SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (1252)8/8/2008 11:37:31 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 86355
 
Forcing a rapid transition to alternatives doesn't make sense.

It does when the alternative is transferring our wealth to other countries.


It doesn't when the amount "transferred" to other countries is less then the amount that we would use up in the attempt to stop the "transfer".

Transfer in in quotes because its a trade, not a transfer, we are getting something for the dollars, and we aren't reducing American wealth by doing so, but rather increasing, it since the oil is worth more to the users of it in the US than the dollars it costs to buy.


Relying mostly on the market to determine when alternatives do makes sense, is the sensible policy.

Not when the incumbent technology is entrenched, subsidized and harmful to society.


Usually even in such circumstances. Most major things cause some harm to society.

The alternatives are subsidized to a greater extent than the conventional energy is.

As for entrenched, that's part of the reason why it makes sense not to move rapidly away from conventional energy sources. They are "entrenched" mostly in that they have an advantage do to the existing infrastructure. The existing infrastructure is a feature not a bug. Its useful. Part of the extra cost of the alternatives is building up alternative infrastructure. That's a real cost, and a negative for the alternatives, not a strong justification for large subsidies.