Should the Government fund alternative fuel projects?

Question

We got the bomb with the Manhatten project. Could we not do the same with alternative fuels?

Answer 1

NO !!!

Answer 2

No, the government funds too much already.  What's next, socialized health care?  bread ration cards?

Answer 3

Or we could cut funding from harmful projects that perpetuate our unsustainable way of life. Either way.

Answer 4

Subsidies to alternative energy are miniscule compared with the amount that goes to fossil fuels, like oil, coal and gas.

  The bill going through congress now, is asking for $6  billion to extend alternative energy tax credits for a year.  That's to cover solar, wind, geothermal etc.  According to one estimate, oil and gas get over $80 billion annually.  And then there are the other hidden costs, much of which is paid for with tax dollars.  Like $100 billion annually for military protection of oil shipments, $hundreds of billions in costs associated with pollution from oil- health costs, environmental costs etc.

Oil accounts for $300 billion of our trade deficit annually.  The hidden costs of oil are costs you are paying for one way or another.  If you paid it at the pump, gasoline would now be close to $12 a gallon, given the estimates of $800 billion.- from

http://www.setamericafree.org/saf_hidden...

Without subsidies, we wouldn't have railroads, electric transmission systems, the internet or high speed information highway and other things we take for granted.   With about what we spent on the information highway, we could have solar and wind etc supplying most of our energy, within 35 years or so, the same time frame as for the high speed information highway.

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

See how we could get 100mpg average with PHEVs or Plug In Hybrids

http://www.pluginpartners.org/

"Like nuclear plants, coal plants tie up great gobs of capital during their extended construction periods. For the sponsors of such projects, the shifting sands of economic uncertainty can spell financial disaster, as many a utility learned the hard way during nuclear's fiscal meltdown."

"In contrast, solar, wind, and conservation all have shorter lead times, a fiscal advantage not sufficiently appreciated, especially in uncertain economic environments like the present. So in addition to loving these options for being "green," planners can also love them for being "just in time."

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

Here's how we are passing up future oppurtunities by being stingy on funding for alternative energy.

Green Wombat comments on  Abu Dhabi solar project and Torresol ambitions in U.S. southwest.

"Abu Dhabi is not content to just sell you the oil that fuels your SUV; now its going to sell you sunshine to keep your lights on and power your electric car when the internal combustion engine goes the way of the buggy whip. Masdar, the oil-rich emirate’s $15 billion renewable energy venture, and Spanish technology company Sener on Wednesday announced a joint venture called Torresol Energy to build large-scale solar power plants in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States."

"The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while offering only tepid support for green technology."

"It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain."

These changes can make for a better economy because it will be more sustainable.   What isn't sustainable environmentaly, won't be sustainable economically.

Check out this book.

http://www.earththesequel.com./

"Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head. Earth: The Sequel makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story."

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind.   From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet.   Why?   Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency.   If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there.  If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time.  That can be your electricity `battery.'"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...

Denmark gets 20% of it's energy from wind.

Answer 5

It’s a mistake to fund bio fuels projects. The free market will do a much better job at coming up with a substitute when the time is right.

Looking what ethanol has done to food prices, should give you a hint at the available solutions that fund the c**p out of hacks, and give the government power to tax our *** off. Instead of getting in the way to the privately owned oil rigs, telling them they can’t drill for oil, they should give the green light to any fricken company that will do the job.

Answer 6

No, because where is the money actually coming from ? the Taxpayer, not the Government.

We advanced the bomb and such for our protection as a nation, as for alternative fuels, none have proven themselves anywhere near as helpful to the economy as Oil and gas.

If it were, it would come to the market and actually compete with oil and gas. Instead, we are being forced to have Cafe standards on cars, being forced to accept the use of ethanol 85 which is 30% less powerful per gallon as gas, we are subsidizing the heck out of the stuff just to make it viable for use. Everything we have to date, whether it be solar, wind, bio fuels, what have you, don't even make a dent in the amount of energy we as a nation use.

I wouldn' t say these are pipe dreams, but they are just the start, we shouldn't be messing up our economy, messing with our citizens and forcing an inferior product onto an open and free market system. I could see a grant for someone that has developed something extrodinary so they can develope it further, but the search for an alternative should be left to the private sector...because that is where all the products we use and buy have come from. There will always be competition, and if someone is able to dream up , invent or find a power source that's competitive, i'm sure he or she will bring it to market to compete.

Answer 7

I'm split on this. The gov't could bring a lot of pressure to bear, and that would be a good thing. But gov't tends to pick the worst options and press them forward. I think it's too early to bring them in. We need to determine which system is most efficient first, and gov't will only muddy the waters in that arena.