$10 a barrel- driverless cars

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-06/tesla-s-new-battery-doesn-t-work-that-well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

[Guest NC1406]

Has anyone looked at the ecological effect of disposed batteries. Have to think that is going to cause more ground water problems than fracking.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I normally just bust the plastic off of em, pore out that acid out an thin make fishin waits out of the lead. Have to think in aint gonna be that hard to get rid of em.

[Guest NC1406]

I normally just bust the plastic off of em, pore out that acid out an thin make fishin waits out of the lead. Have to think in aint gonna be that hard to get rid of em.

Your shtick is funny. You should eat more of the fish you catch below them waits.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

The latest research is about having batteries re-charge quickly in the same amount of time that you would fill up a car. One of the reasons research has gone towards fast re-charging is it would not require the same infrastructure upgrade that having to swap out batteries would require. There have been announced breakthroughs with batteries both in range, length of life-cycle, speed of recharging and lowering cost. Most experts believe that we will start seeing these batteries in 3-10 years. Then just need to add Plugs at Stations with a meter for paying for a charge.

There are multiple breakthroughs who will win is still to be determined.

http://www.engadget....s-in-batteries/

http://www.cnbc.com/...eakthrough.html

http://www.pocket-li...er-over-the-air

I highlighted the key word.

Look I don't disagree with you at all about where the technology is headed. You are preaching to the choir. I think we are on the threshold of a new era.

But I still haven't heard why this technology will ever be employed without raising the cost of carbon-based fuels. The transition will take serious investment. We cannot afford to keep pushing that investment down the road until alternative energy is cheaper alternative to carbon-based fuels. That's not a realistic option.

[Grumps 3,704]

I like the idea of battery replacement stations. Instead of pulling up to the gas station you pull up to the battery station. You remove your weak batteries and put them into the charger and take charged batteries and put them into your car. This is feasible with current battery technology, I believe. It should only get more feasible as batteries improve.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

So are you willing to pay a tax on yourself? You are made of carbon... Look taxing a barrel of oil puts that money into the hands of the government who would then select where to spend that money on. Look at Solendra (SP) how did that work out? O's friends made a killing leaving the ashes on the tax payers. Paying more in taxes is not the answer, or then you would agree with these hybrid and electric cars being taxed because they save gas and don't pay near the same for road repairs, etc... I would like to put solar on my house and a small wind generator but the efficiency vs the cost isn't there yet, when it does I can economically afford to do it. If you were to take more money out of my pocket by putting a larger tax on my gas then I can't afford to do that. Why not encourage a hybrid diesel electric? The gov't doesn't believe in diesel. Why not encourage Nuclear energy over natural gas? Nuclear energy is very efficient and safe and cheap to operate. What we need is a viable plan and roadmap to get to green energy but we don't have one. That is the problem with gov deciding on who wins and loses...by letting gov decide you let lobbyist dictate their special interests which takes that costs down to the average citizen vice finding a better path to make this work. A viable plan would have an end goal and a pathway to get there. Right now all we have is people spit balling hoping to hit the target in a dark room...to get to green energy we will have to have a holistic plan that includes green, oil, natural gas & nuclear

Organize that response into paragraphs and I'll make the effort to read it.

That is your problem...no effort take the easy way out...

No, actually if you are trying to communicate, it's your problem.

I cannot help it if you cannot read a simple paragraph. That would be YOUR problem.

Simple paragraph? That's a continuous block of words containing multiple points. It's not a paragraph.

And you could have fixed it in the time it's taken for you to defend it.

[homersapien 11,373]

I like the idea of battery replacement stations. Instead of pulling up to the gas station you pull up to the battery station. You remove your weak batteries and put them into the charger and take charged batteries and put them into your car. This is feasible with current battery technology, I believe. It should only get more feasible as batteries improve.

It's one obvious way to address the relatively slow charging rate (compared to filling a gas tank) of batteries. Such "filling stations" would essentially become huge batteries themselves storing power generated by wind and solar.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Look at you, all visionary and 'stuff '.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Yeah, it's about govt picking winners and losers, based on an ideology that springs from unicorn toots and faery hiccups

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But the this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

Look we will fundamentally disagree on artificially inflating the cost of something so that it speeds along the use of something else. Why? Because I think that we will have spent a ton of money on non-viable stuff for the long run. I also do not want politicians picking winners and losers in my technology.

We are on the verge of so many technologies coming to market but they first have to go through the crucible to see if they are economically viable.

Currently there is research in lasers transferring energy between buildings along with the window technology of collecting solar energy for application in skyscrapers. However if we went to your method the government may say that isn't viable. It could be a very viable solution but we have to let the science win out.

[homersapien 11,373]

Yeah, it's about govt picking winners and losers, based on an ideology that springs from unicorn toots and faery hiccups

Since you don't possess the bandwith to participate, just read and please keep quiet.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But the this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

Look we will fundamentally disagree on artificially inflating the cost of something so that it speeds along the use of something else. Why? Because I think that we will have spent a ton of money on non-viable stuff for the long run. I also do not want politicians picking winners and losers in my technology.

But the whole point is that increasing the cost of a fuel we need to transition away from is not choosing the replacement. It is simply artificially accelerating the natural phase of increasing cost due to scarcity. Once the direct costs of carbon is increased by taxes, various alternatives will compete with each other to replace carbon.

You seem to think that non-carbon technology has and is developing naturally. It's not. It's being developed only because far-sighted scientists and engineers are anticipating the need for it.

Renewable fuels will not displace carbon fuels naturally (from market forces) until carbon fuels increase in price to make the cost of transition attractive. There is a very high cost of transitioning from one energy source to the next. The potentially lower direct costs of renewables - is not so low as to precipitate that cost of transition. In marketing, this is known as a "barrier to entry" and it often precludes a transition to cheaper products.

Without the threat of AGW, natural scarcity of carbon-based fuels would increase their direct costs to justify such a transition. But this might take centuries. Science already tells us that is not an option.

Markets do not naturally account for any external costs, which is what AGW is. And it is exactly because markets do not account for external costs that environmental regulations are required.

[AURaptor 1,123]

Yeah, it's about govt picking winners and losers, based on an ideology that springs from unicorn toots and faery hiccups

Since you don't possess the bandwith to participate, just read and please keep quiet.

:

Now that's irony !!

[Guest NC1406]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But the this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

Look we will fundamentally disagree on artificially inflating the cost of something so that it speeds along the use of something else. Why? Because I think that we will have spent a ton of money on non-viable stuff for the long run. I also do not want politicians picking winners and losers in my technology.

But the whole point is that increasing the cost of a fuel we need to transition away from is not choosing the replacement. It is simply artificially accelerating the natural phase of increasing cost due to scarcity. Once the direct costs of carbon is increased by taxes, various alternatives will compete with each other to replace carbon.

You seem to think that non-carbon technology has and is developing naturally. It's not. It's being developed only because far-sighted scientists and engineers are anticipating the need for it.

Renewable fuels will not displace carbon fuels naturally (from market forces) until carbon fuels increase in price to make the cost of transition attractive. There is a very high cost of transitioning from one energy source to the next. The potentially lower direct costs of renewables - is not so low as to precipitate that cost of transition. In marketing, this is known as a "barrier to entry" and it often precludes a transition to cheaper products.

Without the threat of AGW, natural scarcity of carbon-based fuels would increase their direct costs to justify such a transition. But this might take centuries. Science already tells us that is not an option.

Markets do not naturally account for any external costs, which is what AGW is. And it is exactly because markets do not account for external costs that environmental regulations are required.

That is one way to view the subject. Ethanol was another way to transition away from fossil fuel. Using corn to replace fossil fuel raised food cost and energy costs. Infrastructure costs for anyone handling fuel was increased by unbelievable amounts. When you buy a gallon of gas today the credit card company will make half as much as the gas station owner off processing the transaction. The government tax will be 3 times the stations profit. That is just the fuel tax before we get to the business profit tax. Ethanol is a PIA and a very inefficient fuel. The gap from making subsidized green fuel more cost effective than taxed fossil fuels is at least 4 liberal administrations away from fooling the public.

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But the this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

Look we will fundamentally disagree on artificially inflating the cost of something so that it speeds along the use of something else. Why? Because I think that we will have spent a ton of money on non-viable stuff for the long run. I also do not want politicians picking winners and losers in my technology.

But the whole point is that increasing the cost of a fuel we need to transition away from is not choosing the replacement. It is simply artificially accelerating the natural phase of increasing cost due to scarcity. Once the direct costs of carbon is increased by taxes, various alternatives will compete with each other to replace carbon.

You seem to think that non-carbon technology has and is developing naturally. It's not. It's being developed only because far-sighted scientists and engineers are anticipating the need for it.

Renewable fuels will not displace carbon fuels naturally (from market forces) until carbon fuels increase in price to make the cost of transition attractive. There is a very high cost of transitioning from one energy source to the next. The potentially lower direct costs of renewables - is not so low as to precipitate that cost of transition. In marketing, this is known as a "barrier to entry" and it often precludes a transition to cheaper products.

Without the threat of AGW, natural scarcity of carbon-based fuels would increase their direct costs to justify such a transition. But this might take centuries. Science already tells us that is not an option.

Markets do not naturally account for any external costs, which is what AGW is. And it is exactly because markets do not account for external costs that environmental regulations are required.

That is one way to view the subject. Ethanol was another way to transition away from fossil fuel. Using corn to replace fossil fuel raised food cost and energy costs. Infrastructure costs for anyone handling fuel was increased by unbelievable amounts. When you buy a gallon of gas today the credit card company will make half as much as the gas station owner off processing the transaction. The government tax will be 3 times the stations profit. That is just the fuel tax before we get to the business profit tax. Ethanol is a PIA and a very inefficient fuel. The gap from making subsidized green fuel more cost effective than taxed fossil fuels is at least 4 liberal administrations away from fooling the public.

I agree regarding ethanol. That's an good example of why I think my way of "viewing the subject" is correct.

Tax the carbon - which includes ethanol btw - and let the market winnow out the best technology - or probably more accurately - the combination of technologies. Reduce direct subsidies to a given technology such as ethanol.

P.S.: I don't get the "fooling the public" statement. You'll have to explain.

[Guest NC1406]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But the this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

Look we will fundamentally disagree on artificially inflating the cost of something so that it speeds along the use of something else. Why? Because I think that we will have spent a ton of money on non-viable stuff for the long run. I also do not want politicians picking winners and losers in my technology.

But the whole point is that increasing the cost of a fuel we need to transition away from is not choosing the replacement. It is simply artificially accelerating the natural phase of increasing cost due to scarcity. Once the direct costs of carbon is increased by taxes, various alternatives will compete with each other to replace carbon.

You seem to think that non-carbon technology has and is developing naturally. It's not. It's being developed only because far-sighted scientists and engineers are anticipating the need for it.

Renewable fuels will not displace carbon fuels naturally (from market forces) until carbon fuels increase in price to make the cost of transition attractive. There is a very high cost of transitioning from one energy source to the next. The potentially lower direct costs of renewables - is not so low as to precipitate that cost of transition. In marketing, this is known as a "barrier to entry" and it often precludes a transition to cheaper products.

Without the threat of AGW, natural scarcity of carbon-based fuels would increase their direct costs to justify such a transition. But this might take centuries. Science already tells us that is not an option.

Markets do not naturally account for any external costs, which is what AGW is. And it is exactly because markets do not account for external costs that environmental regulations are required.

That is one way to view the subject. Ethanol was another way to transition away from fossil fuel. Using corn to replace fossil fuel raised food cost and energy costs. Infrastructure costs for anyone handling fuel was increased by unbelievable amounts. When you buy a gallon of gas today the credit card company will make half as much as the gas station owner off processing the transaction. The government tax will be 3 times the stations profit. That is just the fuel tax before we get to the business profit tax. Ethanol is a PIA and a very inefficient fuel. The gap from making subsidized green fuel more cost effective than taxed fossil fuels is at least 4 liberal administrations away from fooling the public.

I agree regarding ethanol. That's an good example of why I think my way of "viewing the subject" is correct.

Tax the carbon - which includes ethanol btw - and let the market winnow out the best technology - or probably more accurately - the combination of technologies. Reduce direct subsidies to a given technology such as ethanol.

P.S.: I don't get the "fooling the public" statement. You'll have to explain.

Ethanol was one of the first green subsidies. It was a mistake. Actually working with a group that plans to make ethanol from a hybrid tobacco plant that has some promise. Still a very inefficient fuel for a motor vehicle. Fossil fuel is damn efficient economically. To force an inefficient product on the public is fooling them.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I would like to see more nuclear plants which is a cleaner energy than fossil fuels but with the anti nuke crowd we won't have more of that cheap energy. Do you realize that there are small reactors that are very safe that will provide all the energy for many years to a skyscraper that will fit in a closet and don't have the risk of a meltdown?

Nuclear energy is cheap if you use the newer designs.

As far as green energy, do you realize that you could pump out the exhaust of coal plants into algae that will take out the CO2 and produce bio diesel? But we have a coalition of people not looking at it because the current admin doesn't like coal...which coal is an abundant fuel source here in the US and is being used in other countries without monitoring or care for pollution....

We need sensible solutions and not just taxing and hoping that things will work out because we artificially inflated prices just to make people chose an alternative...what does that do to the poor? It makes them have less money.

What you suggest has amplifying effects on the populace that you will then say we have to fix down the road. Why? Because we don't have an energy plan that we can all get behind and move forward. I would like to have cheap energy, better batteries, alternate fuel sources to heat and cool my house, run my car etc but until the conditions are good for a technology breakout, I would like to continue with what I am doing without the massive tax that you are proposing along with this administration....

[homersapien 11,373]

General tax is government picking winners and losers, Homer. Do you not understand that?

Wrong. A general tax on carbon is not picking winners and losers in the inevitable conversion to renewable energy sources.

You are completely and totally and absolutely wrong. It is exclusively picking winners and losers. Let the free market decide, keep the government out of it.

How does a general carbon tax favor a specific alternative?

Why would the free market do anything to make a change from carbon-based fuels without an economic incentive?

The economic incentive is consumer driven. If you make a diesel electric tractor trailer that is cheaper to operate than current ones but might cost slightly more but have better performance, you would sell a ton of them. I would buy a diesel electric car (I know Toyota made a prototype that got 100 miles a gallon). Would you buy a car that cost around 30K that got 100mpg? I would. I would also like solar panels that are efficient and what I don't use in power I could sell back to the electric company (although I can't sell back in my state yet). There are many of these things that would drive the market....but right not it isn't that viable...ethanol was forced on us and it drove the price of corn up...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. From an engineering standpoint, how do you create an electric long haul truck that's cheaper than a diesel without being able to switch out the depleted battery with a fresh one? It would take too long to charge such a battery. But I expect we will see hybrid trucks in the not too distant future.

You can already buy solar panels and sell back surplus power, at least in some areas. Solar panel companies will pay you rent to install such panels on your land. Much of this technology is available, but it's still not so cheap as to make people buy it purely on economic reasons. But it's coming. Elon Musk is selling a "household battery" which shows the future. I think we will ultimately see a decentralized grid, but it won't happen quickly on it's own.

I agree completely with ethanol. But that's a result of a political effort by the people who produce corn. It's a perfect example of the government picking a preferred technology. Much better to simply make petroleum more expensive and let the market choose alternatives.

Did you not read Diesel Electric which is a hybrid technology? That is how you make it. Use a diesel motor to generate power for the electric motors.

Musk;s battery is incompatible with current use in the solar panel industry. http://www.bloomberg...well-with-solar As far as selling back electricity, the power companies don't want to buy it back from consumers and they will continue to fight it in states through lobbyists.

Hybrid technology is transitional. Battery technology is still in it's infancy. In our area, Duke power is already buying back surplus energy produced from solar cells.

But the this discussion is about the wisdom of making carbon-based fuels more expensive in order to speed the transition to non-carbon based energy.

Look we will fundamentally disagree on artificially inflating the cost of something so that it speeds along the use of something else. Why? Because I think that we will have spent a ton of money on non-viable stuff for the long run. I also do not want politicians picking winners and losers in my technology.

But the whole point is that increasing the cost of a fuel we need to transition away from is not choosing the replacement. It is simply artificially accelerating the natural phase of increasing cost due to scarcity. Once the direct costs of carbon is increased by taxes, various alternatives will compete with each other to replace carbon.

You seem to think that non-carbon technology has and is developing naturally. It's not. It's being developed only because far-sighted scientists and engineers are anticipating the need for it.

Renewable fuels will not displace carbon fuels naturally (from market forces) until carbon fuels increase in price to make the cost of transition attractive. There is a very high cost of transitioning from one energy source to the next. The potentially lower direct costs of renewables - is not so low as to precipitate that cost of transition. In marketing, this is known as a "barrier to entry" and it often precludes a transition to cheaper products.

Without the threat of AGW, natural scarcity of carbon-based fuels would increase their direct costs to justify such a transition. But this might take centuries. Science already tells us that is not an option.

Markets do not naturally account for any external costs, which is what AGW is. And it is exactly because markets do not account for external costs that environmental regulations are required.

That is one way to view the subject. Ethanol was another way to transition away from fossil fuel. Using corn to replace fossil fuel raised food cost and energy costs. Infrastructure costs for anyone handling fuel was increased by unbelievable amounts. When you buy a gallon of gas today the credit card company will make half as much as the gas station owner off processing the transaction. The government tax will be 3 times the stations profit. That is just the fuel tax before we get to the business profit tax. Ethanol is a PIA and a very inefficient fuel. The gap from making subsidized green fuel more cost effective than taxed fossil fuels is at least 4 liberal administrations away from fooling the public.

I agree regarding ethanol. That's an good example of why I think my way of "viewing the subject" is correct.

Tax the carbon - which includes ethanol btw - and let the market winnow out the best technology - or probably more accurately - the combination of technologies. Reduce direct subsidies to a given technology such as ethanol.

P.S.: I don't get the "fooling the public" statement. You'll have to explain.

Ethanol was one of the first green subsidies. It was a mistake. Actually working with a group that plans to make ethanol from a hybrid tobacco plant that has some promise. Still a very inefficient fuel for a motor vehicle. Fossil fuel is damn efficient economically. To force an inefficient product on the public is fooling them.

Agreed. Better to tax carbon and let the alternatives compete.

BTW, ethanol is not really an alternative to carbon, it is carbon. Ethanol was pushed by the corn industry as a way of becoming less dependent on foreign oil.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

[homersapien 11,373]

I would like to see more nuclear plants which is a cleaner energy than fossil fuels but with the anti nuke crowd we won't have more of that cheap energy. Do you realize that there are small reactors that are very safe that will provide all the energy for many years to a skyscraper that will fit in a closet and don't have the risk of a meltdown?

Nuclear energy is cheap if you use the newer designs.

Nuclear is fine as far as displacing carbon is concerned but it comes with some fairly significant external costs as well. But I wouldn't be surprised to see nuclear play a more important role in the future as the need to abandon carbon becomes more apparent.

[homersapien 11,373]

As far as green energy, do you realize that you could pump out the exhaust of coal plants into algae that will take out the CO2 and produce bio diesel? But we have a coalition of people not looking at it because the current admin doesn't like coal...which coal is an abundant fuel source here in the US and is being used in other countries without monitoring or care for pollution....

We need sensible solutions and not just taxing and hoping that things will work out because we artificially inflated prices just to make people chose an alternative...what does that do to the poor? It makes them have less money.

What you suggest has amplifying effects on the populace that you will then say we have to fix down the road. Why? Because we don't have an energy plan that we can all get behind and move forward. I would like to have cheap energy, better batteries, alternate fuel sources to heat and cool my house, run my car etc but until the conditions are good for a technology breakout, I would like to continue with what I am doing without the massive tax that you are proposing along with this administration....

I don't think there is any technology planned that is capable of negating the carbon contribution of coal on the scale required.

Taxing carbon is a sensible approach to facilitate the transition away from it. Again, simply waiting until the next energy technology naturally replaces carbon is not viable due to the time required and the amount of CO2 produced in the interim.

The "amplifying" effects on the populace by taxing carbon is far less than the "amplifying" effects of runaway global warming. I don't understand what you mean by our lacking an energy plan we can all get behind. Isn't such a plan the exact sort of prescription approach that you all are against - i.e.: the government "picking winners"?

Making carbon more expensive doesn't involve picking the replacement. It allows the market and the competition between emerging technologies determine the winner.

Again, simply letting things naturally proceed will never create the conditions for a new technology breakout, at least in the time we have to make a change. Nothing will be cheaper that what we are already doing until carbon becomes more expensive due to scarcity. We cannot wait that long.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Here is the deal, why would we want the government tax oil even more? No matter what they say they will use it for, they will just waste the money on something because they ran out of all the tax money they got on something else.

If you really want to make an impact on global warming, makes more sense to me to work with third world and developing industrial countries to reduce the amount of pollution that are putting out. You would see more immediate results that way. What does it matter if the US cleans up more when you got the likes of China, India and many more spewing all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.

[cooltigger21 0]

This proposal is just another of how liberalism works. You can't be trusted to make the correct decision on your own. The free market can't be trusted. Government, run by then, must step 8n and make that decision for you. They know best.