Robert;

Congress didn't choose the technology of our current nuclear power plants, and industry didn't do the choosing either. It was the predecessor to DOE or NRC, i.e. some bureaucrats and some scientists at national labs. Not a perfect system, but not nearly as bad as a pure Congressional sausage making.

Unsaid in my original post was that there needs to be some technical criteria for what qualifies as a true alternative to fossil fuel. Clearly, ethanol from corn needs to be severely handicapped. Had the selection been taken out of the hands of Congress this might have happened.

Also note that I expect the whole of the tax revenue is to be spent making the alternatives price competitive with taxed fossil fuel. And the money for the subsidy will come only from the fossil fuel tax and not from the general fund of the government. This places a sever limit on the tax rate and the subsidy rate. The actual volume of alternative fuel will be so small to start that it could be given a 90% subsidy without effecting the price of gas at the pump much at all.

Much later, when alternative fuel is a major fraction of the market, scarcity of fossil fuel will be causing the price of fossil fuel to rise even before the tax is applied. Eventually, fossil fuel will cost more than unsubsidized alternative fuel. The subsidy and the tax will be adjusted to 0% and fossil fuel will be a thing of the past, and there won't be a subsidy for motor fuel.

In this proposal, there is no choosing of technologies except on the basis of their fossil fuel content. Any technology that is truly a fuel and is truly not fossil, should earn the subsidy. If there are two alternative technologies, the subsidy is given to both. The lower cost
alternative will win in the market because it can be sold for less.

This is a Technocrat idea, but without the goofiness of trying to substitute some crazy energy/power unit for money. We don't know today how much the alternative to fossil fuel will cost in that future time.

I don't envision subsidizing electric vehicles, just fuels. I expect the price of fuels to rise enough that electric vehicles will become competitive merely because of the higher price of alternative fuels.

IMHO, Chu is a likely person to lead the bureaucrat-scientist team that does the analysis of candidate fuel technologies. Certainly we don't want an economist for leader.

Actually, the DOE and NRC didn't choose it, it was the old AEC. They purposely killed thorium and liquid fuel nuclear reactors, fired Dr. Alvin Wienberg, and set the NRC on it's course we see now. They've done better with combining licenses and other regulations and standardization of plant designs.

I think the main point is that for the next 4 to 8 years, ALL forms of energy technology ARE going to be funded, yes, that means NUCLEAR and "CLEAN" COAL and wind, HVDC etc etc. Get used to it.

David

"It was the predecessor to DOE or NRC ..." is what I said.