Of course, economics are an issue....I already stated that.
In Europe, alternative energy technologies have/are being subsidized by various govt. entities.......mostly thru end user tax incentives. As a result, the cost per watt is coming down.
In our country, we have wonderful R & D already in place that has come from the private sector. Kleiner-Perkins, the huge California based hedge fund, has been developing these technologies for 5 years but has yet to bring forth an IPO because of economic viability.
Our govt. has chosen to subsidize other things......ethanol, for example.
Last month there were hopes that Congress would pass an energy bill with some combination of subsidies and/or tax incentives. In the end, most were stripped out under threat of a Bush veto and economics was the reason given.
So yes, economics is the issue. I suspect it would take a government mandate of some kind to bring this country up to speed with Europe. We have a market economy. One can't expect that one player in the business and utility industries would forfeit their competitive posture by making major investments in alternative energy without a mandate that makes everyone else do the same thing.
I'm presuming that Kyoto was the impetus in Europe.
Bob, you mentioned coal gasification.....well, it, too would require mandates, subsidies, etc. in this country. The technology.....either direct/indirect gasification/liquification has been around for decades. Sasol and Shell in foreign countries and Chevron in this country have the technology. But it requires a huge up-front investment.
Personally, at this point in time, I would prefer this country develop solar and wind (infinite resources) over coal (a finite resource). But there's probably room for a little bit of everything. |
