on oil (gasoline, gasoil, etc) about right, in the United States, or not?

And, in either case, why?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

This ill-conceived "Apollo program" would necessarily entail massive restructuring of our economy, top-down command and control decisions with far-reaching unintended consequences, as well as god-only-knows how much corruption and waste.

[/ QUOTE ]

Massive restructuring of our economy? A 5 cent gas tax is not a massive restructuring. As for corruption and waste, the NIH and USGS are doing a damn fine job. NASA did a damn fine job when it had a goal and so did Los Alamos. Just because waste is possible doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Far-reaching unintended consequences? Ya, having more physicists and technology is a real danger to the US. Do you really think educating young americans in physics and funding research will be more dangerous than uber expensive energy? I find that hard to believe. The cost of an energy research program is a drop in the bucket compared to the energy cost increases we've had in the last few months alone. Relative to the oil price increases, money isn't an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
An "Apollo program" implies a massive undertaking coordinated by a select few, with a specific goal and a specific plan for success. This is obviously a recipe for disaster as a means of solving our energy problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, having a specific goal for scientific research always fails. That is why the manhattan project failed. That is also why we beat the Russians to the moon. That is why skunkworks failed. That is why the push for a polio vaccine or extracting penicillin failed. Riiiiighhht. You made yet another real solid point there.


[ QUOTE ]
Just read a history book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaa, read my response to the above quote.

Odd, I've been telling you the same thing for almost a year now. Why won't you do it? Did berkely jade you so badly you won't even touch a college textbook anymore?

[adios]

FWIW your points about government sponsored research are well taken. I also think that appropriate government policy is necessary in determining a "national energy strategy" if you will. I forget what the term is in economics (I shouldn't) but there are certain situations where the private sector has no incentive to invest in developing a market for products where the public has a need for those products and thus government needs to step in. I would think that a revamping of the energy infrastructure is probably one of those situations. I stated this in a post in the past but don't know if you saw it. I worked at a national lab (Sandia) for nine years. From my experience the culture would have to change alot at the national labs to make an initiative to do basic research in the area of revamping our energy infrastructure as one example. I realize that the national labs aren't the only alternative but I was just sharing my perspective on the national labs.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Gas Tax increase for income tax decrease. Pure EV for everyone involved except oil companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't agree at all. The lower income wage earners would be taxed the most since they don't pay that much in taxes (many don't pay a cent). Also taxes on gasoline tend to restrict supply which will tend to drive up the price of gasoline and eliminate the marginally profitable producers.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
...only a naive fool could possibly think that a small group of elite purse-holder is capable of directing that capital and human energy more effectively.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your OP. One comment about the above quote:

I think that a small group of elite purse-holders is CURRENTLY directing that capital. That's not to say that another small group would do better.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]

We have the best possible energy policy going RIGHT NOW! It's called high oil prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more comment: if it's true that high oil prices are a great solution to force us to be less reliant on oil (and I believe it IS true), then adding more tax on top of already high prices would further reduce our demand on oil (and thus it would reduce our consumption).

[wacki]

Yes, I read your post. It's a shame some of our labs/programs have fallen to politics.

BTW, if you remember that econ term, please post.