I watched the Presidential Debate last night, and it nearly put me to sleep. It was like a really boring group therapy session: "Your negative ads are very hurtful." "Well yours are MORE hurtful!" Sounds like a couple of whiny little girls.
Welcome to America.
What happened to the America of my youth? (And to all you elders out there gleefully exclaiming that 25 is still youthful...bite me:P) What happened to the country that led the world in wealth, education, and innovation? Now the only thing we're leading the world in is obesity...
Two things leapt out at me during the debate last night: Energy, and Education.
We all want to be energy-independent. Everyone's agreed on that. No one likes spending $4 for a gallon of gas, and no one enjoys the thought of depending on Iran or Venezuela for oil. So why don't we have electric cars on the roads instead of in the showrooms? We can send a man to the moon, find the Titanic, put an iPod in every home in America, and build tiny gears out of carbon atoms...but we can't make an electric car that's reliable and affordable? Bullsh*t.
And then we have to find a way to power those electric cars. We have wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. And they work. But we don't have enough. And how about waves? The oceans have been going up and down for thousands of years. There are wave-farms off the Pacific Northwest right now...but nobody knows about them, and they are tiny. Here's an idea: attach generators to all the stationary bicycles in all the gyms in America. Beat obesity AND become energy-independent! Electricity could be dirt-cheap in this country. And then that could fuel our cars. Think about it: instead of 25 mpg our cars could get 100 miles for a dime of electricity. 100 miles for 10 cents. You know what kind of mileage you'd need to equal that?
Second, education in America sucks. Our teachers are the most ridiculously-underpaid workers in the country, and it shows in our test scores. The current public school system doesn't work. The idea of "vouchers" will use money that could be put into the system, and then the kids without vouchers will be even WORSE OFF. The education system needs a ground-up revamping.
1: Pay teachers competitive wages. Many people who would make excellent teachers won't do it, simply because they won't get paid enough. So they pass that by and become doctors or CEOs or lawyers. If we were paying our teachers a decent salary, we would have more of the decent teachers.
2: The current system doesn't work. High School graduates can't find Canada on a map. When I moved from Alaska to Florida, I was amazed how many of my classmates believed my former state was a frozen wasteland just off the coast of Mexico. This has to be fixed...but I don't know how that needs to be done. My aunt is a teacher, though. I'll bet she has a long list of changes that could be made. I'll have to ask her about that. Maybe that's the answer: let educators give input on the reforms, instead of letting legislators make changes to a program they don't understand. But something has to be done, and it has to be done soon.
That concludes today's political rant. Tune in later for more...I'll be back to update this as soon as I think someone's listening. And please feel free to contribute...this isn't a discussion if I'm the only one talking. ; )
14 comments:
Comparing the apollo moon landings (or any of the other things on that list) to creating an affordable electric car is apples to oranges. All the money for that was put up by a huge entity: The US government. That ain't gonna happen with electric cars, and if it does it would be a bigger disaster than $4/gallon gas.
Electric cars will in no way solve our energy problems. OK, sure maybe we'll import less oil from Venezuela (not likely though, since only American technology is the only thing around that can handle the crap that they call oil), but then how do we create all that wonderful electricity? Coal? Not with Obama as president. Nuclear? Even less likely than coal as long as people fear it.
The real problem with energy in this country is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. We want "clean coal" (coal without carbon emissions) which is an economic impossibility (that's right; not unlikely or a pipe dream... impossible). We want "renewable energy" which in the end burns tons of fossil fuels to create and introduces other problems that fossil fuels don't. We want nuclear power without nuclear waste, and when we suggest breeder reactors which would reduce said waste by 90% we scream about the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
There is a very good reason that Coal is King and that we use gasoline powered cars. The price is right. And I'm not just talking about money. Compared to alternatives, it is plentiful, easily accessible and almost instantly usable.
Not only that, it's benefits go way beyond energy. Nobody could ever read the words I'm typing because without oil there would be no plastics. Aside from water, crude oil is arguable the most useful liquid ever discovered by man.
Anyway, there's my rant. And my solution for our energy problems is more energy; lots more.
Electric cars certainly COULD solve our current energy crisis. Not in the short term, but in the long run.
We create that "wonderful electricity" in the ways I suggested. The sun has been shining for billions of years. We don't have to pay another country for it and we don't have to worry about it running out. The wind has been blowing, rivers have run, and the tides have moved. All that is required to make electricity is a legit way to harness natural forces. We HAVE that. It just isn't being used.
I agree that the solution to our energy problems is more energy. But we HAVE to find another way to get it. The US uses over 25% of the world's oil, and yet produces less than 3%. That is NOT conducive to healthy finance. We are too dependent on foreign oil, and any halt in the flow could cripple our already teetering economy.
BTW, what "other problems" are you referring to that renewable sources introduce? No energy source is 100% foolproof. And I would say the "problem" of funneling hundreds of billions of dollars per year to the most politically volatile region in the world counts pretty heavily in the weighing. Especially considering how dependent we are on that region for our day-to-day lives.
Finally...the iPod was funded by the US gov't? That's news to me... ; )
Good point, the government didn't fund ipods, but neither is there an ipod in every household. Even if there was, "we" didn't put it there.
I agree that it is not wise to be such a huge consumer of oil without producing a large part of it ourselves. However, I'm not worried about Iran or Venezuela damaging our economy by cutting off supply because that would destroy theirs. Most OPEC nations are 99% dependent on oil exportation for their economic AND political well being. If they turn off the spigot, we have other options (Coal-to-liquids, our own reserves, friendly nations, oil shale, etc.). They, however, would collapse. So, while I don't like being so dependent on them, I don't fret about it too much because they need our business much more than they need ours.
Some of those "other problems" include the following. Solar energy (solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric) are prohibitively expensive. Even with sizable subsidies, there are few places that turbines are economical. Same with solar panels. On top of that, neither source can be used as a baseline power source because of their inconsistent production; they can only be used to supplement some other power source (usually coal, natural gas or nuclear). Hydro power is a bit better, but what about in times of draught? Furthermore, dams completely change an ecosystem, usually for the worse, and even if we dammed every river in the US it couldn't provide enough electricity to replace carbon fuels. The construction of solar panels creates toxic compounds. The construction of dams requires a huge amount of gasoline powered equipment.
Then there are the problems with electric cars. They take forever to charge, they can go only short distances, they have poor acceleration and power, and the cars that can perform like regular vehicles (decent acceleration, comfortable, 200+ miles travel before fill-up, etc.) cost in the $100,000+ range. The closest thing to a reasonable electric car is the Chevy Volt which can go 40 miles gas free, has 150 hp, 100 mph top speed, 0-60 in 9 sec, seats 5, will come out in 2010, will probably cost $40K+, and will not make GM any money. They say that (as long as you only drive 40 miles before recharging) it will cost 2 cents/mile instead of 12 cents/mile at $3.60/gal. That means that if I bought a similar gas powered vehicle for $25K, I would have to drive it 150K miles before the fuel savings would make up for the initial cost. Of course that estimate assumes that the price of gas will stay high, the price of electricity will stay low, and that I will never drive more than 40 miles/day. All poor assumptions.
I agree that obtaining oil from unfriendly nations is a problem (although I don't think we agree on the severity of the problem). I would like to see us reduce our dependence on those countries for both political and economic reasons. However, trying to completely switch to a new technology is not the answer. The answer is simple: increase our own oil production. We have very large reserves in ANWR, the continental shelf, and throughout the Rocky Mountains. We also have access to some of the largest coal reserves in the world which can be converted to gasoline.
There are solutions that don't require government subsidies and incentives. Most of those involve the government to get out of the way, which IMHO is always a noble goal anyway.
Are you actually of the opinion that OPEC countries ONLY sell oil to AMERICA? We use approximately 25% of the world's oil, and import approximately 90% of ours. So if Iran (for instance) cut off the spigot to us, they wouldn't have to cut it off to EVERYONE.
And then there's the possibility of UNintentional cutoff: the Middle East is a hotbed of religious war. Terrorism is the ruling party. Oil is a very tempting target. (Remember the fires in Kuwait?) If some whacko decides to blow up a pipeline in Saudi Arabia, will the devastation to THEIR economy fix the damage to OURS?
As for your remarks about electric cars, that is EXACTLY what I was originally talking about. They are not as effective as internal combustion engines...but they SHOULD be. Chrysler has a prototype electric car with sports-car performance: 268-horsepower, 0-to-60 in under 5 seconds, and a lithium-ion battery that can provide over 150-miles on a charge. The battery is ALWAYS the limiting factor, but we are NOT trying as hard to improve that as we should be.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/chryslers-shock.html
Wind turbines now run 30% of the Netherlands' power grid. The wind is not consistent, but in areas of Texas and the Great Plains they could handle a moderate percentage of our energy needs. Solar power is effective, but so far expensive and not extremely efficient. Hydro-electric is VERY effective and long-term affordable, but droughts cause a problem and the initial costs are unfortunate. But the environmental costs of these methods are FAR lower than the costs of petroleum. Ever heard of Exxon-Valdez?
And as usual, nobody mentions wave-farming. The only real known issue here is maintenence: salt-water is very corrosive. But the waves ARE reliable: the wind doesn't always blow, and the clouds block out the sun, but the ocean always goes up and down, and always has.
I am NOT advocating cutting off all use of fossil fuels. I think we should increase drilling offshore and in ANWR...but that's a bandaid solution. That will tide us over until we can make the change. It is NOT a long-term solution. What I AM suggesting is that we start making that change now, instead of when it's too late. The oil will not always be there. There's only so much of it. And when production dips, we HAVE to have another plan already in place. It's too late to start making Plan "B" when Plan "A" has already failed. Electricity COULD be dirt-cheap, if we tried hard enough. Electric cars COULD use that dirt-cheap energy, if we worked on the mechanics. And it is my contention that gas prices will STAY high until the demand goes down. Right now the price of oil is falling, because the world market is afraid that Americans can't afford gas. Our economy is staggering, and it can't stand another blow.
Computers used to be the size of a living room. Now I can blog from my QWERTY cell phone. That kind of technological development should be applied to cars as well. Under normal circumstances, I agree that gov't intervention is unwanted and unwarranted. But we are WAY behind what we should be on electric cars and renewable energy...and with the economy in its current state I think this could even be considered a matter of national security. We just spent $700 Billion on a Wall Street bailout, but incentives for energy production are governmental interference?
Are you actually of the opinion that an oil embargo on just the US would have any noticable effect? The oil market is a world market. If Iran embargoed just us then a second country would buy the oil and sell it to us. The only oil embargoes that ever have any teeth are the ones where everyone embargoes the one country. Historically that has only happened twice: Nazi Germany and Aparteid South Africa. Interestingly enough, both survived by using the same solution: coals-to-liquids technology developed by germans Fischer and Tropsch in the early 20th century. OPEC tried to embargo the allies of Israel (including the US and UK) during the 6-Day War in the sixties. It didn't work. It wouldn't work now.
As for terrorism in the Mid-east, I agree that this is a very good arguement for oil independence. The system that we have now is that essentially the US and NATO are mercenaries to the Arab states. They pay us in oil for the protection our soldiers provide. I would like us, as a nation, to be able to insist that the Arab nations take care of their own security needs. That being said, terrorist actions that would result in significant disruptions would have to be multi-national in scope to have any real impact because there are so many oil-supplying nations that can quickly and easily increase their supply. Terrorists have never been that successful at doing that. The oil fields that you mention in Kuwait were not torched by terrorists, but by an invading army. Besides, the possibility of oil supply disruption is an arguement for increasing domestic supplies, not reducing our oil demand.
You keep saying that "we" can do this. "What I AM suggesting is that we start making that change now..." "And when production dips, we HAVE to have another plan already in place..." "...if we tried hard enough..." Who is this "we"? The same "we" who spent $700 billion on a bailout? The government? Yeah, they have a great history of enacting good energy policy. Let's see... rolling brownouts in California, sky high food prices due to ethanol subsidies, limited domestic oil supply, and the list goes on. Half the time the government doesn't know what it's doing, and the other half it knowingly engages in policies that favor one party over another at the cost of market forces. Nothing the government did reduced the size of a computer from a living room to a cell phone. It was innovation due to the invisible hand of market forces.
That Chrysler you mention is comparable to the Tesla. A $100,000+ sports car, whether electric or gas powered, is a toy for the super rich; not a solution to our energy problems. The only way to get enough electric cars on the road to make a difference is to make it economical for most people to do it. That was why I mentioned the Volt; it's the closest thing, and it is far from economically acceptable for most people. I don't care what SHOULD be or what COULD be. It's not, nor will it be for a long time, if ever.
People seem to think that one day oil will suddenly just disappear and that we will be completely unprepared for it, so we have to preach doom and gloom now so that we'll start on energy solutions for the future. I would prefer to let the future take care of that. When oil really does become scarce and supplies start to wan, the market will respond. The price of oil will gradually rise and stay high and as that happens people will turn to the cheapest form of energy. Right now it's oil and other fossil fuels, and rightly so. There may be a day when an electric car is cheaper that a gas powered vehicle, but it's not today, and until is, why bother?
"Until it is, why bother?"
Because the "That's going to be somebody else's problem" field of thought is irresponsible and narcissistic. I'm looking at the country my children will be living in. And I cannot simply hope that "the future" will "take care of that." We have to MAKE the future take care of that.
And as for "Who is this 'we'?" crack, "WE" are every person in the United States. *WE* are the government. The American people are in charge of what goes on in this country, and someone needs to remind them of that. Nobody has TOLD the gov't what we want done about the energy situation...except of course that we all want lower taxes.
"People seem to think" that the oil will NEVER run out, and there will always be enough for everyone. But OPEC regularly debates whether to decrease production in an attempt to raise prices. If and when the Saudis agree, the flow will decrease. Could we do anything about that? If we opened up ALL the oil fields in the US right now, it would take 4-6 YEARS for us to notice. And even then, domestic oil would only make up for a fraction of what we're using.
The goverment did not shrink a computer to the size of a cell phone. True. But gov't-funded programs like NASA were instrumental in the process. It is my contention that were the technology available, people would buy it. Think of how fast the iPod caught on: We've had portable music players for decades in this country...but THIS one became immediately popular--even to obsessive levels.
The Tesla and Chrysler's new sports car are expensive...but not because of production costs. They are expensive because they are a status symbol, and because they are NOT yet aimed at the consumer base.
Finally, you wrote, "I don't care what SHOULD be or what COULD be. It's not, nor will it be for a long time, if ever." I find that a very lazy and even dangerous way of thinking. At best it lacks imagination and ambition. At worst it is an attack on innovation. Where would we be if the Wright Brothers had been unconcerned with "what COULD be"? Or Alexander Graham Bell? Or Sir Isaac Newton? Where would African-Americans be if no one had been concerned with "what SHOULD be"? Where would women voters be? "What SHOULD be" and "what COULD be" are arguably the most important questions that can be asked by mankind. I can't understand why you wouldn't think so.
First, let me apologize for using vague language that was unclear and left the wrong impression. I am NOT opposed to innovation, ambition, progress and problem solving. What I am opposed to is the arbitrary creation of a dilemma with an equally arbitrary solution, which is how I see the whole energy debate. So when I said "why bother" or that should and could are not important I was not saying that I oppose progress, but rather the imposition of foolish policies under the guise of progress.
I think one of the biggest problems about any aspect of the energy debate is that we poorly define the problem to start with. Many people see high gas prices or who sells us gas and decide that the problem is how to get rid of fossil fuels because they have so many difficulties associated with their use. The problem statement should be: "What is the best fuel source for our energy needs?" The reason that the former question is inferior to the latter is that it presupposes that what we are currently using is not a choice. It forces us to choose among everything EXCEPT what we are using.
The reality is that right now, oil is the best source for our energy needs. We know that because that is what the market has shown us. It was the market that chose HD over Blu-Ray, AC over DC, gasoline fuel of ethanol fuel over a century ago, and many other decisions. However, if electric becomes the best option in the future, great! I will gladly accept electric motor technology over combustion just like I tapes over 8 tracks, then CD's over tapes, then mp3s over CDs. The great thing about progress is that it does not have to be mandated. We SHOULDN'T need the government, just like Bell (telephone), Newton (calculus), Farnsworth (TV), DiVinci (you name it) DIDN'T need the government.
The government should be in the business of creating just laws and enforcing them. They should not be in the business of choosing what is best for us. That is central planning, and it doesn't work. So I welcome equal treatment before the law for all minorities (as you mentioned Blacks and Women), but stay away from manipulation of the market. Even if it does accomplish some good, it spawns even more problems through unintended consequences. It's not that I'm hoping "the future will take care of that", but that every time we try to solve the futures problem we make things worse.
I have a great deal of confidence in that people can find good solutions to their problems as long as we allow the market to function. If electric cars become the wave of the future it will be because it survived the rigor of the market. Everything that the government is doing to try an manipulate that result (i.e. subsidies for corn, electric cars, wind turbines, hybrids, solar panels, and who knows what else) is at best ineffective and usually draining on our economy.
That is why I dislike the concept of electric cars and renewables. Not because I'm opposed to their actual use, but because they are being rammed down our throats by an inelightened, corrupt, often stupid government.
So that us brings us back around to where we started. To answer your original post:
Q: "So why don't we have electric cars on the roads instead of in the showrooms?"
A: Because people do not want to pay for an incredibly expensive electric car. I've explained in my other posts how expensive they are. It can be made more affordable and reliable, but it is not now. No government mandate can change that. Deal with it. That applies to all those renewable energies as well.
I know, this post is turning into an epic, but I just thought of one other thing I want to say. I want our nations energy policy to be that of allowing Americans to get the energy they need. That means removing restrictions to drilling as well as removing incentives to alternative energy (the key word is "allow" not "endorse"). By extension of this I oppose the energy plans of both Obama and McCain because they intend to favor renewables. It is not something that either of them can deliver, and if they try we will be worse off. Look what happened as a result of politicians subsidizing sub-prime loans. If we don't get the heavy hand of government out of our energy markets the same kind of thing is liable to happen again (California brownouts) and again (soaring corn prices) and again (high gas prices) and again.
So everything should stay the same as it was because the government shouldn't change anything?
You are opposed to renewable energy and electric cars. Fine. Care to elaborate on that position? Is it really just "because they are being rammed down our throats by an inelightened, corrupt, often stupid government." So are you generally opposed to ideas based on how they're presented, rather than on the merits of the idea itself?
Electric cars are the future. Oil will not last forever. In fact, the profits associated with oil are near the heart of this government's corruption.
Electric cars and renewable energy are inherently better than our current system for the following reasons:
Supply: we will never run out of sunlight, wind, or wave/tidal action. Oil is a limited and non-replaceable source of energy. A very useful one...but once it's all been burned, there is no more. Human civilization has lasted thousands of years, and with luck it will last thousands more. But in the history of the human race we have NEVER completely depleted a resource. Now is a bad time to start.
Environmental concerns: burning fossil fuels causes pollution. It can be reduced and repaired, but it can never be eliminated. Carbon emissions and global warming are of minor concern, because no causal relationship has been established. But that doesn't mean we should just throw smog into the wind.
Politics: entire nations' economies are based on oil...and as a general rule of thumb those nations are totalitarian and not particularly inclined to democracy. With renewable energy we don't have to send billions of dollars a year to people who would love to see us killed.
But on the other hand...we don't want the government to step up and suggest we do something intelligent. No...heaven forbid.
Did you even read what I posted? I specifically said that I'm not opposed to electric cars or renewable energy, but I'm opposed to poor policy decisions that attempt to promote one form of energy over another. If renewables and electric cars are so great, then their merit will speak for themselves and government will not have to push it. What I've been saying (if you'll go back and read my posts) is that their merits are still not better than the merits of oil and coal. I believe in supporting something based on its merits, which is why I believe that oil is clearly superior. Once that changes and renewables are superior then of course we switch to those. That is why electric cars may be the future, but that has absolutely no relevance.
Now each point:
Supply: There is more to supply then how much there is. There are also issues of convenience and cost.True the sun and waves are limitless, but they are not convenient. I can't put sunlight in my tank, but I can put gas in my tank. The amount of economically recoverable oil is constantly changing because the price is always changing. At $20/bl the only oil available is Alaskan or Arabian light sweet. At $60, Canadian and Venezuelan oils are economical. At $80 coals to liquids becomes profitable as well as shale oil. It goes on and on. At high enough levels biofuels becomes profitable (without government subsidies), and then, as supplies continue to dwindle, electric cars might become profitable. Boom, THAT is when the future arrives and our endless supply and all that good stuff. And we didn't even have to destroy our economy with government mandates to get there.
Environmental concerns: Seriously, lay off the kool-aid. Though they are not the same concerns, there are many environmental concerns with renewables. Manufacturing photovoltaic cells creates many heavy metal pollutants including lead, mercury and cadmium. Even the most out of the way dams can completely rearrange an ecosystem and require a great deal of remediative effort to mitigate the unintended consequences. There don't seem to be too many eco-problems with wind (although they are an eyesore) and not much is known about the impacts of wave energy because it is pretty new, but they are also prohibitively expensive. And, interestingly enough, their expense goes up with the price of gas because of the fossil fuels required to manufacture them.
Politics: Again, you make some good arguments for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, but again, those can be dealt with by increasing our supply. Also keep in mind that no matter what we do, even if we do manage to reduce our need for Saudi/Iranian/Chavez oil, whether by increasing supply or switching to electric they will still sell their oil. Most of the worlds population still lives in 3rd world countries and history has shown that fossil fuels are essential to industrial revolution and rising out of poverty. So, while I think that we can make some positive changes to our international policy through our energy policy, there is no reason to believe that electric cars and renewables would be a more effective solution than increasing supply.
Intelligent government suggestions: don't exist. The only thing the government has ever gotten right with regard to energy or the economy is to get ensure a free market and get out of the way.
Just to make sure you understand:
1. Free market rules because the solutions succeed or fail on their merits.
2. Electric cars and renewable energy have yet to receive a pass from the free market because they are not better than oil based energy.
3. Governments role is that of referee and regulator in the competition of ideas. They should call it fair and let the players play.
Yes, I read your post. Specifically the part where you said, "That is why I dislike the concept of electric cars and renewables."
And "kool-aid"? Give me a break. I said earlier that no energy source is 100% safe for the environment. But the minor (Yes, they ARE minor!) environmental concerns of renewable energy are grossly outweighed by the environmental costs of oil. Oil and coal do NOT burn cleanly, no matter what BP puts in their commercials. And then there are the spills...billions of gallons of crude oil directly into the ecosystem rather than into our gas tanks. Which brings up another point: oil doesn't go straight into the tank. It has to be HEAVILY refined first. Then it has to be TRANSPORTED. (It has to be transported BEFORE refining, too. This is yet another step in the process.) No one ever had to load up a tanker or a tractor-trailer full of electricity to ship it across the world or across the country. How much oil is being used just to GET it to the consumers? How is that efficient?
I'm hearing a lot here about the free market. What rock have you been living under? The market in America is NOT free. Energy production (and use) is HEAVILY regulated. Cars have to meet emissions standards. Nuclear power plants are SEVERELY regulated--to the point that they're not profitable. The government steps in and provides a multi-billion-dollar bailout to struggling banks. Without that money, these banks would die. Free Market wisdom says, "Let them die...it's their own fault." But without those banks, MILLIONS of people lose their jobs and we get a really fun sequel to the Great Depression. The US economy is NOT a Free Market...but it pretends to be. And that's where most of the problems come in. The current housing crisis is a direct result of the government LOOSENING restrictions on housing loans. The "Free Market" is an ideal, a utopia. And as long as there are business executives greedy enough to extend loans to people who can't pay them back, it always will be. (No doubt you're now thinking that the market itself will weed out these businessmen. But it doesn't. Every few decades, a new crop will come along who have forgotten that lesson.)
You've made some good points here, but overall it sounds like you're simply clinging to an idea because that's what we have right now. Minor problems with a new system are being magnified until it sounds like economic suicide to attempt to change. That's simply not the case. You may very well say, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." NEWSFLASH: It *IS* broken. On a road trip 8 years ago, I paid $0.79 a gallon for a tank of gas somewhere in Oklahoma. Now it's right around the $3 mark. (here in FL) Six months ago it was around the $4 mark. As soon as OPEC is convinced that we're not in a depression and will start buying gas again, the price will go back up.
Now let me be very clear on what I'm suggesting here. My contention is that if there were an affordable, reliable electric car, then people would buy it OVER current internal combustion engines. Therefore, I think the government should set up a "bounty" of sorts. A financial award for whoever develops and introduces the first REALISTIC electric car. People will buy it. They can't buy something that isn't there, so the market has no bearing on its development yet. Somebody had to take a gamble that people would really WANT a computer in their home, and when that first step was made the industry took off. No one is taking that first step with electric cars. My suggestion is simply that someone be given a reward for doing it. What comes afterward is up to the consumers.
I am also NOT suggesting that we cut our oil use 100%. It is still the best choice for running most heavy equipment and large freight. I would like to see most diesel replaced by biofuels, but that is very expensive right now. (Although a normal diesel engine can run at approximately 90% efficiency on used, filtered french fry oil!) But the future of biofuels is not in corn or sugar cane. It's in orange rinds and switchgrass. ANYTHING with some kind of sugar (even cellulose) content can be made into ethanol. It only makes sense to use things that are already being thrown out.
In short (too late:P), if we were to switch over from internal combustion to electric RIGHT NOW, we would NOT have enough electricity to power them. But the technology exists to create that kind of power...it just isn't being used. If a switch were made to renewable sources such as solar, wind, and wave power then the environmental concerns would be significantly lower than they currently are with our petroleum fetish. There would still BE concerns, but they would not be nearly as large. We could stop paying out money to foreign countries for 90% of our energy. If this were done on a wide scale, we could even be SELLING energy to foreign countries. The US has the potential to lead the world in renewable energy production: it has the flowing water for hydroelectical: only China and Brazil could compete with us there. The Great Plains would be tailor-made for wind farms: nobody except possibly Russia could compete with us in that arena. We have one of the longest national coastlines in the world: tide power and wave farms would put us far beyond the production of any other country. But instead we are spending tens of billions of dollars a year buying oil from countries run by dictators that are often openly hostile to the US. How can this POSSIBLY be the best solution?
If you read ALL of my post instead of the parts that you wanted to twist around you would have read this:
"That is why I dislike the concept of electric cars and renewables. Not because I'm opposed to their actual use, but because they are being rammed down our throats by an inelightened, corrupt, often stupid government."
Do you see how the second sentence changes the context of the first? Please read and understand the entire post before you misquote me next time.
You have a point; the american economic system is not a pure free market system. Neither is our governmental system a democracy. We call it a that because it is based on democratic principles and so "democracy" is close enough for all but the most hyper-precise individuals. That is the same way I've been using the term "free market". I'm not talking about a pure free market but one based on free market principles including personal freedoms, initiative, and competition. As you say, there are many regulations and standards, but those do not damage free market principles as long as they don't become overly burdensome or manipulative. There are some regulations that I definately approve of such as most OSHA standards and EPA regulations. They protect us. However there are some regulations that hurt us such as unreasonably high CAFE standards (which congress wants to pass), or restrictive regulations on nuclear power.
Just as an aside, saying that "the current housing crisis is a direct result of the government LOOSENING restrictions on housing loans" is misleading. The subprime loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged lenders to make were loans that most normal businesses would never have made. It is a direct result of politicians trying to manipulate the market for political gain. Had the government not pushed lenders to offer those sub-prime loans, we would not be in the mess we are now in. To use the current housing/financial crisis as a reason for decreasing free market principles is backwards. The lesson we should learn is that when government tries to manipulate supply it will eventually fail and take a lot of companies with it. The lesson is that even government incentives can be dangerous.
You say "if there were an affordable, reliable electric car, then people would buy it OVER current internal combustion engines." I strongly agree. In fact, my contention is an extension of that idea: People will buy the most affordable, reliable car they can, whether it be gasoline or electric. This is a great opportunity for somebody who wants to put that electric car on the road, because the first person or corporation that does will make bank. That's the whole idea about competitive enterprise; if you come up with the latest and greatest, you get rich. So why do we need a "bounty"??? The market already provides the incentives for the supply. If there aren't enough market incentives to justify supplying a product then it shouldn't be supplied. A "bounty" from the government is just another another way of saying tax-payer funded favoritism to special interests. The reason we don't see electric cars are the road is the same reason that petro companies are perfectly happy buying, transporting, refining, remediating, and selling oil: the price is right for both suppliers and consumers. You may argue that the price is higher than you want it to be (I also dislike 4$/gal gas), but it is still the cheapest energy out there.
If you want to talk about how to mitigate the negative impacts of petroleum use, that is great. We should; there are many problems, as you've mentioned. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Until electric cars and renewables are more profitable than gas and combustion engines in a competitive market (note how I use "competitive" market since "free" market is so confusing), trying to change the system through government mandates is counterproductive.
I think we've both exhausted this arguement. I'm tired of responding and re-responding to the same objections every other post. If you have anything new to talk about, I'll address it, but I've touched on everything in your latest post at least two or three times in previous posts. My bottom line: You can love/invest in/believe in/buy/sell/advertise electric cars and renewable energy all you want, but keep government favoritism (though not reasonable regulation) out so the market can maximize the overall benefit to everyone.
I read and understood the entire post, and misquoted no one. The fact that you don't like something you said is no reason for me avoid mentioning it.
You suggested that loosening restrictions on the housing market was not responsible for the current financial situation. "The subprime loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged lenders to make were loans that most normal businesses would never have made." That is EXACTLY my point. There were already pre-existing minumum requirements. In a free market, there wouldn't be. In an ideal free marketopia, there wouldn't HAVE to be. But that simply isn't the case.
I would like to make one more point, if I may. (And it's my blog, so I may:P) In Iceland, 100% of electrical power is produced by renewable sources. Just hydroelectric and geothermal. The only fossil fuels used are in cars. Electricity IS dirt-cheap. And yet there are NO electric cars. The market would be perfect for them, but they aren't there. Why? Because this "invisible hand" of the market is not as all-powerful as proponents claim.
I also agree that this conversation is going nowhere. You are unwilling or unable to see my points. I have read yours, but they are positions I am already very familiar with and I now disagree with them. Obviously:) But thank you for responding. This is a new arena for me, and I'm very curious as to what kind of responses I'll get. Spread this blog around if you know anyone who'd be interested...or even if you know someone else who's sure to disagree with me. I've enjoyed this; )
Thanks for the debate. It helps me to better express my ideas as well as understand my opinions and feelings on the matter. Admittedly, before this discussion I would rail on electric cars and renewables as if it were a moral issue. By explaining economically why I was opposed to them, I realized that it's no more right for me to be morally opposed to them than it is to be morally opposed to oil. I beleive that economic principles should govern economic issues, and I needed to conform my feelings about renewables and electric cars with my economic principles. I will gladly embrace renewables and electric cars when they become economically feasible.
A few recommendations:
Take an economics course. It doesn't matter how many times I address your points when you clearly don't have even a rudimentary understanding of how markets and supply and demand work. You assume that the market in Iceland is perfect for electric cars, and therefore conclude that since there are none there, the "invisible hand" isn't working. It's the other way around. Since there are no electric cars in Iceland, the market is not perfect for them yet.
Do more thorough research. You just embarrass yourself when you use examples that make the opposite point that you are trying to make. For example, Icelands economy. It's in the crapper. Here's a link:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJdb2RwrEg_X8yNRHcVvn_OE9vKwD93LRO8O1
Smart-alek remarks, misrepresentation, and repetition are a poor substitute for substance.
I eagerly await the next topic we can beat up on.
First off, I *have* taken an economics course. I have a reasonable understanding of the principles involved, and by "reasonable" I mean considerably above average. It's easy to dismiss someone's points by simply claiming that they don't understand yours. Won't fly in this case. Don't patronize me, bro...you aren't as good at it as I am.
Interesting link. But I think you jumped too early. Here's the real scoop: Iceland is suffering the exact same problem WE are...too many housing and other loans at too high an interest rate. Their energy situation is the PLUS side, and it has drawn too much growth for the housing market to keep up.
Have another look:
"Iceland pays price for rapid economic growth"
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/busin ess/2008/10/03/D93J7E980 _eu_iceland_deep_freeze/index.html
(Full-length links are cut off in comments. I had to look yours up. Remove the spaces to link to this article.)
If anything, you just demonstrated that energy production is INDEPENDENT of overall economic well-being. Probably not the point you meant to relate. What was that about misrepresentation?
Post a Comment