nerdgirl 0 #51 June 17, 2008 Quote Quote Why was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. Shale oil and fields in the ocean have since been discovered. US and Canadian shale oil sources add up in trillions of barrels of oil. Trillions. Orders-of-magnitude more than the middle east. Canadian discoveries would not impact US peak oil. Since you assert a counter-argument to peak oil, you should know that peak oil calculations -- like the one to which I linked was updated in 2004 -- consider total resource available (oil discoveries) and production rate. Perhaps it is not my argument which is, eh, leaky? Quote Quote Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? I have, but I do not subscribe to "oil must be replaced" theology. It's not theology: it's geology. Quote Clean coal power, nuclear, hydro and solar could power the grid without oil if we would just build the plants. We need not burn a single drop of oil to power the grid. Fantastic! I look forward to seeing equally passion and energy to solar, algae-based, removing tariffs blocking Brazilian sugar cane, etc. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 June 17, 2008 QuoteQuote We and estimated trillions of resources in the shelf and rocky mountains (shale oil). Government needs to get out of the way.Quote Speaking of shale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves I was to start working on one of the first shale oils jobs in 81 I think, in CO. All the talk. Condos to live in and co. trucks for everyone. Seems if I remember correctly the REAGAN administration had the plug pulled on all that shit. I starved for a yr. under that bastard. Finally went back to work for 5 bucks an hr. vs. the 19 I was making at the time to feed my kids. trickle down economics, don't ya love em. . You do bring forth an intesting and timely piece of history. The Carter administration invested millions in getting shale oil recovery started. President Reagan abandoned it in 1982, along with investment in solar energy. It's estimated that the shale oil in Colorado & Wyoming is ~800 billion recoverable barrels, 3x more than Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of conventional crude. Shale oil is NOT a silver bullet. It won't be as easy or cheap to recover as sweet crude ... but imagine if the US had only continued to invest in development of these technologies in the 1980s? VR/Marg Is shale oil extraction remotely similar to the sand oil extraction done in Alberta? Given a choice of pursuing solar or shale, I'd pick solar. In the great wisdom that is Congress in an election year, they cancelled solar credits (well, failed to extend) while oil subsidies continue. I imagine the shale oil was not viable in the cheap oil of the 80s during the Iran-Iraq war. Now the dollars probably make sense, but evironmentally it may not be very pretty. Compare it to "clean coal" to decide on the emphasis at this point, while we have some time and choices still. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #53 June 17, 2008 Quote>but I am weary of government claiming to have the answers... Yet you want the government to open ANWR to give you the solution.And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco religion. I want the free market to take care of it. Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their beliefs on the rest of us >I'm tired of "can't do this" and "can't do that". This country could be off >middle-east sources of energy in as little as 10 years if we really want it. I agree. But for as long as people keep blaming liberals/environmentalists/scientists/Al Gore/insert-your-favorite-scapegoat here, then nothing will happen. As soon as they start embracing solutions instead of blame, then we can move forward.If the shoe fits! >It's not about SUVs, it's about getting serious for a change - drill here, >drill now. Ignoring consumption while pushing production is like trying to fill a reservoir by pumping water into it instead of fixing the big hole in the dam. It didn't work in the past 50 years, and it won't work today. We have to fix the hole in the dam first.Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with If you want to get serious, demand a CAFE of 50mpg. We will be off foreign oil within ten years. If you want nothing to change, demand drilling. We will be more dependent than we are now within 10 years.Oh yes, DEMAND more gov control. It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #54 June 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhy was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. Shale oil and fields in the ocean have since been discovered. US and Canadian shale oil sources add up in trillions of barrels of oil. Trillions. Orders-of-magnitude more than the middle east. QuoteQuote We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? I have, but I do not subscribe to "oil must be replaced" theology. I've said time and a again that eliminating sources of energy is not an energy policy. There is no reason to set any expectation about "alternatives" to oil. There is every reason to set expectations of supplemental technologies to oil. How? Clean coal power, nuclear, hydro and solar could power the grid without oil if we would just build the plants. We need not burn a single drop of oil to power the grid. Natural gas and geothermal is an excellent home heating option. Hell, wood is too (on a micro scale) if it's replenished. Coal-gas conversion can also supplement along with solar. Hybrid technologies to supplement heavy trucks and assist with fuel consumption (high torque up and down). Honda's FCX is on the market now, but hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long way off. Those vehicles cost Honda nearly $1M/each to make. Hybrid vehicles are nice, but efficient internal combustion engines continue to advance. If the government doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, the market will find solutions for everyone. Meanwhile, if we harvest our own resources for use on the global market, we, the USA advance our own policies, provide a stable supply to the world, and maintain a true leadership role. These are answers we start NOW. We don't need a Kyoto Treaty or some ambiguous accord.OK. Energy is a big portion of what I do We are getting ready to build the first solar/ natural gas powerhouse in the country in Vivtorville, Ca. A whopping 50 MW solar, 500 dual cycle natural gas fired plant. Guess what. The enviornmentalists are pitching a bitch cause the solar panels take up so many acres. All the animals and plants and blah blah blah. I've helped build a few dual cycles in the last few years. Natural gas is clean and plentyful. The Gov. of Ca. (Ca energy commission) has a ton of powerhouse const. on hold right now. Guess why? Ca. is going green. The lie is solar and wind only provide a fraction of the MW's needed and we are buying from other states coal and diesel (POLLUTING) powerhouses at in inflated rate to make Ca. look green. It's all smoke and mirrors grasshopper. Hydrogen. The most abunda element in the universe. (I think) Only way to go but I won't see it in my lifetime. The rich have to get richer at the expense of the poor. Ca>http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.htmlI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #55 June 17, 2008 Quote The market will bear what the market will bear. Yep, until the market doesn't exist anymore as sustainability isn't part of the equation. See the history of every commercial fishery for examples on how it plays out at the end. It's a good thing we have alternatives to Atlantic swordfish - so far as you point out, we don't have real alteratives to oil, if all else stays the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #56 June 18, 2008 Quote Is shale oil extraction remotely similar to the sand oil extraction done in Alberta? It is my understanding that extracting petroleum products from tar sands (which are glorified asphalt) is easier than from oil shale. Tar sand oil and shale oil are not synonyms. Both are environmentally intensive by conventional methodologies, more akin in some ways to diamond or gold mining than traditional petroleoum recovery, Quote Given a choice of pursuing solar or shale, I'd pick solar. Concur strongly! (Unless we are going back to that make more dinosours and and Paleozoic marine plankton & algae proposal. ) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,008 #57 June 18, 2008 >And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start. >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh? >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here. Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things. >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #58 June 18, 2008 Quote >And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start. >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh? >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here. Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things. >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist. I think I pointted it out first since I lived thru it.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #59 June 18, 2008 Clicky The federal government has NOT let the free market take its course WRT energy. Direct and indirect subsidies have been in place for quite some time. I think there will be no one single solution, rather a combination of several alternatives. The bio-fuels have much merit - as do the ideas of opening up ANWR and doing a bit more offshore drilling. I think increased efficiency, in conjunction with expanded domestic exploration and several biofuels will be the ticket. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,028 #60 June 18, 2008 QuoteQuote>but I am weary of government claiming to have the answers... Yet you want the government to open ANWR to give you the solution.And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco religion. I want the free market to take care of it. Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their beliefs on the rest of us If the "free market" actually accounted for the costs of environmental damage and energy sustainability associated with fossil fuel use, you would have a point. The "free market" we have right now does no such thing, and so you don't have a point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,008 #61 June 18, 2008 >The federal government has NOT let the free market take its course >WRT energy. Direct and indirect subsidies have been in place for quite >some time. Agreed. And many of those subsidies have been directed at oil, to keep the price of oil and gas cheap. That has artificially reduced price and increased demand. Other subsidies have attempted to promote alternate fuels, but in many cases that's an uphill battle against another subsidized form of energy. So I see two solutions. One, remove all subsidies. No more oil company tax breaks or SUV tax credits or cheap land leases. Oil companies buy all the land they want to drill on and they pay for all the damage their products cause. Two, alter the subsidies we have. Skew them more towards the sources we want to move to than oil and gasoline. Both ways can work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #62 June 18, 2008 DoE's FY09 budget submission to OMB actually reduced the $$ requested for alternative energy research, unfortunately. I disagree with that - among other things. Clicky Right spirit - reduce spending - but the wrong area. They DID increase the science budget, however. I don't like the subsidies, truth be told, but don't think an instantaneous removal of them would be a good thing for the economy or the energy industry itself. I've seen a couple of breakdowns of those subsides, and I think solar is EXTREMELY well subsidized per kW/H if memory serves. Wish I could find a complete and up to date breakdown. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #63 June 18, 2008 Quote I've seen a couple of breakdowns of those subsides, and I think solar is EXTREMELY well subsidized per kW/H if memory serves. Wish I could find a complete and up to date breakdown. Not at the federal level - they've not been renewed and will be 0. Pretty stupid stuff, given the issues with the electrical grid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #64 June 18, 2008 Federal, state, or county. It doesn't really matter, as the market is affected by the government. The data I saw a few weeks ago but cannot find showed solar subsidized pretty well. I think the ITC for commercial solar was set to expire @ the end of CY08, but don't know much about the structure - direct or indirect - of any subsidies going to the solar energy industry. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #65 June 18, 2008 Quote>And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start.If you see this as an insult (which is was not meant to be) I must be hitting close to home >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh?Free markets are not totally in place today given the government restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here.Rrrrrreeeaaaaly Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? Would you please post the source for this poll. I would like to see how the questions are asked. In any event, if the tax breaks were given for drilling and exploration, we would be better off IMO >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things.This IS the government >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist.Not against alternatives or rearch. Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a "head in the sand" than what I post. If your side would have an open debate instead of the scare tactics, laws and courts to push your crap, we would all be better off today. But when one debates against a religion no progress can be made. The way the envios have a strangel hold on the rules today proves that. Fortunatly, things are swinging. The radical approach which has failed is being seen for what it is. Along with the global warming hype."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #66 June 18, 2008 Two, alter the subsidies we have. Skew them more towards the sources we want to move to than oil and gasoline. Both ways can work. Free market huh? The way WE want????"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #67 June 18, 2008 Here’s an interesting, im-ever-ho, example of government using competition and strategies more commonly associated with market forces to spur innovation and development of technology that the market is not providing/will not pursue (i.e., where the free market fails the soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine as Vannevar Bush recognized back in the 1940s): the DoD DDR&E Wearable Power Program. From Defenselink press release: “The Wearable Power Prize seeks to reduce the weight of power systems that warfighters carry and aims to award a total of $1.75 million to the lightest weight systems that provide 20 watts of electrical power for 96 hours, but weigh less than 4 kilograms.” Technologies represented include fuel cells, (another example), piezoelectrics (generating a field by mechanical compression), nano-structured materials, polymeric-based rechargeable batteries, and mixed photovoltaics. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #68 June 18, 2008 Quote Here’s an interesting, im-ever-ho, example of government using competition and strategies more commonly associated with market forces to spur innovation and development of technology that the market is not providing/will not pursue (i.e., where the free market fails the soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine as Vannevar Bush recognized back in the 1940s): the DoD DDR&E Wearable Power Program. From Defenselink press release: “The Wearable Power Prize seeks to reduce the weight of power systems that warfighters carry and aims to award a total of $1.75 million to the lightest weight systems that provide 20 watts of electrical power for 96 hours, but weigh less than 4 kilograms.” Technologies represented include fuel cells, (another example), piezoelectrics (generating a field by mechanical compression), nano-structured materials, polymeric-based rechargeable batteries, and mixed photovoltaics. VR/Marg You should start a new thread with this. There is good stuff there. Shortly before I returned home from the hospital, the Pentagon was asking for input from a few of us that lost body parts to discuss the armor in vehicles with the smaller "non-aligned" defense contractors. The situation changed because of the Washington Post debacle last spring, but I'm amazed at some of the avenues the brass are willing to pursue to make things happen. Thankfully, not all of it is a cluster-f**k...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,008 #69 June 18, 2008 >Free markets are not totally in place today given the government >restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. Like I said, we can go one of two directions. 1) Completely end subsidies for everyone. No more oil company tax breaks, cheap land leases or defense of oil sources. Oil companies pay for the land they drill on and pay for any environmental damage they cause (via the courts.) They want Kuwaiti oil? They pay for Kuwait's defense. 2) Keep what we have now, but move subsidies towards non-petroleum sources. Both will work. The latter is more practical given the structure we have now. >Would you please post the source for this poll. Pollingreport.com. >Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a >"head in the sand" than what I post. So in your opinion things are good? (the usual incoherent Rush rant about global warming, evil enviros etc deleted) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #70 June 18, 2008 Quote>Free markets are not totally in place today given the government >restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. Like I said, we can go one of two directions. 1) Completely end subsidies for everyone. No more oil company tax breaks, cheap land leases or defense of oil sources. Oil companies pay for the land they drill on and pay for any environmental damage they cause (via the courts.) They want Kuwaiti oil? They pay for Kuwait's defense.For the most part I like this one. Including (for kallend) removal of farm subsidies too. 2) Keep what we have now, but move subsidies towards non-petroleum sources. Both will work. The latter is more practical given the structure we have now.I do not beleive either will work. Government involvment ALWAYS has unforseen and bad side effects. >Would you please post the source for this poll. Pollingreport.com. >Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a >"head in the sand" than what I post. So in your opinion things are good?No, but you want to place the blame where is does not belong, as usual. The current situation is a "side effect" of enviornmental policy and gov control, but only partially. There are many other factors to including the current Fed policies and speculators and others (the usual incoherent Rush rant about global warming, evil enviros etc deleted) Not a rant but I understand the push to get "something done" soon. Why? cause people are starting to see the crap for what it really is"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,008 #71 June 18, 2008 >Not a rant but I understand the push to get "something done" soon. >Why? cause people are starting to see the crap for what it really is Could you re-phrase that? Are you saying that people want to get something done soon, and that they think whatever gets done is crap? Doesn't make much sense. Or is "the crap" the usual liberals/environmentalists/climate change/alternative energy/biofuel group you dislike? >Government involvment ALWAYS has unforseen and bad side effects. Interesting. So what bad side effects did CAFE have? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #72 June 18, 2008 Interesting. So what bad side effects did CAFE have? The following may create a conundrum for you….. June 28, 2007 HOW CAFE standards are bad environmental policy I wrote about CAFE in my post below, but I did not make clear HOW it is bad. I appologize for boring those who understand fixed and variable costs (or maybe everyone), but the distinction is very important in how CAFE works, or not. Society is a complex. When you change one aspect, it changes relationships throughout the system. CAFE standards just ignore that. Costs can be divided into fixed and variable costs. Fixed cost are those that do not change based on usage. Variable cost, as the name implies varies with use of production. Fixed and variable costs explain why firms sometimes continue to produce products even when they are losing money on every unit. If a firm can cover its variable costs, it sometimes makes more sense. So how does this apply to CAFE and cars? Automobiles are fixed costs. They depreciate faster with use, but are is mostly fixed costs. Insurance, license, fees etc are also mostly fixed costs. You pay essentially the same if you drive 1000 miles or 100,000. Most Americans own cars and will continue to own them. They have already paid for their cars (or at least their loans will not change with miles driven). Their cars are fixed costs. In fact, leaving the car in the garage may be a bit of a waste. The fixed cost is just sitting there. People figure variable costs. This is the dilemma of mass transit. It may be cheaper in total cost for a person to commute by mass transit, but the variable cost is often lower to commute by car. For example if you count in the total cost of owning a car, it may cost you $.40.5 a mile to drive (which is what the IRS allows). So you might think that a bus company could charge $4.05 for a ten mile commute, maybe as much as $5-6 because you are hiring someone else to drive. But people do not see it that way. They count only the variable cost, so they figure it costs only around $1-1.50, i.e. about what it costs for the gas. CAFE standards will raise the price of vehicles (fixed) while lowering the average cost per mile driven (variable). The total cost (fixed plus variable) will remain the similar, but the relative cost of driving, the variable cost is less. The variable cost is what affects people's decisions. So what CAFE standard do is create incentives to drive more miles even if it does not change the total cost people pay for their transport needs. A carbon tax, in contrast, does just the opposite. It drives up the variable cost, the cost per mile, while leaving fixed costs unchanged. The incentive is clearly to use less carbon based fuel. And the incentive continues to apply over and over. People use their imagination and intelligence to avoid costs and take advantage of opportunities. If you want to create incentives to drive more miles, impose CAFE standards, but understand you will not in the long run reduce carbon based fuel usage and you are creating incentives for people to move farther away from where they work, i.e. sprawl. You are also doing nothing to encourage alternative fuels. AND all this assumes CAFE is done honestly w/o too much political pressure. If you want to create incentives to use less carbon based fuel and develop alternatives to fossil fuels, the carbon tax is the way to go. Conclusion? Higher MPG = more miles driven means no gas saved. that is what happened in the 70's Edited to add link and comment http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/005252.html now, I do not agree with all stated and I have no idea who this guy is. He did put it well however so I posted here and this http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF_CTs_05_Portney.pdf"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 June 17, 2008 Quote>but I am weary of government claiming to have the answers... Yet you want the government to open ANWR to give you the solution.And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco religion. I want the free market to take care of it. Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their beliefs on the rest of us >I'm tired of "can't do this" and "can't do that". This country could be off >middle-east sources of energy in as little as 10 years if we really want it. I agree. But for as long as people keep blaming liberals/environmentalists/scientists/Al Gore/insert-your-favorite-scapegoat here, then nothing will happen. As soon as they start embracing solutions instead of blame, then we can move forward.If the shoe fits! >It's not about SUVs, it's about getting serious for a change - drill here, >drill now. Ignoring consumption while pushing production is like trying to fill a reservoir by pumping water into it instead of fixing the big hole in the dam. It didn't work in the past 50 years, and it won't work today. We have to fix the hole in the dam first.Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with If you want to get serious, demand a CAFE of 50mpg. We will be off foreign oil within ten years. If you want nothing to change, demand drilling. We will be more dependent than we are now within 10 years.Oh yes, DEMAND more gov control. It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #54 June 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhy was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. Shale oil and fields in the ocean have since been discovered. US and Canadian shale oil sources add up in trillions of barrels of oil. Trillions. Orders-of-magnitude more than the middle east. QuoteQuote We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? I have, but I do not subscribe to "oil must be replaced" theology. I've said time and a again that eliminating sources of energy is not an energy policy. There is no reason to set any expectation about "alternatives" to oil. There is every reason to set expectations of supplemental technologies to oil. How? Clean coal power, nuclear, hydro and solar could power the grid without oil if we would just build the plants. We need not burn a single drop of oil to power the grid. Natural gas and geothermal is an excellent home heating option. Hell, wood is too (on a micro scale) if it's replenished. Coal-gas conversion can also supplement along with solar. Hybrid technologies to supplement heavy trucks and assist with fuel consumption (high torque up and down). Honda's FCX is on the market now, but hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long way off. Those vehicles cost Honda nearly $1M/each to make. Hybrid vehicles are nice, but efficient internal combustion engines continue to advance. If the government doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, the market will find solutions for everyone. Meanwhile, if we harvest our own resources for use on the global market, we, the USA advance our own policies, provide a stable supply to the world, and maintain a true leadership role. These are answers we start NOW. We don't need a Kyoto Treaty or some ambiguous accord.OK. Energy is a big portion of what I do We are getting ready to build the first solar/ natural gas powerhouse in the country in Vivtorville, Ca. A whopping 50 MW solar, 500 dual cycle natural gas fired plant. Guess what. The enviornmentalists are pitching a bitch cause the solar panels take up so many acres. All the animals and plants and blah blah blah. I've helped build a few dual cycles in the last few years. Natural gas is clean and plentyful. The Gov. of Ca. (Ca energy commission) has a ton of powerhouse const. on hold right now. Guess why? Ca. is going green. The lie is solar and wind only provide a fraction of the MW's needed and we are buying from other states coal and diesel (POLLUTING) powerhouses at in inflated rate to make Ca. look green. It's all smoke and mirrors grasshopper. Hydrogen. The most abunda element in the universe. (I think) Only way to go but I won't see it in my lifetime. The rich have to get richer at the expense of the poor. Ca>http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.htmlI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 June 17, 2008 Quote The market will bear what the market will bear. Yep, until the market doesn't exist anymore as sustainability isn't part of the equation. See the history of every commercial fishery for examples on how it plays out at the end. It's a good thing we have alternatives to Atlantic swordfish - so far as you point out, we don't have real alteratives to oil, if all else stays the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #56 June 18, 2008 Quote Is shale oil extraction remotely similar to the sand oil extraction done in Alberta? It is my understanding that extracting petroleum products from tar sands (which are glorified asphalt) is easier than from oil shale. Tar sand oil and shale oil are not synonyms. Both are environmentally intensive by conventional methodologies, more akin in some ways to diamond or gold mining than traditional petroleoum recovery, Quote Given a choice of pursuing solar or shale, I'd pick solar. Concur strongly! (Unless we are going back to that make more dinosours and and Paleozoic marine plankton & algae proposal. ) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #57 June 18, 2008 >And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start. >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh? >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here. Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things. >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #58 June 18, 2008 Quote >And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start. >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh? >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here. Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things. >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist. I think I pointted it out first since I lived thru it.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #59 June 18, 2008 Clicky The federal government has NOT let the free market take its course WRT energy. Direct and indirect subsidies have been in place for quite some time. I think there will be no one single solution, rather a combination of several alternatives. The bio-fuels have much merit - as do the ideas of opening up ANWR and doing a bit more offshore drilling. I think increased efficiency, in conjunction with expanded domestic exploration and several biofuels will be the ticket. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #60 June 18, 2008 QuoteQuote>but I am weary of government claiming to have the answers... Yet you want the government to open ANWR to give you the solution.And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco religion. I want the free market to take care of it. Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their beliefs on the rest of us If the "free market" actually accounted for the costs of environmental damage and energy sustainability associated with fossil fuel use, you would have a point. The "free market" we have right now does no such thing, and so you don't have a point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,008 #61 June 18, 2008 >The federal government has NOT let the free market take its course >WRT energy. Direct and indirect subsidies have been in place for quite >some time. Agreed. And many of those subsidies have been directed at oil, to keep the price of oil and gas cheap. That has artificially reduced price and increased demand. Other subsidies have attempted to promote alternate fuels, but in many cases that's an uphill battle against another subsidized form of energy. So I see two solutions. One, remove all subsidies. No more oil company tax breaks or SUV tax credits or cheap land leases. Oil companies buy all the land they want to drill on and they pay for all the damage their products cause. Two, alter the subsidies we have. Skew them more towards the sources we want to move to than oil and gasoline. Both ways can work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #62 June 18, 2008 DoE's FY09 budget submission to OMB actually reduced the $$ requested for alternative energy research, unfortunately. I disagree with that - among other things. Clicky Right spirit - reduce spending - but the wrong area. They DID increase the science budget, however. I don't like the subsidies, truth be told, but don't think an instantaneous removal of them would be a good thing for the economy or the energy industry itself. I've seen a couple of breakdowns of those subsides, and I think solar is EXTREMELY well subsidized per kW/H if memory serves. Wish I could find a complete and up to date breakdown. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #63 June 18, 2008 Quote I've seen a couple of breakdowns of those subsides, and I think solar is EXTREMELY well subsidized per kW/H if memory serves. Wish I could find a complete and up to date breakdown. Not at the federal level - they've not been renewed and will be 0. Pretty stupid stuff, given the issues with the electrical grid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #64 June 18, 2008 Federal, state, or county. It doesn't really matter, as the market is affected by the government. The data I saw a few weeks ago but cannot find showed solar subsidized pretty well. I think the ITC for commercial solar was set to expire @ the end of CY08, but don't know much about the structure - direct or indirect - of any subsidies going to the solar energy industry. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #65 June 18, 2008 Quote>And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start.If you see this as an insult (which is was not meant to be) I must be hitting close to home >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh?Free markets are not totally in place today given the government restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here.Rrrrrreeeaaaaly Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? Would you please post the source for this poll. I would like to see how the questions are asked. In any event, if the tax breaks were given for drilling and exploration, we would be better off IMO >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things.This IS the government >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist.Not against alternatives or rearch. Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a "head in the sand" than what I post. If your side would have an open debate instead of the scare tactics, laws and courts to push your crap, we would all be better off today. But when one debates against a religion no progress can be made. The way the envios have a strangel hold on the rules today proves that. Fortunatly, things are swinging. The radical approach which has failed is being seen for what it is. Along with the global warming hype."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #66 June 18, 2008 Two, alter the subsidies we have. Skew them more towards the sources we want to move to than oil and gasoline. Both ways can work. Free market huh? The way WE want????"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #61 June 18, 2008 >The federal government has NOT let the free market take its course >WRT energy. Direct and indirect subsidies have been in place for quite >some time. Agreed. And many of those subsidies have been directed at oil, to keep the price of oil and gas cheap. That has artificially reduced price and increased demand. Other subsidies have attempted to promote alternate fuels, but in many cases that's an uphill battle against another subsidized form of energy. So I see two solutions. One, remove all subsidies. No more oil company tax breaks or SUV tax credits or cheap land leases. Oil companies buy all the land they want to drill on and they pay for all the damage their products cause. Two, alter the subsidies we have. Skew them more towards the sources we want to move to than oil and gasoline. Both ways can work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #62 June 18, 2008 DoE's FY09 budget submission to OMB actually reduced the $$ requested for alternative energy research, unfortunately. I disagree with that - among other things. Clicky Right spirit - reduce spending - but the wrong area. They DID increase the science budget, however. I don't like the subsidies, truth be told, but don't think an instantaneous removal of them would be a good thing for the economy or the energy industry itself. I've seen a couple of breakdowns of those subsides, and I think solar is EXTREMELY well subsidized per kW/H if memory serves. Wish I could find a complete and up to date breakdown. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 June 18, 2008 Quote I've seen a couple of breakdowns of those subsides, and I think solar is EXTREMELY well subsidized per kW/H if memory serves. Wish I could find a complete and up to date breakdown. Not at the federal level - they've not been renewed and will be 0. Pretty stupid stuff, given the issues with the electrical grid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #64 June 18, 2008 Federal, state, or county. It doesn't really matter, as the market is affected by the government. The data I saw a few weeks ago but cannot find showed solar subsidized pretty well. I think the ITC for commercial solar was set to expire @ the end of CY08, but don't know much about the structure - direct or indirect - of any subsidies going to the solar energy industry. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #65 June 18, 2008 Quote>And you want the gov to put rules into place that agree with your eco >religion. An insult in the first line! A good start.If you see this as an insult (which is was not meant to be) I must be hitting close to home >I want the free market to take care of it. As Marg pointed out, you've had that since Reagan. How's that working for you? Energy prices must be very low due to the magic of the free market, eh?Free markets are not totally in place today given the government restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. >Gov restrictions are not free market. They are the minority pushing their >beliefs on the rest of us. Actually you are in the minority here.Rrrrrreeeaaaaly Poll 6/15/08 WaPo: Do you think the government should (offer tax breaks for companies to develop alternative energy sources,) or should it (leave it to the marketplace to develop alternative energy sources, without tax breaks)? Offer tax breaks 63 Leave it to free market 32 No opinion 4 So why are you trying to impose your minority opinions on the majority of the country? Would you please post the source for this poll. I would like to see how the questions are asked. In any event, if the tax breaks were given for drilling and exploration, we would be better off IMO >Free market my man. Something you do not seem to agree with I disagree with monopolies, fraud, criminal behavior, cleverly hidden costs and market manipulation, if that's what you mean. I favor enough government control to prevent those things.This IS the government >It is the liberal way. Never worked, never will Well, the "bury your head in the sand and just keep drilling" way has failed pretty conclusively. Now the country needs some of those liberal environmentalists you despise to pull it out of its deep, oil filled hole by developing alternatives. It's going to be a good few decades to be an environmental/alternate energy scientist.Not against alternatives or rearch. Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a "head in the sand" than what I post. If your side would have an open debate instead of the scare tactics, laws and courts to push your crap, we would all be better off today. But when one debates against a religion no progress can be made. The way the envios have a strangel hold on the rules today proves that. Fortunatly, things are swinging. The radical approach which has failed is being seen for what it is. Along with the global warming hype."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 June 18, 2008 Two, alter the subsidies we have. Skew them more towards the sources we want to move to than oil and gasoline. Both ways can work. Free market huh? The way WE want????"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #67 June 18, 2008 Here’s an interesting, im-ever-ho, example of government using competition and strategies more commonly associated with market forces to spur innovation and development of technology that the market is not providing/will not pursue (i.e., where the free market fails the soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine as Vannevar Bush recognized back in the 1940s): the DoD DDR&E Wearable Power Program. From Defenselink press release: “The Wearable Power Prize seeks to reduce the weight of power systems that warfighters carry and aims to award a total of $1.75 million to the lightest weight systems that provide 20 watts of electrical power for 96 hours, but weigh less than 4 kilograms.” Technologies represented include fuel cells, (another example), piezoelectrics (generating a field by mechanical compression), nano-structured materials, polymeric-based rechargeable batteries, and mixed photovoltaics. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #68 June 18, 2008 Quote Here’s an interesting, im-ever-ho, example of government using competition and strategies more commonly associated with market forces to spur innovation and development of technology that the market is not providing/will not pursue (i.e., where the free market fails the soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine as Vannevar Bush recognized back in the 1940s): the DoD DDR&E Wearable Power Program. From Defenselink press release: “The Wearable Power Prize seeks to reduce the weight of power systems that warfighters carry and aims to award a total of $1.75 million to the lightest weight systems that provide 20 watts of electrical power for 96 hours, but weigh less than 4 kilograms.” Technologies represented include fuel cells, (another example), piezoelectrics (generating a field by mechanical compression), nano-structured materials, polymeric-based rechargeable batteries, and mixed photovoltaics. VR/Marg You should start a new thread with this. There is good stuff there. Shortly before I returned home from the hospital, the Pentagon was asking for input from a few of us that lost body parts to discuss the armor in vehicles with the smaller "non-aligned" defense contractors. The situation changed because of the Washington Post debacle last spring, but I'm amazed at some of the avenues the brass are willing to pursue to make things happen. Thankfully, not all of it is a cluster-f**k...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #69 June 18, 2008 >Free markets are not totally in place today given the government >restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. Like I said, we can go one of two directions. 1) Completely end subsidies for everyone. No more oil company tax breaks, cheap land leases or defense of oil sources. Oil companies pay for the land they drill on and pay for any environmental damage they cause (via the courts.) They want Kuwaiti oil? They pay for Kuwait's defense. 2) Keep what we have now, but move subsidies towards non-petroleum sources. Both will work. The latter is more practical given the structure we have now. >Would you please post the source for this poll. Pollingreport.com. >Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a >"head in the sand" than what I post. So in your opinion things are good? (the usual incoherent Rush rant about global warming, evil enviros etc deleted) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #70 June 18, 2008 Quote>Free markets are not totally in place today given the government >restrictions(which you support by the way) It will work given a chance. Like I said, we can go one of two directions. 1) Completely end subsidies for everyone. No more oil company tax breaks, cheap land leases or defense of oil sources. Oil companies pay for the land they drill on and pay for any environmental damage they cause (via the courts.) They want Kuwaiti oil? They pay for Kuwait's defense.For the most part I like this one. Including (for kallend) removal of farm subsidies too. 2) Keep what we have now, but move subsidies towards non-petroleum sources. Both will work. The latter is more practical given the structure we have now.I do not beleive either will work. Government involvment ALWAYS has unforseen and bad side effects. >Would you please post the source for this poll. Pollingreport.com. >Your generalization of " has failed pretty conclusively" is more a >"head in the sand" than what I post. So in your opinion things are good?No, but you want to place the blame where is does not belong, as usual. The current situation is a "side effect" of enviornmental policy and gov control, but only partially. There are many other factors to including the current Fed policies and speculators and others (the usual incoherent Rush rant about global warming, evil enviros etc deleted) Not a rant but I understand the push to get "something done" soon. Why? cause people are starting to see the crap for what it really is"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #71 June 18, 2008 >Not a rant but I understand the push to get "something done" soon. >Why? cause people are starting to see the crap for what it really is Could you re-phrase that? Are you saying that people want to get something done soon, and that they think whatever gets done is crap? Doesn't make much sense. Or is "the crap" the usual liberals/environmentalists/climate change/alternative energy/biofuel group you dislike? >Government involvment ALWAYS has unforseen and bad side effects. Interesting. So what bad side effects did CAFE have? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #72 June 18, 2008 Interesting. So what bad side effects did CAFE have? The following may create a conundrum for you….. June 28, 2007 HOW CAFE standards are bad environmental policy I wrote about CAFE in my post below, but I did not make clear HOW it is bad. I appologize for boring those who understand fixed and variable costs (or maybe everyone), but the distinction is very important in how CAFE works, or not. Society is a complex. When you change one aspect, it changes relationships throughout the system. CAFE standards just ignore that. Costs can be divided into fixed and variable costs. Fixed cost are those that do not change based on usage. Variable cost, as the name implies varies with use of production. Fixed and variable costs explain why firms sometimes continue to produce products even when they are losing money on every unit. If a firm can cover its variable costs, it sometimes makes more sense. So how does this apply to CAFE and cars? Automobiles are fixed costs. They depreciate faster with use, but are is mostly fixed costs. Insurance, license, fees etc are also mostly fixed costs. You pay essentially the same if you drive 1000 miles or 100,000. Most Americans own cars and will continue to own them. They have already paid for their cars (or at least their loans will not change with miles driven). Their cars are fixed costs. In fact, leaving the car in the garage may be a bit of a waste. The fixed cost is just sitting there. People figure variable costs. This is the dilemma of mass transit. It may be cheaper in total cost for a person to commute by mass transit, but the variable cost is often lower to commute by car. For example if you count in the total cost of owning a car, it may cost you $.40.5 a mile to drive (which is what the IRS allows). So you might think that a bus company could charge $4.05 for a ten mile commute, maybe as much as $5-6 because you are hiring someone else to drive. But people do not see it that way. They count only the variable cost, so they figure it costs only around $1-1.50, i.e. about what it costs for the gas. CAFE standards will raise the price of vehicles (fixed) while lowering the average cost per mile driven (variable). The total cost (fixed plus variable) will remain the similar, but the relative cost of driving, the variable cost is less. The variable cost is what affects people's decisions. So what CAFE standard do is create incentives to drive more miles even if it does not change the total cost people pay for their transport needs. A carbon tax, in contrast, does just the opposite. It drives up the variable cost, the cost per mile, while leaving fixed costs unchanged. The incentive is clearly to use less carbon based fuel. And the incentive continues to apply over and over. People use their imagination and intelligence to avoid costs and take advantage of opportunities. If you want to create incentives to drive more miles, impose CAFE standards, but understand you will not in the long run reduce carbon based fuel usage and you are creating incentives for people to move farther away from where they work, i.e. sprawl. You are also doing nothing to encourage alternative fuels. AND all this assumes CAFE is done honestly w/o too much political pressure. If you want to create incentives to use less carbon based fuel and develop alternatives to fossil fuels, the carbon tax is the way to go. Conclusion? Higher MPG = more miles driven means no gas saved. that is what happened in the 70's Edited to add link and comment http://www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/005252.html now, I do not agree with all stated and I have no idea who this guy is. He did put it well however so I posted here and this http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF_CTs_05_Portney.pdf"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #73 June 18, 2008 His argument has some unfounded assumptions that greatly affect the results. 1) high CAFE requirement raises the costs of cars. Not seen historically. It's the drive towards gadgets and safety features that did that, though most of the safety features got pretty cheap by the time they were mandated. 2) higher mpg means more driving to make up for it. This will not be a constant. The majority of people's driving is to work. This is fixed. Leisure travel is most affected by $4 gas. But if you double your mileage, are you really going to double your driving? Unlikely. I doubt it would be as high as 20%. However, what he seems to suggest is that instead of a CAFE requirement, we should instead have a $3/gallon gas tax, which will encourage a shift to higher mileage cars and discourage use of the cars. If the tax is high enough, that may work, but it's a reaction process, which takes a generation of car purchases longer than a higher CAFE standard to take effect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #74 June 18, 2008 QuoteHis argument has some unfounded assumptions that greatly affect the results. 1) high CAFE requirement raises the costs of cars. Not seen historically. It's the drive towards gadgets and safety features that did that, though most of the safety features got pretty cheap by the time they were mandated. 2) higher mpg means more driving to make up for it. This will not be a constant. The majority of people's driving is to work. This is fixed. Leisure travel is most affected by $4 gas. But if you double your mileage, are you really going to double your driving? Unlikely. I doubt it would be as high as 20%. However, what he seems to suggest is that instead of a CAFE requirement, we should instead have a $3/gallon gas tax, which will encourage a shift to higher mileage cars and discourage use of the cars. If the tax is high enough, that may work, but it's a reaction process, which takes a generation of car purchases longer than a higher CAFE standard to take effect. You raise some good points but, it is a different point of view that I posted for consideration and comment. I still do not believe that gov imposed standards or medaling is a good thing in any respect though."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #75 June 18, 2008 Some errors in his analysis: 1) People figure variable but not fixed costs. Nonsense. People care about how much their cars cost; this factors into which car they buy, 2) "CAFE standards will raise the price of vehicles (fixed) while lowering the average cost per mile driven (variable)." Incorrect - CAFE effectively requires lower pricing on more efficient cars. That's basically how it works. >"Higher MPG = more miles driven means no gas saved." That would be true if people drove purely for fun. However, most people do most of their driving on fixed distance routes i.e. their commute, or shopping. Thus the above does not apply for _most_ driving, and the issue is their mileage on fixed routes - which DOES save gas. If you need proof of this, take a look at how many people are worried about gas prices. "We'll just drive less" is not an option for many people, as the author implies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
