Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Considering the government is owned by the conventional energy interests it is only developing the alternates that are too inefficient to pose a threat to the fossil fuel industry. Wind turbines collect energy but do not provide reliable power. Solar electric cells are a joke in anything above the grass hut level. Most hydroelectric sites are already developed. Gasohol uses more energy than it provides.
The best alternate to conventional energy is nuclear fission based electrical power plant in a system of full fuel recycle and new fuel production from non-radioactive elements. Nuclear energy has been stifled because it is competitive with coal and eliminating that competition has been the goal of the coal and oil industries since the beginning of nuclear power. They do not consider the waste products to be any concern of theirs. Why should they care if CO2 emissions actually are a pollutant over the long term?
Unfortunately I do not think the fossil fuel industry will give up control of the government or the energy markets anytime in the near future. They simply have too much to lose. If we want a safe and reliable electrical energy supply we will have to pry the coal industry’s hand off the throttle and money out of politics.
PS: there has not been a "Free Market" in petroleum since JD Rockefeller set up Standard Oil and utility companies were allowed to own coal mines and railroads. The difference is the markets were controlled by private monopolies instead of elected governments. Now they are controlled by rented governments doing the private sector’s bidding. There is no way the fossil fuel industry is ever going to let a “Free Market” threaten their monopoly profits.
There is nothing wrong with alternative energy...except that it is a dramatic waste of scarce resources.
I can assure you - solar energy is not scarce.
Quote:
1. Wind energy is more expensive than energy produced from coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear.
Yep, and at one time getting coal and oil was more expensive than burning wood. And at one time a laptop computer was more expensive than a new car. And a 32" flat screen TV was more expensive than a new 32" tube TV. And a new car was more expensive than a new wagon with 2 horses.
Bottom line - advancements in technology are always expensive at first and then when they are further studied and further used, their efficiency, their benefits, and their advantages tend to drive down prices. The problem with trying to put alternative energy into the "market" is that it isn't a fair comparison. The free market theory assumes all actors come to the table with equal opportunities and equal access. That is simply untrue - we all know that oil, coal, and the utility companies have huge lobbies and huge influence. Whether this means subsidies should be provided or not, I am not so sure.
Quote:
We are wasting money in subsidies that could be used to help people, reduce taxes, or pay down the debt.
Fine. No more subsidies for the oil companies.
Quote:
2. The tax credit for hybrid or electric vehicles is basically a wealth transfer to upper middle class people who do not mind over-paying for their cars.
You could say the same for the mortgage deduction too. Want to eliminate that from the tax code too? How about the child credit? Isn't that a "transfer of wealth" to lower-income families (who, statistically have more children than affluent families)?
Quote:
3. Ethanol is a huge boondoggle. The direct subsidies, tariffs to prevent competition, and mandated use are the only reason a single gallon of the inferior fuel ever gets sold. As a byproduct, higher food prices around the globe impoverish millions because we burn up 40% of the corn crop to produce the stuff.
Here some clarity is needed. Corn and sugar ethanol are boondoggles in the fact that their purported mission of reducing carbon emissions is simply false. Now, cellulosic ethanol - that is where focus needs to be. Huge reductions in carbon emissions and nearly 30% of our liquid gasoline consumption could be replaced with that.
Quote:
The market will bring us the most efficient fuels available without massive government intervention in the economy, with all the distortions it causes. There is a buck to be made by bringing people what they need or want, so when "alternatives" become timely and viable, they will be adopted more quickly than any government program could ever accomplish. IN the meantime, stop wasting our money.
This is a problem because we don't live in a "free market" society. I tend to want to agree with you, in principle. But in practice - this is simply not viable. Indeed, not every product should be left up to the "free market." I would argue that, like defense, energy use and energy production is a vital national security issue. And in that vein, there has to be some form (not complete control or government takeover) of government interest in energy production in this country.
I believe that "Natural Monopolies" like electrical production, transmission and distribution should be owned and operated by the Federal government. I also believe that subsurface resources should belong to the government regardless of the ownership of the surface. IMHO private property rights stop before thier can be a privately owned monopoly of any sort.
Get government out of the energy game with it's price fixing, manipulation and subsidies so that real prices can drive the development/direction of alternative energies.
That is what it comes down to.
When solar becomes practical, I will put those photvoltaics up on my roof in a minute.
Climate change is real. Only the extreme ignorant would believe that we can dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and it would have no effect. Only the ignorant would think that dumping petro chemical waste into the oceans, and using petro chemical fertilizers on crops that eventually wash into the the oceans would have no effect. Only the ignorant. Many do not really believe this, they are just haters, they hate those who want to do something positive more than they hate the affect of a destroyed environment. These are the same people who would gladly end medicare and social security for their children as long as they can keep it for them self.
I think it would have helped you to make your case a little better if you had used the terms "ignorant" "hate/haters" and "children" a few more times
I've often wondered how, some thousands of years ago, when the North American Continent was at the North Pole, people adapted.
All of that farmland and oil reserves stuck under hundreds of feet of ice ..
I wonder how far reaching, or otherwise imposing their politics were back in those days .. I wonder if even clear back then, people had to suffer under the stupidity of their elected officials, tribal elders, and witch doctors.
Our weather/climate is constantly changing. No amount of legislation is going to stop the plate tectonics, volcanoes from erupting, or even solar flares from flaring ..
The nature of man is such that says he will continue down a certain path until some calamity causes him to shift his course .. the mere threat of a calamity (in this case, global warming) won't work. It has to be something that effects him suddenly, and directly.
So an Astroid slams into the planet, causing ripples/earthquakes, and drives the North American Continent into the Pacific plate, creating the Rockies and mass destruction of the west coast in just a matter of a couple of days .. portions of other continents become completely submerged as mountains on other continents continue to rise ..
I would just love to see the legislation that might prevent all of this sort of thing from happening .. nope .. Man, in and of himself, is just that ignorant.
As a species, we are powerless to manipulate anything the earth does. One day we are here, and the next, it's so long see-ya have a nice day ..
Until then, we'll all be trying to B.S. each other out of anything that might be worth something at the moment .. in 100 years, the rules and the legislation won't amount to a hill of beans, because some other man made form of B.S. will take center stage ..
Sure .. go on ahead and drive your plastic cars, fly those kites, and spin those windmills .. In the larger scheme of things, expensive or not, none of what man does today is going to amount to much at all 1,000 years from now .. and if you doubt what I say, just take a look behind you, and see how the earth used to be, and notice the differences today .. nothing stays the same, and quite frankly, we are powerless to do anything about it.
But it isn't up to a government entity to force us into accepting this by raising the price of oil. Drill baby, drill!
Drill baby, drill is a political slogan designed to "move" a bunch of simpletons and presented as the cure. Let us leave it at that.
A government's job is to ensure welfare of the people by focusing in the long term. I said this in another thread yesterday but look at Norway. They have it right. Despite massive oil reserves and production, they don't overuse and abuse it. They are extremely conservative about oil usage, and continue to push alternate means to generate energy. For that matter, try twice the gasoline prices in a nation that is overflowing with oil at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
When solar becomes practical, I will put those photvoltaics up on my roof in a minute.
Solar is practical today. In about 2-3 years from now, I will be putting solar panels on the roof of my house but it will take more than a few minutes for sure.
But what is wrong with alternative energy?Even if global warming isn't real, alternative energy has its benefits.
When you say a person does not believe in "global warming", do you mean that they do not believe humans are responsible for warming the planet? If so, count me in.
We have small peak power generation plants, in my state, that use methane gas from livestock manure. There is nothing wrong with subsidizing research into alternative energy. If we can offset the costs of research and development to one day discover an efficient way to turn the blowing wind or the sun into energy, I'm all for it, but current technologies are not there yet.
Wind, solar and bio-mass are all forms of energy, but they are less inefficient, less dependable and more expensive then coal or nuclear. Being unreliable, wind and solar cannot be used for peak energy, and for neither can be used as a base load.
The problem I have is when government engages in crony capitalism, picks the winners and losers, and gives away tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to wind and solar. Government should not demand that we derive a large percentage of our total power needs from current wind and solar technology. For one reason, current wind and solar technology are not ready. Additionally, no thought is going into what the net costs to consumers and taxpayers will be, or what impact on the reliability of our nation’s electrical power grid would be.
Wind power has negative impacts to the environment that cannot be overcome. The wind farms take farmland out of production, permanently scare off local wild life, like the sage-grouse and prairie chicken. Even when operating as intended, their spinning blades kill birds, sling ice, and their low frequency hum drives the people who live near them nuts.
Bio-fuels are not only very expensive, but they also take farmland out of production, jack up food prices, use up water resources and introduce more nitrates and phosphates into the ground and water.
So far, the best clean energy is nuclear, wind, bio-mass, bio-fuels and solar are not even close.
There is nothing wrong with alternative energy...except that it is a dramatic waste of scarce resources.
1. Wind energy is more expensive than energy produced from coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear. We are wasting money in subsidies that could be used to help people, reduce taxes, or pay down the debt.
2. The tax credit for hybrid or electric vehicles is basically a wealth transfer to upper middle class people who do not mind over-paying for their cars.
3. Ethanol is a huge boondoggle. The direct subsidies, tariffs to prevent competition, and mandated use are the only reason a single gallon of the inferior fuel ever gets sold. As a byproduct, higher food prices around the globe impoverish millions because we burn up 40% of the corn crop to produce the stuff.
The market will bring us the most efficient fuels available without massive government intervention in the economy, with all the distortions it causes. There is a buck to be made by bringing people what they need or want, so when "alternatives" become timely and viable, they will be adopted more quickly than any government program could ever accomplish. IN the meantime, stop wasting our money.
It's so refreshing to see an intelligent, well though out post on this site again. Seems like it's been a while.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
