457 comments on DrumBeat: September 1, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
457 comments on DrumBeat: September 1, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Passive Solar Design Overview – Part 1
- Radical Retrenchment - A Reference Model
- TOD:Campfire RSS feed
TOD:Europe
- Energy Policy: SER-2 [01] Introduction
- The Russian Bear?
- The Permanent Oil Crisis Conference in Amsterdam, January 21 & 22, 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 9th January 2009
- 2009: Predictions for Australia
- The Bullroarer - Tuesday 6th January 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“Considering the many productive uses of petroleum, burning it for fuel is like burning a Picasso for heat.”
—Big Oil Executive
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Heading Out
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
But, part of the argument still holds. How does the Danish government know that "Wind is better". Why is it "distorting" market signals to provide "fertile ground"? The Danish government HAS diverted resources from some part of their economy to another place, probably a different one the market would have chosen.
How is subsidizing wind energy different from subsidizing corn ethanol?
What the government (the public) should subsidize in our society is a pretty fundamental expression of our values I suppose. We should ask this question honestly in a broader sense.
We seem to value mobility, in fact we have become dependent on being mobile in order to survive - in this way we are like the nomadic people, except that we return to the same bed every night. Is it possible that we will every come back to seeing the value in living in place, without he need for so much mobility? If that happened, I think then the questions over what the public should subsidize would change quite a bit.
Are we dependent on independence? What a conundrum!
('Conundrum' - this could be Canada's Oil Drum!)
As far as valuing mobility. I don't really dispute that, but it makes me think about how much we seem to strive for 'safe isolation' .. gated communities, soundproof cars, personal entertainment systems, .. there is a lot of great comradery in our culture, too, but I think of the millions of people sitting together or apart, and all watching TV. When I was a little kid, I wasn't allowed to watch TV until my folks realized it was all the other kids in the carpool were talking about, and my brother and I were miserable outsiders..
Well for the direct answer, subsidizing Wind, I contend, is one, wise direction to move our energy resources towards. There is a great return, simple proven technology, and the likelihood of a long future for this abundant resource, without serious downsides like soil depletion, increased water dependency and need for signifigant inputs like NG or Oil to produce it.
From another side, many see the benefits of wind without the helping hand of a gov't grant, so it could be it'll move forward fine without it.. that is, unless it needs it just to Compete with other subsidies like Corn, Ethanol, life-supports for GM and Exxon and the Contras.. See how Amtrak's subsidy could hardly be expected to armwrestle with The Auto Industry's favors, sweetheart deals in Saudi, the Highway system and the Airports..
Who's grant buried Grant in Grant's tomb?
Bob Fiske
Apart from point 4 (The national grid was encouraged to take wind power, even when additional lines were required.) this doesn't look like a subsidy, rather, facilitation of the "market rules" (point 1), removing red tape (point 3) and having a general incentive to carbon free energy (point 2) NOT specifically wind.
And this last may even have covered the costs of point 4 at least in part.
While subsidizing corn ethanol means gobs of money, even more so for subsidizing nuclear.
probably a different one the market would have chosen
Does this means you assume that "the market" choose wisely?
The market actually "choose" SUVs!
In my opinion the important choice is not what alt-energy you fund, but: do you fund just research, or also production?
I'd say fund a broad array of research, but stay out of production funding. That messes up the market and prevents us from knowing what is working.
"The Market", as you refer to this construct anthromorphicly, is composed of advertisers (aka persuaders, mind manipulators). They are the ones who "mess" with our minds and thus determine what "works" in the market place (albeit to a limited extent) and what doesn't. Ultimately, the things that "work" are those that pander to the irrational, child like desires of the masses.
Do I have a solution?
Sorry, no.
That is why I revisit TOD so often.
I keep hoping some of the way smarter people here will offer insights.
But ah, you got an alternative other than central planning?