What role should the fed gov't play in developing alternative energy?

Question

Energy's like nuclear, biomass, hydro, hydrogen, solar, wind and others need to be developed to supplement traditional sources. Should and how should the government play a role?

Answer 1

what the government should do is stop giving billions in the form of subsidies and tax breaks to the oil industry. take that money and put it into programs that would be better for the enviroment.

Answer 2

The market only works if it is a free market. We subsidize things in our "free" market that are harmfull, and it negates the idea that a free market will take care of everything.

Answer 3

I believe it is a threat to national security not to develop renewable energy.  No mater how you look at it, oil threatens our our way of life.  The main reason we have a federal government is to protect the nation from a threat; Oil may not be a waring nation at or borders but it will be just as destructive if not more so.  To be held hostage by foreign governments is not why we became a nation.

There are many other reasons why the fed should assist in the develop renewables, GW, pollution etc... all of them we all know.  The world as a whole would be better off if the richest, strongest nation could give Peace and clean air to all of us

I not saying it is only the fed's responsibility, but it needs to get out of the way and/or make it happen.

Answer 4

How about absolutely none. Whenever the government gets involved in anything, it creates problems. Look at the price of gasoline.  Not to say it's entirely the fault of government that it's as high as it is, but with mandates that require oil companies to produce inefficient, more expensive ethanol, it essentially reallocates resources that would have otherwise been used in the production of petroleum products. Because of that, there is less oil on the market, making it more scarce and driving up the price.  It plays directly into simple supply and demand.  If you truly want a cheap, efficient fuel that people will buy, let the market speak for itself. So far, no other fuel has come close to that of traditional gasoline.  It is still the most efficient, cheapest and abundant resource we have.  Until people decide they want something else, government should continue to keep it's big snout of just about anything to do with business.

Answer 5

None; I wish the h**l they would get out of the way. Let us drill for oil, and not tax the c**p out of us for it.

The free market is more innovative, more responsible, and responsive to consumer demands than hacks in Washington, who know squat about energy production.

Answer 6

In the US, the federal government should foster research through grants to universities and not-for-profit research organizations.  To be feasible on a large scale, there needs to be significant advances in a variety of technologies.  Corporate and consumer tax credits will foster consumer momentum to jump-start adoption of new technologies.  Currently, many industries are already "going green" due to reduced long-term energy and environmental costs.  Additional hydrocarbon taxes can increase this incentive to use sustainable energy.  Fostering technology development and innovation utilization is the best role for the federal government.

Answer 7

They need to stay out of the way.  The market is your best chance.  Keep the government out of the way of the private sector and the problems will be solved.

Answer 8

Subsidies and tax credits for alternative energy are miniscule, compared with those for oil, gas, coal and nuclear.  The $6 billion for alternatives now in congress is peanuts compared with the public money given to fossil fuel and nuclear.

With about the same amount of public money spent to build the high speed information highway over the last 35 years, and over about the same time span, we could have a clean electric grid, with solar, wind, geothermal etc.

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

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

Here are some good ideas, using current technology, that won't hurt the economy.

The govt. should encourage Detroit to build plug in hybrid cars.  The average driver would get 100mpg overall.

http://www.pluginpartners.org/

Here is the current state of the art in photovoltaic solar power.

"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.

With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."

from http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

Wind and solar thermal and photovoltaics could power the whole country at reasonable costs.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/73049-wh...

This article makes the case that solar is already as cheap as coal and gas, when you include all the hidden costs of the latter two.

And this new book shows how these things will be good for the economy.

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

"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/...

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

"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 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."

We are sleeping while these oppurtunities pass us by.

I'm not in favor of nuclear energy.  There may be areas with few other options, like where neither solar or wind would work well, but plans to build 200 more nuclear plants are not a good idea.

Here's what's wrong with nuclear energy

1. They need billions of gallons of water to cool them.

Nuclear Power is hydro power" by Lou at

www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2008/0... /

Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns:

"Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate."

“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

"An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines."

2. They are not safe from terrorist attacks. The Argonne National Lab says that an airplane crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised.

3. They take years to build. solar and wind are much quicker to get up and running.

4. They are expensive to build four times the cost of wind power per kilowattt

5. They cost about $500 million each to dismantle when they are beyond their useful lifespan.

6. The waste is not only dangerous but expensive to store and move to Yucca Mtn. in Nevada. Wisconsin alone has spent $600 million for their contribution to Yucca Mtn.

7. Nuclear companies aren't held responsible in the case of a nuclear accident, they have passed that on to the taxpayer

8 Nuclear will not make us energy independent. We import 95% of our uranium, with future imports planned from Russia.

9. They are also heavily subsidized

"David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me."

www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/catego... /

transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david... /

Link to The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"

www.eoearth.org/article/Ten_most_disto...

2006 from www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/Su...

"Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized), and could well be the determining factor driving the construction of new nuclear power plants. $9 billion per year in the U.S."

www.cleanwisconsin.org/campaigns/Nucle...

"The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday…."

"The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free."

So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.

I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." "

from: gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/20/1412...

Answer 9

Well, funding for one. Maybe some incentives.