re: Also the alternatives are more expensive, so they consume more resources, they would not free up more resources that would be put in our hands.
The up front investment would be more but the sustained cost would be the same in some cases and a lot less in other cases.
Generally the sustained cost is also higher.
re: An argument can be made that it would lessen the likelihood of war, but its not a slam dunk. Even if we didn't have to import oil now, we would have probably opposed Iraq's attempted annexation of Kuwait.
Opposed yes but not sent troops. No way.
I disagree. Its quite possible that we would have sent troops.
re: -Clean air and reduction in health costs
-----------------
Not if we use more coal.
Yes if we use clean coal technology and even more so if we use nuke tech.
Clean coal technology is better than other coal use, but it isn't better then natural gas. Nuclear is better but I'm somewhat skeptical that we will get a vast increaser in nuclear power generation over the next 10 or 15 years.
And the sum of our subsidies to the oil industry dwarfs our subsidies to alternatives.
The sumo of the subsidies to the oil industry probably does dwarf the subsides currently paid to other sources or energy. But it is probably much smaller then the level of subsidy required for those other sources to take over oil's dominant position in transportation. Also arguably oil doesn't receive a net subsidy because it is taxed.
Already private companies are working on alternatives... they will absorb a lot of the investment cost.
To the extent that they do that, I have no problem with it. I'm not against alternative sources of energy.
This morning I put $36 worth of gasoline in my car. If I had an electric vehicle it would have cost me (WAG) <$8 to charge it to go the same distance.
Electric cars typically are designed to be lighter and more efficient. Gasoline powered cars can also be made lighter and more efficient. You should compare otherwise close to identical cars to get a real comparison. Include running the air conditioner or heater and defroster. This would still give a large advantage to the electric car, but other factors have to be considered, such as the cost of the batteries, the time to charge up a car, the range of the car. You could install high voltage rapid chargers, but then you have to consider the cost for that infrastructure.
I imagine eventually electric cars, either using advanced batteries, or fuel cells, or perhaps other means of storing the energy, will dominate the highways. Even if "peak oil" isn't happening any time soon, oil will presumably become more scarce and expensive over time. And the total emissions from an electric car will be lower, perhaps much lower, in many cases. But a massive relatively quick turnover doesn't make sense. "Eventually" in this case could probably, and reasonably, be generations from now. Even a massive turnover to hybrids doesn't make sense as something done rapidly because of government command or intervention. |
