To: TimF who wrote (27688 ) 8/6/2008 4:55:44 PM From: axial Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 46821 Hi Tim -"Oil won't get that expensive (esp. in real terms) over night, or in a year or two. It will become more expensive over time." The response evades the truth. Can you guarantee there won't be cataclysmic events in the Middle East? Disregarding unpredictable and disruptive events, at some point oil will cost $500/bbl. That's predictable and certain, and that's what was stated."Letting the market adjust mostly by itself, will be slower than throwing around massive subsidies, but that's a feature not a bug." [A] Please show us where the word "subsidy" was used. Ever. [B] Please describe what is meant by "... adjust mostly by itself..." - as opposed to completely by itself? The time horizon for a new hydro dam is +100 years; a new nuclear plant, + 50 years, and billions of dollars. That's the time from concept, through construction and use, to retirement. A minimum of 10 years lead time is required before benefits begin. [A] Please explain how "the market" is providing sufficient capacity and security of supply for cost and demand in 2019. "Slower is less expensive (even with the transportation cost going up, and even before considering time value of money), and its more likely to result in a superior result than a rushed, massively subsidized, crash effort." Are you stating facts, or opinion? There are cases that both support and refute your argument."Bad ideas can be weeded out by small pilot projects or even before they reach that level. Market discipline works better at weeding out bad ideas for energy production, than the political process. For so many reasons, relatively slow, and market based, is better than heavily subsidized and rushed." There is truth in what you say, but the answers are not axiomatic. We can see the benefit of foresight and planning in those nations who have chosen FTTx. "Market discipline" has strengths which I don't dispute, but the "free market" is a tawdry slut, "free" in name only. For that reason, the consequences of such "discipline" are sometimes erroneous. We're approaching a world governed by Malthusian constraints; our children (and theirs) will face difficult problems. There's a legitimate question whether free-market orthodoxy can answer future needs: democratic capitalism has been effective for managing excess and abundance; whether it will be equally effective for managing scarcity and unsatisfied demand is another question. Is this an ideological discussion masquerading as an energy dialogue? Then the result is predictable, and by definition, self-limiting. I have no wish to debate possible solutions, when the wide potential is degraded by preconceptions. Jim