As you've all seen with some of the articles that have been posted on TWM, there do seem to exist several viable options for both replacing our sources of energy and using less overall. Not in any particular order, these include: hybrid (or electric cars), hydrogen fuel cells, natural energy (solar and wind), biodiesel, carbon sequestration, and Lovins' "Soft Energy Path" (an overall approach to economizing the use of energy).
The question is now how do we go about changing our technology and infrastructure to achive the goal of less energy usage and less oil usage? I see this as a non-partisan issue. For conservatives (if I may speak for them) the main goals are to gain freedom from foreign sources of energy (with the instability they bring) while providing enough energy at rates industry can afford to keep the economy going full-blast (both of which are worthy goals). For liberals, the focus is on achieving lower fuel usage and cost, one for the benefit of the individual and the other for the benefit of the environment. Remember, high gasoline usage overall is what drives prices up for all of us, so, for example, 13 mpg SUVs do cost both their owners and everyone else. For once, and this we should all be thankful for, both purposes coincide quite nicely.
Let me say that I'm no believer in the "one solution fits all" format. It might be that these changes can be brought about partially through market forces and partially through government regulation, so let's not rail against one or the other here, let's just present some genuine ideas. Why don't you guys (and anybody who's listening in) take this opportunity to demonstrate your intelligence?
Read more posts on this topic
An Optimistic Approach to Energy
More on Energy
The Politics of Energy
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Whitey said...
Right now it's still pretty small-scale (I think Europe does 5%bio/95% fossil), but it'll come along as soon as one of the diesel companies realizes that they won't lose an inch of market share or even have to build any new pipelines, and gets the flexibility of undercutting the competition by selling gas that's cut by something you make for like $.50 per gallon. Right now there are some issues between America and Europe, since we like soybeans and Europe likes to use the alarmingly-names Rapeseed(Canola), as well as some issues about what to use to cut the viscosity, because thick vegetable oil will clog up an engine filter like nobody's business if you run too much for too long.
I don't doubt that your assertion is true. Bio-diesel is almost destined to gain greatly in popularity because of the benefits associated with it. I do wonder, however, if it will be adopted so quickly here. Although I haven't researched it, I'm betting the adoption of bio-diesel in Europe was due at least in part to government action.
I would think that the majority of our oil producers would prefer to keep us dependent on a supply that only they can provide. After all, bio-diesel can be produced domestically. Perhaps to some they see it as just another way to make money, but perhaps also they see the potential for the US to break free of dependency on foreign companies, thus costing them billions upon billions. I don't necessarily believe that the industry will choose to adopt a new technology simply because it can be demonstrated to be beneficial for them. After all, witness the irrationality of the music industry in trying to stifle the online market. I mean, Saudi Arabia is a good example. Their country is incapable of producing vast quantities of bio-diesel, so they would have to invest in American production facilities. No matter how far down, eventually we'd start asking why we're having Arabs sell fuel to us that we make and use.
Also, I imagine the start-up costs would be substantial. It's almost an entirely new industry. Mass-production of this product doesn't exist yet, and capacity would have to be built. Of course entrepreneurs are always getting into new things, but if normal diesel stays ahead in price even by just a little, it'll discourage mass investment. If, as might happen, the big oil companies choose to fight it, bio-diesel won't necessarily win just because it's better.
Well I'll be damned...That's a hell of a thing to build from junk!
I've read about fusion reactors before, but of course like the article says, they can't yet make one that has a self-sustaining fusion reaction. It does sound like a promising technology and surely we ought to be able to do it, but man, it only took them about 5 years to build the A-bomb after Einstein said it was possible. We've known this was possible for a long time now and have made little headway. I believe in the possibility of it, but even I'm pretty pessismistic about seeing it ever happen.
I agree that it would be best if natural market forces could get the process started. The doubt that lingers in my mind though is that it will naturally happen. Besides which, bio-diesel is already on the scene. I think more action needs to be taken, at least in the form of incentives to see its market share increase.
I agree with you and your example for Microsoft is a good one, but it's not exactly the same as what we're discussing here. At first Microsoft and IBM weren't competing for the same market territory, since they were making two different products. IBM didn't see that the PC fundamentally changed how people would use computers. Now this isn't exactly the same either, but look what happened to Tucker cars. The Big Three simply didn't allow it to happen. Companies can start up if they wish, but it's all too easy for giant companies like Shell or Exxon-Mobil to use market tactics to put them out of business. I would simply say that we should put some basic protections around energy entrepreneurs, not to ensure that they succeed, but that they have every chance to succeed. We wouldn't want to reward bad business, but this is important enough to warrant some extra government action.
I would also like to see the startup capital come from local industries instead of outside investors. It'll be most beneficial where it's needed that way.
Free market.
Let me just state that I don't believe in the power of the free market. Not that I think anyone here has some simplistic, unquestioning faith in the ability of the market to solve all problems. What I'm arguing against is the fundamental belief that the desire to make money is sufficient cause for corporations to adopt any kind of humanitarian attitude. We could go back and forth all day, but companies make money off of people whether we live or die, and they don't seem to care which it is.
What I do believe is that if you wave wads of cash in a businesses face, you'll get the reaction you want. The public can certainly vote with their wallets, but somebody has to be there to offer the choice. Thus the necessity of offering startup loans and tax incentives to businesses who want to invest in future energy technologies. We shouldn't even demonstrate a preference for small startups or large corporations, we should offer money to both equally to really drive a switchover to superior energy sources.
What I'm suggesting is that we forgo laissez-faire and actually reward businesses for "good" behavior. The reason I say this is that a market already exists, ready to absorb clean cars and new "clean" power plants. The American people, by and large, would actually like to see this happen, especially if it meant lower energy costs for them. However, despite the fact that this market does exist and has existed for years, we haven't seen an incredible amount of action on the part of industries to move into it. They're mostly still promoting old models and trying to find more sources of oil. The reason may be that they're not convinced the move would be good for them. We have a pro-business government anyway, so why would anyone oppose giving businesses money to try out these new technologies?
I know this is a rather rambling argument, so let's see if I can restate succinctly: What's the problem with giving business money to do things that are good for us and them? I'm not asking philosophically, but practically. Liberals don't inherently oppose governmental interference in business, and I'm sure conservatives don't mind taking government money (as a matter of fact, they do it all the time). In short, I advocate a plan of jump-starting the "new" energy industry with government money. Come on guys, give me some pros and cons.
Well, I'll be devil's advocate from the liberal flank. I'm not sure tax incentives really work the way we want them do. As a study I posted awhile back showed, they certainly don't when we are trying to pass off money down to the little guy (say, with health benefits). I'm not sure they would work here either. For many corporations, they are still going to find it more profitable to continue to exercise less pro-environment policies than except a tax credit. Not that I think it's entirely a bad idea, but I think it'll have to be combined with regulation to work.
Well, you dangle a carrot in front and hold a stick behind...
That was essentially going to be my point, but I'll flesh it out a little bit. I do believe that regulation can be effective, but I do not believe that it is effective in every situation, or as effective as incetivizing corporate decision making is. For one, they can be difficult to enforce. That's because in part they rest on the political will of the government to enforce them, and also because they can be difficult to enforce by their very nature. Corporations and companies will almost always seek ways to subvert regulation, such that in some instances a regulatory regime may exist that has no influence on corporate behavior. I think a great advantage to incentivization is that, if done properly, companies will want to follow the path that is being set before them. Now obviously we regulate some behavior all the time(no one confers benefits on pedophiles for NOT abusing children)but that's frequently because it's the only way to control such behavior. I think regulation, where incentives are inappropriate or ineffective, is the way to go.
Post a Comment