Self-Correcting Problem?
Sep 1, 2008 General Nonsense |
High oil prices have unleashed a flood of venture capital and creative genius on the problems of energy and global warming. Hardly a day goes by without another credible breakthrough in turning sun, wind, waves, water and who-knows-what into useful energy. Even if the vast majority of those ideas don't pan out, the surviving ideas will probably be enough to make oil obsolete. That's my guess anyway. And I think it will happen at Internet speed when it finally ramps up, not the usual fifty year horizons you always hear about.
The thing I wonder is whether the government has any useful role in fostering these advances, other than staying out of the way. You hear the candidates for president talking about encouraging this, or incenting that, or catalyzing whatever. But when billions of dollars of profit are on the line, does anyone need any extra incentive? I doubt it. The market should be taking care of that stuff, and seems to be moving in the right direction.
What can a president do to make any difference in the energy situation? Be specific. Discuss.
The thing I wonder is whether the government has any useful role in fostering these advances, other than staying out of the way. You hear the candidates for president talking about encouraging this, or incenting that, or catalyzing whatever. But when billions of dollars of profit are on the line, does anyone need any extra incentive? I doubt it. The market should be taking care of that stuff, and seems to be moving in the right direction.
What can a president do to make any difference in the energy situation? Be specific. Discuss.
Votes: +16
Comments
User Name: sensetriad1
Oct 8, 2008
0
I have fumbled around looking for the password for my new user name since 9-1-8. Found it on a scrap of paper loose in my backpack. This makes it easier for people I know to find me.
User Name: NCResident
Sep 9, 2008
-1
I've long thought that all a president would have to do is annouce a government funding for research to get us oil independent. Perhaps a trillion dollars in research grants.
Currently OPEC sets oil quotas. They could produce more than they are, but desire to keep the price up. The mere announcement of a major government thrust to eliminate the need the oil will send the OPEC nations scrambling to undermine the efforts, presumably by increasing production and thus lowering prices.
I think oil prices can be reduced without firing a shot, and before a single dollar is actually spent.
Of course this in and of itself may make it harder to become oil independent, but at least oil prices are reduced.
Currently OPEC sets oil quotas. They could produce more than they are, but desire to keep the price up. The mere announcement of a major government thrust to eliminate the need the oil will send the OPEC nations scrambling to undermine the efforts, presumably by increasing production and thus lowering prices.
I think oil prices can be reduced without firing a shot, and before a single dollar is actually spent.
Of course this in and of itself may make it harder to become oil independent, but at least oil prices are reduced.
User Name: HCG
Sep 6, 2008
+1
User Name: lfstevens
Sep 3, 2008
0
The Navy is already funding a project to develop Polywell (Bussard) fusion, but in a token amount. We need to step up and provide the 200M or so they think it will take to know for sure if it's going to work...If it does, it's a new day for electric power.
User Name: marklhessel
Sep 3, 2008
-2
I wouldn't be surprised if the moon program has paid for itself. Maybe on Tang alone - even though
it's not on the market anymore.
The US has known since 1973, that our security depended on resource that we still import to
this day. If we had done a "moon program" for alternative enegry in 1973, we would have
not fought the Gulf War. We would be selling that technology to the rest of the world as
we thumbed our noses at the Mid East and Russia.
If the Republicans and the Democrats really cared about our security, they would have done this a long time ago.
More than anything else, PROFIT has caused this "War on Terror."
it's not on the market anymore.
The US has known since 1973, that our security depended on resource that we still import to
this day. If we had done a "moon program" for alternative enegry in 1973, we would have
not fought the Gulf War. We would be selling that technology to the rest of the world as
we thumbed our noses at the Mid East and Russia.
If the Republicans and the Democrats really cared about our security, they would have done this a long time ago.
More than anything else, PROFIT has caused this "War on Terror."
User Name: almostlucid
Sep 3, 2008
-2
Fund science in Universities across the nation. Funding is way down, yet many innovations start there. You get the double political kick of funding education too.
User Name: HumilityRocks
Sep 3, 2008
-1
Scott,
Give tax breaks for things you want to encourage.
So, in this case, if a company creates / uses an alternative energy source, they get a nice tax break to help encourage it.
The President could get that done... and in the long view it would be benefit everyone (except for the oil companies - but they'll transition into these things at some point or die anyway).
Give tax breaks for things you want to encourage.
So, in this case, if a company creates / uses an alternative energy source, they get a nice tax break to help encourage it.
The President could get that done... and in the long view it would be benefit everyone (except for the oil companies - but they'll transition into these things at some point or die anyway).
User Name: kls
Sep 3, 2008
+1
I think the new President should answer this question by considering five other questions:
1. Is there anything in the current business environment that handicaps renewable energy solutions? For example, are the tax incentives at least balanced and fair among all energy alternatives?
2. Who stands to lose from the emergence of renewable energy solutions, and can the government do anything to keep them from resisting? For example, are the net-metering rules fair and consistent across all US utilities?
3. Who stands to take an unfair advantage in renewable energy solutions, and can the government do anything to prevent this? For example, can someone gain a monopoly on some new technology and unfairly inflate prices or stifle competition?
4. How can the government best stimulate creativity in this area? For example, the DARPA autonomous robot competition has stimulated creativity far beyond the prize money they put up.
5. In the long term, how will our reduced reliance on foreign oil affect our foreign policy? For example, if our allies in the middle east (who generally depend upon our military for protection) see that we're quickly becoming less interested and dependent, how will they and their enemies respond?
1. Is there anything in the current business environment that handicaps renewable energy solutions? For example, are the tax incentives at least balanced and fair among all energy alternatives?
2. Who stands to lose from the emergence of renewable energy solutions, and can the government do anything to keep them from resisting? For example, are the net-metering rules fair and consistent across all US utilities?
3. Who stands to take an unfair advantage in renewable energy solutions, and can the government do anything to prevent this? For example, can someone gain a monopoly on some new technology and unfairly inflate prices or stifle competition?
4. How can the government best stimulate creativity in this area? For example, the DARPA autonomous robot competition has stimulated creativity far beyond the prize money they put up.
5. In the long term, how will our reduced reliance on foreign oil affect our foreign policy? For example, if our allies in the middle east (who generally depend upon our military for protection) see that we're quickly becoming less interested and dependent, how will they and their enemies respond?
User Name: Treetrunk123
Sep 2, 2008
+2
The problem with many of these comments on raising taxes is that people don't like having their wealth taken away. The only two ways to get around this tipping point is either intimidating the taxpayers into silence or deceiving them into thinking that the other guy is paying the lion's share.
User Name: Treetrunk123
Sep 2, 2008
0
The problem with many of these comments on raising taxes is that people don't like having their wealth taken away. The only two ways to get around this tipping point is either intimidating the taxpayers into silence or deceiving them into thinking that the other guy is paying the lion's share.
User Name: adorita
Sep 2, 2008
-5
Take more control over urban planning and religious activities.
Urban sprawl is the major energy drain. (It is why the suburbia-filled USA consume far more energy than Europeans) Urban sprawl is mainly caused by religious organization building worship facilities, hospitals and schools on underdeveloped areas. It is due to difficulties with zoning in urban areas, so they sweep up underdeveloped area or farm lands. They are welcomed in those area because the locals want the business.
Urban planning must become a Federal matter instead of the county/local matters, so that the population can be located more intelligently for efficient distributions of goods and services, reduce commute and preserve farm lands.
Urban sprawl is the major energy drain. (It is why the suburbia-filled USA consume far more energy than Europeans) Urban sprawl is mainly caused by religious organization building worship facilities, hospitals and schools on underdeveloped areas. It is due to difficulties with zoning in urban areas, so they sweep up underdeveloped area or farm lands. They are welcomed in those area because the locals want the business.
Urban planning must become a Federal matter instead of the county/local matters, so that the population can be located more intelligently for efficient distributions of goods and services, reduce commute and preserve farm lands.
User Name: mdg
Sep 2, 2008
-3
The government could help by ending subsidies to oil companies that keep prices artificially low. That goes to your point of staying out of the way, but they have yet to manage it.
User Name: Carpe Geekem
Sep 2, 2008
-3
It doesn't matter how much profit there is to be made in the future, or how eager folks are to get that profit, the technology can't be developed without $ being available NOW; there isn't nearly enough venture capital around to fund every potentially workable power solution, which is where the gov't should step in with funding (after reasonable feasibility studies, of course).
As has already been pointed out, it'll take a good chunk of time to build the facilities to provide new types of power; I'm guessing that the zoning and regulatory issues would also take quite a while to work through, not to mention having to get voter approval for new power plants. Even if a viable and fully developed technology were presented tomorrow, it'd probably be YEARS before it got to the point of producing power, even if full funding was instantly available.
As has already been pointed out, it'll take a good chunk of time to build the facilities to provide new types of power; I'm guessing that the zoning and regulatory issues would also take quite a while to work through, not to mention having to get voter approval for new power plants. Even if a viable and fully developed technology were presented tomorrow, it'd probably be YEARS before it got to the point of producing power, even if full funding was instantly available.
User Name: smokefoot
Sep 2, 2008
0
On the role of government - it *would have* been useful for the government to be developing alternative energy in the 80's and 90's, since it was easy to see that sooner or later there would be another oil crisis, but the time scale was too long for most companies (got to make the numbers for the next quarter!). Unfortunately, government has shown that it doesn't have a longer time scale than companies, and screws up even things they claim to be doing, like regulating mortgage lenders.
User Name: smokefoot
Sep 2, 2008
-3
This is definitely not going to happen at internet speed. The amount of investment and construction needed to make even a tiny dent in the problem is huge. Look at oil sand - it started getting profitable when oil when above about $60 a gallon, and is now very practical. Development is going as fast as it can, but it is still only producing a small amount of oil relative to the demand. It will ramp up over the next few years, but that isn't "internet time".
User Name: Longarm
Sep 2, 2008
-5
I think the Government has done a very good job of sustaining the E85 program. Through the use of subsidies and grants, the E85 program may stick around long enough for the technology to be become profitable. Great ideas are born all the time; the hard part is making them affordable enough for consumers to buy them.
User Name: Uncollated
Sep 2, 2008
-1
I can only think of one thing the president can do about it, and, as with most thngs he can do, he needs Congress on his side. Tax gasoline. I realize it's already taxed, so what I mean is: raise the tax on gasoline. If $4-a-gallon gas stimulates alternative energy research, $5-a-gallon gas will hurry it up. If we knew for certain that every year the tax on gas would rise by $0.10 per gallon, so that the total price would unquestionably never get back to reasonable levels, I think more people would invest in alternate technologies because they would know they'd have plenty of customers very soon.
User Name: Aardwizz
Sep 2, 2008
-3
The only real role they have (in terms of solving the energy riddle) is Head Cheerleader.
A) They can use the bully pulpit to frame the debatge. If they pound "Renewable energy, renewable energy", then " More dirlling" becomes muted (mooted?).
B) Others will want to please them, so that they will bestow their Magnificance upon them. Thus those others will seek to do their will, or what is percieved to be the presiden'ts will (cf: Ollie North).
It's kind of like High School. Head Cheerleaders don't have any REAL power, and yet they are deferred to, catered to, flattered, etc.
A) They can use the bully pulpit to frame the debatge. If they pound "Renewable energy, renewable energy", then " More dirlling" becomes muted (mooted?).
B) Others will want to please them, so that they will bestow their Magnificance upon them. Thus those others will seek to do their will, or what is percieved to be the presiden'ts will (cf: Ollie North).
It's kind of like High School. Head Cheerleaders don't have any REAL power, and yet they are deferred to, catered to, flattered, etc.
User Name: robrjohnson
Sep 2, 2008
+2
I think if they focus on what the military needs, it is effective. The military confronts complex problems with machinery, logistics, etc and have a lot of motivation to ensure that something concrete gets delivered. They're usually pushing the limits of technology when they develop a replacement system and they're very interested in alternative fuel vehicles that can reduce the logistics problem of moving fuel around.
