Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: RetiredNow who wrote (1808)	8/19/2008 11:23:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Please rank order the following three options based on how big the beneficial impact will be in the next 20 years: Let me take a stab at that.. All 3 are VERY long term undertakings: 1. Announce increased drilling for the psychological impact that undermines the markets forward projections regarding supplies of oil and sends a message that we're serious about making the transition to energy independence. Also we will make money available for biofuels generated from non-food sources (algae.. cellulostic.. etc), with focus on biodiesels and other fuels that can be transported via the existing distribution network. 2. Announce government subsidization for infrastructure retooling (battery factory fabrication, grid enhancement and power generation, solar powered recharging stations.. etc) related to plug-in hybrids. 3. Conservation full standards, which will dovetail with plug-in technology. This is only #3 because the fleet customers have to be convinced that the incentives exist for spending the capital required to transition us to a hybrid vehicle transportation system. And the freebie: 4. Announce that these changes are an interim measure with the long-term goal of transitioning to Fuel Cell technologies and a hydrogen economy. Hawk

To: RetiredNow who wrote (1808)	8/19/2008 4:38:49 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

If I were king, I wouldn't think I had to rank order options or confine myself to those three options. Where is nuclear? What about coal liquefaction? I would definitely open up all federal lands for resource use. Simply because there's no good reason not to, regardless of how much there is to be found and when it will come onstream. Keeping anything offline by fiat is just not good sense imo. I would also push for streamlined development of more nuclear power (we know how to do it economically). I would continue existing conservation programs (like current CAFE standards). I'd probably push for encouragement through tax policy for more use of ground heat pump systems (again, this is something we know how to do economically). I'd start phasing out subsidies for corn based ethanol and lift the tariff on imported sugar based ethanol. I'd continue programs to improve the efficiency of solar and wind power. I'd let the market direct when and how such things should be mainstreamed though. And I'd let market prices tell people in general how to conserve. People can figure out what kind of car they need to drive, whether they should carpool, use the bus, whatever. I know a lot of people spend time imagining what they'd do if "king". There are a lot of problems with this kind of thinking. In the real world, there is no king. Our president isn't a king. Our system of government is designed to limit anyone's power to act dictatorially. And finally, people who think they are smarter than the market or everyone else in the world are almost always fooling themselves.