<The Evolving situation between Russia, Belarus and Azerbaijan The Oil Drum The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization>
<DrumBeat: January 9, 2007 DrumBeat DrumBeat: January 11, 2007>

257 comments on DrumBeat: January 10, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Don Sailorman on January 10, 2007 - 10:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Half a billion is chump change. The Fed writes a check on thin air to buy more U.S. Govt. debt, and there the money is--helps to stimulate the economy, don't 'cha know;-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on January 10, 2007 - 10:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm not actually opposed to basic research into battery technologies (at all!), but the thing I'd keep an eye on (if I had any power in this) was where "intellectual property rights" would reside. The killer these days is when public funds advance science, and then hand off ownership to a corporate entity. We, the little people, pay more than once.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HeIsSoFly on January 10, 2007 - 11:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

All 'alternative' energy forms, just like the conventional ones, depend on public funds. That's where the money is. You can make a list and see how true that is, from tar sands to nuclear to clean coal to ethanol, it applies to every single case.

And those are direct forms of subsidy (let's count tax credits among them). It doesn't include the fact that extracting finite resources should, but doesn't, show up in the ledgers, and under normal accounting rules would require that a form of compensation be paid.

The result is a hugely distorted, entirely unrealistic, far too low, picture of the true price we pay for energy. Which can have only one effect: more consumption. Without that distortion, the price of gas would double or even triple, which in turn would lead to significant changes in the workings of society. These changes would be beneficial to all parties, except for energy producers.

The one exception was supposed to be new nuclear plants in the UK, where the government shouted out loud that all investment had to be private. There is a deep silence on that file by now. No surprise.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mbkennel on January 10, 2007 - 1:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

so why do nuclear (high capital-long life technologically intense large scale little greenhouse emission) plants
get the most scrutiny and harshness?

Doesn't it seem backwards? Government investment is useful when the quantity needed and timescale needed is deeper and longer than typical, and where the benefits are diffuse.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HeIsSoFly on January 10, 2007 - 1:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

so why do nuclear (high capital-long life technologically intense large scale little greenhouse emission) plants
get the most scrutiny and harshness?

Says who?

Isn't it truw that the more public money you need, the worse your economics are, perhaps?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on January 10, 2007 - 8:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

maybe chernobyl et three mile island ?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Freddy Hutter on January 10, 2007 - 10:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's about Liability. If an accident occurs, who pays the claims? Gov't as self-insurers or the industry? If the industry, it exposes itself to bankrupty. Imagine the claim amount. Thus govt's usually cover the tab.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tommyvee on January 10, 2007 - 1:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"All 'alternative' energy forms, just like the conventional ones, depend on public funds. "

This is just wrong. I have built several passive solar houses, none of which received any public funds. The house I currently live in was a passive solar remodel, that has been functioning fine on less than 30% of the heating energy that my neighbors use for 15 years.
Examples of subsidy-free alternative energy abound. Throughout the off-grid regions of the world (Nepal, Latin America) I have seen many PV systems that were purchased with no government subsidy (mostly low-tech Chinese made 1 panel, 1 battery, 1 flourescent light systems).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
HeIsSoFly on January 10, 2007 - 3:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

tommyvee.

passive solar is not an energy form

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on January 10, 2007 - 4:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Of course it is. It is Solar Energy, with the most direct and material-saving way for homebuilders to heat. Just because you don't put it in a pipe, battery or a tank doesn't mean that it is not DIRECTLY doing what everyone else does with 'Ancient Sunlight', Oil, Gas, Wood, Coal, Nuclear (Ancient 'Starstuff'?)

But it is this very illusion that energy has to seem like 'stuff' or be run with some kind of machine, or be a quantifiable market item- if even just the charge on a battery.. to be considered energy at its most essential, which is to say, energy being used for what we need. Most importantly, Tommy's houses are NOT having to burn nearly as much of the other stuff.. so it is 'dirty-energy spared'. (And I'm not put off by the arguments of how 'someone else' is just going to use it then. It's not a cause/effect relationship)

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on January 10, 2007 - 6:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good for you. Any investment strategy that has to do with energy, whether personal or public, should begin with how now to need the energy in the first place. This is typically where the greatest returns lie. This country, while supposedly finally waking up, is mostly about supply and fanciful investments in magical potions like ethanol and hydogen. While we pursue the impossible, there is all that cheap insulation out there just waiting for the next home or the next retrofit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Freddy Hutter on January 10, 2007 - 9:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Another one of your moronic economic statements. The Fed is not the Treasury. It is independent. And Washington must sell instruments to acquire funds. And they don't miss their payments. Don't be such a fool when folks expect better from u.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on January 10, 2007 - 10:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If that's chump change the Treasury can send me a check anytime, I'll recommend another for DS and one for TOD. Right after mine clears.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
James Bond on January 12, 2007 - 6:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Roger that. You've gotten kinda anti-social real recent. People follow you on a daily basis. Don't dis them. You wanna sleep that's cool just tell someone so we can send out sentries. YOur six oclock.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
James Bond on January 12, 2007 - 6:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You think this is funny.

So do I. I just can't figure how to mix how big this girl's boobs are with how cool my story line is. Serious ethical problems.

Thing is. I always have stuck by Jack and Jack by me. I can't stop laughing. Jack always said that the Iranian oil bourse was shit. He was totally right. Who is the only one that ever backed him 100%. Jack knows. I'll walk this time. I'll do it. I'll make the scene. Around 2 o'clock. Seeya soon.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

257 comments on DrumBeat: January 10, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version