What if Bush Gave This press conference?

Great Debates
41

Other than your MPG requirement, I see nothing about real energy conservation across the board. In discussions about the current gas prices, it appears everything centers around more oil, more oil, more oil, we gotta find more oil! Why? Why nothing about changing the American attitude about conservation? It seems to me an honest debate and discussion about America’s energy needs must include energy conservation at the same level of intensity and seriousness as there appears to be this lust for more oil, more oil, more oil!

I don’t see this happening in such a self-indulgent, me first society.

42

[QUOTE=tim314]
Why the heck should we send people to Mars? So far as I know, all the interesting scientifc research and exploration could be done far more affordably by unmanned probes (and without risking any human lives).

By directing NASA to focus on putting a man on Mars, Bush has basically killed a number of – in my opinion – much more interesting scientific endeavors. Or so the astrophysics bloggers at cosmicvariance.com have lead me to believe.
[/QUOTE]

Preach it, brother! I often wonder why there is such a fascination with manned space exploration on this Board when it is such a boondoggle. We have real problems to solve here on Earth…And, we have robotic missions that do 100X the science of manned missions for 1/100th the price. I can vaguely understand the inspirational value but, frankly, I think the Mars Rovers can be made pretty inspiring…and, hell, for the price we would spend on getting humans to Mars and back, we could afford one hell of an inspirational PR program for the space programs that actually do science.

43

This constant misuse of a ‘Manhattan Project’ to solve all the world’s ills has got to stop. Sometimes I wish that project hadn’t succeeded, because far too many people have glommed on to it as an example of how a government can accomplish anything if you just throw enough money at it.

The Manhattan Project had very specific goals, and it already had the basic science to work from. It was basically solving engineering problems.

But if no one knows how to get ‘energy independence’, then throwing billons of dollars into an ‘energy independence Manhattan project’ is just flushing money down the toilet. The fact of the matter is, we don’t know how to solve this problem without wrecking our economies or spewing more greenhouse gas into the air.

And before doing that, there is some really low-hanging fruit you can go after - the already-existing government idiocy that is making the oil infrastructure more expensive than it needs to be. For example:

  • Tariffs on Brazilian ethanol to benefit American farmers. The result is to use subsidies to make ethanol out of a less efficient raw material. Idiocy.

  • The crazy state-by-state gasoline formulation rules, which make it impossible to share the refinery burden across the nation. This leads to price spikes.

  • Refusal to drill in ANWR and other locations around the U.S. where there are known reserves of oil.

  • The latest idiotic attempt by Congress to have Alberta’s oil declared an ‘unconventional’ oil because it needs extra processing. This will slap a tariff on Alberta oil and force you to buy more oil from the Middle East, while Alberta sells its oil to China and elsewhere.

  • The complex web of regulations and decades of hearings required to build nuclear plants.

Start by gettng rid of these laws, plus the myriad subsidies, tariffs, and other government interference in the oil market.

Here’s my energy policy. Someone get this to Obama, Clinton, and McCain, will you?

  1. Implement a carbon tax, priced to be the best approximation of the external cost of CO2 emissions.

  2. Use the revenue to extend the iinvestment tax credits in alternative energy.

  3. Provide a liability cap for nuclear plants so they can produce reasonable business plans, and set a time limit for legal protests of permits so that activist groups cannot keep a plant shut down or construction halted indefinitely with endless injunctions and lawsuits.

  4. Provide tax credits for hybrids and especially plug-in hybrids, such that the return on investment for the extra cost of such vehicles roughly equals a typical lease period.

  5. Pass a mandate that power companies must buy back power from anyone who can feed it into the grid, to stimulate grassroots energy production plans.

Sit back, and wait.

44

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

Here’s my energy policy. Someone get this to Obama, Clinton, and McCain, will you?

  1. Implement a carbon tax, priced to be the best approximation of the external cost of CO2 emissions.

  2. Use the revenue to extend the iinvestment tax credits in alternative energy.

  3. Provide a liability cap for nuclear plants so they can produce reasonable business plans, and set a time limit for legal protests of permits so that activist groups cannot keep a plant shut down or construction halted indefinitely with endless injunctions and lawsuits.

  4. Provide tax credits for hybrids and especially plug-in hybrids, such that the return on investment for the extra cost of such vehicles roughly equals a typical lease period.

  5. Pass a mandate that power companies must buy back power from anyone who can feed it into the grid, to stimulate grassroots energy production plans.

Sit back, and wait.
[/QUOTE]

Generally sounds good to me. I am a little bit sketchy on 3…Or at least, I would like to see the companies give something in return for such a liability cap, as it is effectively a subsidy…Or maybe an alternative that would give them protection from frivolous lawsuits but still hold them accountable for significant negligence.

45

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
We should be increasing taxes on gasoline and transportation fuels to pay for all the externalities they generate, not subsidizing them. A $2.00/gallon tax on gasoline is going to be far more effective at promoting alternatives to gasoline than any Manhattan Project style corporate welfare project.
[/QUOTE]
I meant to comment on this yesterday but got busy. Essentially you are asking for a 50% per gallon tax on gasoline. The average US tax, combining state and Federal taxes, is about 47.5 cents per gallon. Some states are higher (California is tops at 63.9) and some are way lower, like Alaska at 26.4. Federal tax on fuel only accounts for 18.4 cents/gallon. So if the average price for gas now was $3.50/gallon, the taxes we currently pay works out to about 13.6% of the cost of our fuel.

Now let’s hear from our friends in the UK who are getting royally reamed by their petrol taxes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the current tax rate is about 60-70% on a liter of petrol (I love the way you Brits talk!). The EU is not too far off from that rate either. And those high taxes don’t seem to be doing squat in reducing pollution, forcing the auto manufacturers in England, Germany, Italy or France from coming up with more fuel efficient cars or making Royal Dutch Shell invest in alternative fuel sources.

Raising taxes will not solve the problem.

46

[QUOTE=Slypork]
And those high taxes don’t seem to be doing squat in reducing pollution, forcing the auto manufacturers in England, Germany, Italy or France from coming up with more fuel efficient cars or making Royal Dutch Shell invest in alternative fuel sources.

Raising taxes will not solve the problem.
[/QUOTE]

Well, according to this article, average fuel economy of cars in Europe is twice that of the U.S.:

I believe that there is also much greater use of public transportation and less use of cars in Europe as compared to the U.S.

And, yes, I know some of this might be due to differences in geographic size and population density…but I would bet that a good deal of it might also be due to the higher gas prices.

47

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Because a car that could get 75 miles per gallon would not be a car that people would want to buy.
[/QUOTE]
I really think the Chevy Volt and other similar plug-in hybrid electrics will come to dominate starting in about 2010. THe only question will be price. If they can sell these things without too much premium and make enough to satisfy demand, I think they’ll some real impact on gasoline consumption.

48

**- Tariffs on Brazilian ethanol to benefit American farmers. The result is to use subsidies to make ethanol out of a less efficient raw material. Idiocy.**I wish they’ed get rid of the ethanol additive entirely. But now, they’ve extended the season by a few months. My milage takes a 10% hit burning that stuff.

49

A Manhattan Project of this kind would be a matter of building vast solar arrays in states like New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, Wind Power wherever it’s windy and upgrading the grid to an electrical system along the highways so that people can simply come over and plug their car in, in order to get the power, and then run off electric cars. When I was a kid, my High School had a team that build a 100+ mph electric car, and this was built by High School kids more than 15 years ago. I had a radio controlled car that charged with a fancy charger in less time than it took to expend that power. There has to be some method of setting up a quick charge system so that one can stop at a rest stop and load up their battery packs. If one could get 250 miles off of a 10 minute charge, that would be well worth it.

If Sun Belt states built some massive solar arrays, we’d be getting ridiculous amounts of energy from those states. I don’t know why New Mexico for instance isn’t on that, considering how flush it is with cash. It could be an energy supplier for the Western US and parts of Mexico. Hell, Mexico should be getting on that too.

50

Arizona and Nevada would actually be better, though there would be a lot of places in New Mexico as well. The problem is in power loss. We could probably generate more than enough power to meet our own needs here in the South West…but frankly we already are anyway, so why spend the money?

I don’t think we need any Manhattan Project kind of initiative from the government for this in any event.

[QUOTE=mswas]
When I was a kid, my High School had a team that build a 100+ mph electric car, and this was built by High School kids more than 15 years ago.
[/QUOTE]

The problem of course is one of manufacturing and scale. Electric battery technology is heavy and still not ready for prime time…otherwise frankly we’d be seeing it already. Even in Europe they haven’t massively replaced IC cars with efficient battery powered electric cars…and that should clue you in as to the challenges in doing so.

Same goes for solar power. It’s a matter of scale and engineering, of material sciences and production. If it were easy, or even if it were cost effective or economically viable, then it would be being done…if not in the US perhaps, somewhere. That it’s not is at least a small indication that it’s not quite ready for prime time…and having the government simply toss money at it in the hopes they pick a winner seems to me to be a waste of money and resources.

-XT

51

[QUOTE=jshore]
Generally sounds good to me. I am a little bit sketchy on 3…Or at least, I would like to see the companies give something in return for such a liability cap, as it is effectively a subsidy…Or maybe an alternative that would give them protection from frivolous lawsuits but still hold them accountable for significant negligence.
[/QUOTE]

How about a requirement that they give cheap electricity to residences in proportion to their distance from the plant? Within a mile - 50% off. Within 5 miles -20% off. Within ten miles - 10% off. I can imagine people wanting a plant in their backyards.

52

[QUOTE=jayjay]
Una Persson can correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most power plants coal-fired, rather than oil-fired?
[/QUOTE]

Thank God, someone remembered. 10 points for you.

53

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Arizona and Nevada would actually be better, though there would be a lot of places in New Mexico as well. The problem is in power loss. We could probably generate more than enough power to meet our own needs here in the South West…but frankly we already are anyway, so why spend the money?
[/quote]

Well it could be a very good way for New Mexico to resell power to other parts of the country, and New Mexico is doing rather well in terms of the budget these days due to its windfall profits tax.

Advances are being made at a rapid rate.

When I was a kid I wanted a CD player. My Mom would say, “Why you don’t have any CDs?”. So I would ask to buy a CD, and she would ask, “Why you don’t have a CD player?” This is a lot like that. The infrastructure needs to be put in for it to be viable.

54

SUV’s are typically not common in Europe, and there’s heavy investment in public transportation, partially funded through fuel taxes. So yes, higher taxation is effective in this aspect.

55

But it is being done. See here.

56

[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
But it is being done. See here.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly, IIRC there is a plan to create a similar plant in Arizona. But note…that power is for LOCAL use (6000 homes in and around Seville). My point was not so much creating the plant (though obviously it would need to be scaled up a bit beyond 11 Megawatts) but getting the power to somewhere it will be useful. Europeans don’t generally have a concept of the scales we are talking about here in the South West (unless they’ve been here of course). Here in New Mexico for instance we have miles of miles of…well, of miles and miles. And with current power transport infrastructure you’d lose so much power trying to get it from where the plant would be to somewhere it would be useful that it would hardly be worth doing. Which was the point I was making…we could certainly make a huge mega-solar plant here in the South West…but it wouldn’t be worth the money to build it as it would far outstrip our own power needs and we couldn’t get the excess power to places that could actually use it without losing most of it.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Well it could be a very good way for New Mexico to resell power to other parts of the country, and New Mexico is doing rather well in terms of the budget these days due to its windfall profits tax.
[/QUOTE]

Figure out how to get the power TO other parts of the country without losing most of it and you may have a point. Arizona is still a better place if you figure out that minor detail though…or perhaps Nevada. Both are richer states and frankly they get more sunshine than we do in the deep desert anyway. I’m not going to look it up but I think someone is planning to build a similar plant in Arizona to the one in Seville in fact. Parts of Eastern California may be well suited to if you could figure out how to get the power from there to where the major power grids are…and to the people who need it. It should tell you something that no one has tried to do this yet though, or that they are only starting to seriously look into it…and what it should tell you is that the engineering challenges are a bit more, um, challenging, than what you seem to think they are.

[QUOTE=mswas]
Advances are being made at a rapid rate.
[/QUOTE]

To be sure. I never said it would remain impossible (or uneconomical)…just that the technology isn’t ready for prime time on a massive scale yet. I have no doubt that one day the challenges WILL be solved and solar power plants in the South West will play their part. Just not today…or next year or perhaps this decade. NEXT decade though…

[QUOTE=mswas]
When I was a kid I wanted a CD player. My Mom would say, “Why you don’t have any CDs?”. So I would ask to buy a CD, and she would ask, “Why you don’t have a CD player?” This is a lot like that. The infrastructure needs to be put in for it to be viable.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s more like when I was a kid if I’d asked for a CD player. You see, when I was a kid CD players hadn’t been invented yet. And later on when they WERE invented I still couldn’t get one because they hadn’t been perfected yet so that they could be economically and viably manufactured. Later on when they first came out only some people could afford them because the technology was still expensive and not widely available, and so only early adopter types (with money) could check it out and give it a try…and their selection for CD’s was quite limited. Then still later as the technology became more widely used the prices started coming down and availability came up.

WRT long haul and lossless power infrastructure we are at the point where I think they can do it in the lab but it’s not even close to viable or available yet. WRT solar we are still in that early adopter phase where the technology is viable but still expensive and not widely in use or available.

At least that’s my take on the current state of things. Certainly I’m not seeing a wide adoption of massive solar power plants even in Europe…nor have I heard about room temperature superconductors or other materials for power infrastructure.

-XT