So *that's* what they mean by "Apollo program for energy".

[natedogg]

All this panic about energy is starting to get comical.

In a recent op-ed, we find one example of what they mean when they call for a new "apollo program" for energy.
link

Exerpt:
[ QUOTE ]

To stimulate the transition to this new industrial paradigm, Lovins proposes revenue-neutral "feebates" that would apply fees for inefficient vehicles and rebates for lightweight ones; he suggests a subsidized government program to lease or sell efficient cars to low-income Americans. To foster the new technologies, he proposes government measures that have worked well in the past: Pentagon procurement policies that drive innovation; federal loan guarantees to encourage retooling by automakers and others, and similar loan guarantees for the purchasers of new fleets of airplanes and trucks; and a $1 billion government prize (the "Platinum Carrot") to reward the most important innovations.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exactly the kind of command economy disaster we need to avoid, and it's nothing like the Apollo program. They should stop calling it an "Apollo program" and call it a "cultural revolution" or a "five year plan". that would be more accurate.

The Apollo program did not attempt to reshape the american economy, and wisely so. It was merely an engineering project with a specific, measurable target for success. Yes they spent spent a lot of tax money on a rather frivolous prestige contest, but at least they only did that.

These calls for a new apollo program for energy would not be nearly so bad if all they called for was a research project to develop a specific, measurable engineering goal. That would be the kind of thing that a government program *can* achieve, although I say govt is usually not the best agent for this, least it *can* achieve some success.

When attempting to micromanage the economy with a smorgasbord of "incentives" and "credits" in order to achieve some committee's vision of our economy the only possilble result is a disaster.

If they want to suggest that the government should fund fusion research or fuel cell technologies, fine. Perhaps that can achieve success. Those who want to re-engineer the economy using comman-and-control techniques are fools who need to read more economic history.

natedogg

[BCPVP]

If you wanted to make more fuel efficient cars, wouldn't a great way be to hike the federal gas tax to about $15 a gallon? There'd definitely be some high demand for cheap energy then! You just have to get around that small problem of the public lynching the officials in charge...

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You can't read. The article is about how the government should fund technological innovation. You just skipped over those paragraphs.

[ QUOTE ]
Lovins argues that by radically transforming the materials used in cars, trucks, airplanes, office buildings and factories -- substituting carbon-fiber composites and other lightweight products -- the United States could cut its oil use by 29 percent in 2025 and an additional 23 percent soon thereafter.

These ultra-light vehicles would be nearly twice as efficient as today's hybrid-electric cars, with better performance and safety, Lovins argues. Fuel savings would pay for the extra cost of the vehicles in about three years. Meanwhile, Lovins proposes using biotechnology and other new techniques to replace hydrocarbons with biofuels -- cutting 25 percent more from U.S. oil consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To foster the new technologies, he proposes government measures that have worked well in the past: Pentagon procurement policies that drive innovation; federal loan guarantees to encourage retooling by automakers and others, and similar loan guarantees for the purchasers of new fleets of airplanes and trucks; and a $1 billion government prize (the "Platinum Carrot") to reward the most important innovations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like government-funded research, coupled with programs to ease the cost for early adopters.

[ QUOTE ]
These calls for a new apollo program for energy would not be nearly so bad if all they called for was a research project to develop a specific, measurable engineering goal. That would be the kind of thing that a government program *can* achieve, although I say govt is usually not the best agent for this, least it *can* achieve some success.


[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, we would've won World War II a lot faster if we'd just kept the government out of it and let the private sector develop nuclear weapons.

Let's see... there was some other innovation that was started by the government... it had something to do with computers communicating with each other... I think it used to be called Arpanet? Anyway, I'm glad the government's not flushing our taxpayer dollars down that toilet anymore.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You can't read. The article is about how the government should fund technological innovation. You just skipped over those paragraphs.

[ QUOTE ]
Lovins argues that by radically transforming the materials used in cars, trucks, airplanes, office buildings and factories -- substituting carbon-fiber composites and other lightweight products -- the United States could cut its oil use by 29 percent in 2025 and an additional 23 percent soon thereafter.

These ultra-light vehicles would be nearly twice as efficient as today's hybrid-electric cars, with better performance and safety, Lovins argues. Fuel savings would pay for the extra cost of the vehicles in about three years. Meanwhile, Lovins proposes using biotechnology and other new techniques to replace hydrocarbons with biofuels -- cutting 25 percent more from U.S. oil consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To foster the new technologies, he proposes government measures that have worked well in the past: Pentagon procurement policies that drive innovation; federal loan guarantees to encourage retooling by automakers and others, and similar loan guarantees for the purchasers of new fleets of airplanes and trucks; and a $1 billion government prize (the "Platinum Carrot") to reward the most important innovations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like government-funded research, coupled with programs to ease the cost for early adopters.

[ QUOTE ]
These calls for a new apollo program for energy would not be nearly so bad if all they called for was a research project to develop a specific, measurable engineering goal. That would be the kind of thing that a government program *can* achieve, although I say govt is usually not the best agent for this, least it *can* achieve some success.


[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, we would've won World War II a lot faster if we'd just kept the government out of it and let the private sector develop nuclear weapons.

Let's see... there was some other innovation that was started by the government... it had something to do with computers communicating with each other... I think it used to be called Arpanet? Anyway, I'm glad the government's not flushing our taxpayer dollars down that toilet anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into this argument because it's unproductive and relies on fallacies. It doesn't matter anyway.

The point of the post is that these poeple calling for "Apollo programs for energy" are not simply calling for research. Did YOU read the article? He wants "freebates" and incentives to promote his own ideas of how auto manufacturers should use and innovate materials in manufacturing cars. that is a command-economy approach and entails far more than merely throwing money at research.

natedogg

Well, after you invent new products, there is significant cost to manufacturers to get them into production. Any product has to be mass-produced if it's going to be cheap, and consumers need a product to be cheap if they're going to buy it in large quantities. HDTVs are an example of a product that's beginning to achieve the manufacturing efficiencies necessary for truly mass consumption. DVD players did it a few years ago. The various incentives are designed to get the new fuel-efficient products over this hump and onto the market.

This won't cause any kind of disaster, any more than, say, cigarette taxes have caused disaster. It'll just help to spur quick adoption of new technology and incorporate the geostrategic and environmental externalities into the prices of vehicles.

[mr_whomp]

Car manufacturers goals are to produce the highest quality inexpensive cars they can so that they can create good profit margins. This goal is not in line with reducing the US's dependance on international oil sources. Why should an auto company change how they produce cars to a more expensive method when it won't benefit their business? Maybe if the government subsidized the additional costs?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
All this panic about energy is starting to get comical.

[/ QUOTE ]So you are laughing, are you?

Funny that.

There are more people alive right now on the planet than all the people who have ever lived and died in human history - and as the numbers of human go so do the numbers of energy needs. Meantime, and within the span of two hundred years, we have vaporized from the biomass a (huge) part of it which took millions of years to form, and which is our basic source of energy.

...Yep, the math is quite clear, it is comical to worry about energy.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, after you invent new products, there is significant cost to manufacturers to get them into production. Any product has to be mass-produced if it's going to be cheap, and consumers need a product to be cheap if they're going to buy it in large quantities. HDTVs are an example of a product that's beginning to achieve the manufacturing efficiencies necessary for truly mass consumption. DVD players did it a few years ago. The various incentives are designed to get the new fuel-efficient products over this hump and onto the market.

This won't cause any kind of disaster, any more than, say, cigarette taxes have caused disaster. It'll just help to spur quick adoption of new technology and incorporate the geostrategic and environmental externalities into the prices of vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the new technologies are economical and valued, they will succeed. Engineering the economy so that cars are built with some materials that a select few have decided are best is a stupid, stupid idea. Such manipulation can never be as efficient and effective as letting the market decide.

If gasoline continues to stay very expensive, the problem will solve itself. Fuel efficiency will come as a result of high gas prices. You don't need centrally planned incentives.

natedogg

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
There are more people alive right now on the planet than all the people who have ever lived and died in human history

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

[Cyrus]

I am conceding the hyperbole -- and fixing my post :

[ QUOTE ]
There are more people alive right now on the planet than ever in human history - and as the numbers of human go so do the numbers of energy needs.
Meantime, and within the span of two hundred years, we have vaporized from the biomass a (huge) part of it which took millions of years to form, and which is our basic source of energy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Despite my "correction", the prospects seem the same, i.e. horrible.