98 comments on Thoughts on the New Energy Team
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
98 comments on Thoughts on the New Energy Team
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 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
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
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.
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
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.