Unfortunately, they are trying to rub the magic oil lamp so the Alternative fuel Genie will appear and solve the problem. They know there are not alternative fuels available that would do the trick but they turn a blind eye to that reality and try to wish a solution on us. Throw some more money in the wishing well, get a lucky rabbits foot (synthethic of course for animal lovers). Click your heels Dorothy, the Wicked Speaker of the House has spoken. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. It’s just not working.

I want a pill made from sewage & garbage that I can put in my energizer (motor) and it will run my vehicle for weeks with no emissions.

I can wish it were true but it is not. They think they can force a solution because they say so. Markets just do not work that way.

All that said, it’s only prudent for us to look for ways to improve energy so that it is better for the environment, cleaner, cheaper, safer, more efficient, etc. I just don’t think you can force it down our throats like the whole Global Warming thing is being done right now. True or not, my skepticism rises up when I am told the debate is over. Thats why Democrats have such a problem trying to expain it. They know the truth, they just push it aside to pursue their goal of saving the planet. Doesn’t matter if many suffer in the process. The end justifies the means.

On August 14th, 2008 at 11:16 pm, RockyR said:
BOB said:

Worldwide commodity markets are efficient, however. The price is the same everywhere.

The above statement is reckless given the fact that it was written by someone with stated confidence in their economic prowess. The price of oil is most definitely NOT the same everywhere. Much of the world’s oil is priced according to long term supply contracts.

The fact that you are simply referring to open market purchases is only obvious to those of us in the know.

BOB said:
Almost all oil that is produced in American stays in America. Are the Dems saying that we pump the oil in our country and send it somewhere to the highest bidder?

We sell our oil at the highest possible MARGIN, not price. Worldwide commodity markets are efficient, however. The price is the same everywhere. Any arbitrage opportunities quickly disappear (traders/speculators at work). Take out cost of transport and the highest margin use for domestic oil is to sell it domestically.

On August 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, chapoutier said:

Salt and corkie,

Very fine points. And its funny how you were able to make them without resorting to calling me a marxist.

I didn’t call you a Marxist as an insult, but as a descriptive – every suggestion you make is couched in terms of government control, intervention, management, or funding. Socialism is as Socialism does. And we barely scratched the surface on how wrong you are on just about everything to do with the entire energy question – including your assumption that because we insist on drilling for domestic oil that we are in any way opposed to viable alternative methods of energy production. The only people who are adamantly opposed to one method or another are leftists, who oppose either oil or nuclear or both. And your personal avowal of support for nuclear power is irrelevant because you are a member of a tiny minority in the leftist ranks.

On August 14th, 2008 at 3:53 pm, corkie said:

To clarify, I don’t mind using public funds to conduct R&D, but I certainly resent public funds being used to build an infrastructure based on CO2 concerns instead of energy concerns.

Well said.

I hope this helps you understand the situation, chapoutier. To clarify, I don’t mind using public funds to conduct R&D, but I certainly resent public funds being used to build an infrastructure based on CO2 concerns instead of energy concerns.

Thank you, corkie. And I think that your last sentence makes a great point. In any case, I would hope that we could all look forward to a good dialog on this from our elected leaders.

On August 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, chapoutier said:

Salt and corkie,

Very fine points. And its funny how you were able to make them without resorting to calling me a marxist.

chapoutier, for the record, I respect your thoughtful debate on this subject. It’s obvious that you’ve put more thought into this than most.

On August 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, chapoutier said:

Salt and corkie,

Very fine points. And its funny how you were able to make them without resorting to calling me a marxist.

Well, you didn’t call me a fascist.

I don’t mind talking (or debating) with you because you’ll concede a point when it’s rational to do so. You have also been willing in the past to admit that there are flawed individuals or answers on the left rather than trying to divert attention by telling us about a republican you think is worse.

Hopefully I do the same (on both counts).

On August 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm, chapoutier said:

Of course technologies have to eventually prove their worth, but it takes a lot to get from A to B, including a fair amount of failure, things that we thought would work that just end up not panning out, and including the fact that even the most promising technologies often take years or decades to develop into profitability.

Again, there is no excuse for throwing good money after bad, but that is often not such a bright line with new technology.

chapoutier, I am VERY acquainted with technology development. You’re right that sometimes, seemingly promising technologies can’t be developed into viable commercial products. On other occasions, $$millions are wasted on exploring technologies which aren’t seemingly promising. I could provide you with dozens of examples of this currently happening.

The $$millions being wasted on alternative energy technologies right now is astonishing. Dozens (if not more) companies are building out production lines or processing systems for alternative technologies which feel good, but aren’t commercially viable (even when subsidies are included in the models). Some of these companies and their investors are hoping for increased restrictions (taxes) on hydrocarbon based fuels or hoping for a lucrative, liquid domestic carbon credit market to emerge.

You might wonder why these companies are making these expenditures (and why their investors are funding these expenditures) despite the fact that their economic models don’t currently work. Well, these company managers/investors know that liberals would love to burden hydrocarbon fuel suppliers with heavy carbon taxes, in fact, they’re “banking”
on it.

I hope this helps you understand the situation, chapoutier. To clarify, I don’t mind using public funds to conduct R&D, but I certainly resent public funds being used to build an infrastructure based on CO2 concerns instead of energy concerns.

Very fine points. And its funny how you were able to make them without resorting to calling me a marxist.

On August 14th, 2008 at 3:15 pm, chapoutier said:

Of course technologies have to eventually prove their worth, but it takes a lot to get from A to B, including a fair amount of failure, things that we thought would work that just end up not panning out, and including the fact that even the most promising technologies often take years or decades to develop into profitability.

Again, there is no excuse for throwing good money after bad, but that is often not such a bright line with new technology.

The incentives, in my opinion, should be geared on rewarding success or easing transition of a new technology (tax breaks after the development, perhaps?) It should be something to help energize a company by reducing some of its risk, but it should not replace the much needed evaluation of the technology for its own sake.

Any incentive that smacks of giving a direction or suggesting an area of research would be problematic at best. For example, some politicians are probably still feeling the sting by trying to push corn for alternative fuel because they could not have anticipated all the downstream impacts.

Grant out money to do something specific and there will be no end of takers of said money even if doing that something has little chance of success. Rewarding success for helping solve a problem without trying to dictate or suggest the solution seems the best route.

I’m getting wordy here (apologies), but my specific point is that tying incentives to specific areas (wind, solar, geo, bio, etc) instead of to the problem in general would be a mistake as it changes how the R&D groups evaluate success.

If they say, “You can drill if we spend $1B on wind power”, we will spend $1B on wind power whether it works or is economical.